Practice theories have an obvious appeal for Open Strategy research. The major trend towards more openness in strategy making gives rise to new strategy practices that afford internal and external actors greater strategic transparency and/or inclusion (Whittington et al., 2011). Committing to the primacy of practice in social life (Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki et al., 2001), practice theories offer a particularly suitable perspective for studying both the emergence of these new Open Strategy practices and the complex dynamics of their application in real-life settings. Accordingly, many studies on Open Strategy already refer to practice theories to identify the new practices associated with Open Strategy, such as strategy jamming, strategy blogging, or interorganizational strategy making.

Recent years have seen increasing initiatives involving more open strategizing. These initiatives, referred to as Open Strategy, imply greater transparency and/or inclusiveness in strategy processes (Hautz et al., 2017; Whittington et al., 2011). As such, Open Strategy forms part of a larger societal trend toward greater degrees of openness in all domains of life – such as Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), Open Source Software (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003), Open Government (Janssen et al., 2012), Open Data (Huijboom & van den Broek, 2011), and Open Science (David, 1998). By comparison with some of these domains, research on Open Strategy is still nascent. While substantial theoretical groundwork has been laid, and both qualitative and quantitative studies are now appearing, there remain significant opportunities for more research on what is a fast-developing and wide-ranging set of initiatives. Given this breadth, we identify the key dimensions, practices, and impacts of Open Strategy, and propose promising theoretical perspectives capable of building cumulative knowledge regarding these. We also guide researchers by offering a practical definition that sets boundaries on the phenomenon.

Practice theories have an obvious appeal for Open Strategy research. The major trend towards more openness in strategy making gives rise to new strategy practices that afford internal and external actors greater strategic transparency and/or inclusion (Whittington et al., 2011). Committing to the primacy of practice in social life (Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki et al., 2001), practice theories offer a particularly suitable perspective for studying both the emergence of these new Open Strategy practices and the complex dynamics of their application in real-life settings. Accordingly, many studies on Open Strategy already refer to practice theories to identify the new practices associated with Open Strategy, such as strategy jamming, strategy blogging, or interorganizational strategy making.

Open Strategy has drawn increasing attention in recent years. A growing number of studies have captured greater transparency and heightened inclusion in the strategic practices of contemporary organizations (e.g., Whittington et al., 2011; Hautz et al., 2017). It is often Information Technology (IT) that can facilitate involvement of a wider range of stakeholders in the generation of strategic content and knowledge (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007; Wulf & Butel, 2016), and in the practice of strategy (Whittington et al., 2011; Whittington, 2014). However, despite the widely recognized role of such technology as online platforms (Malhotra et al., 2017) and social media (Huang et al., 2013; Baptista et al., 2017) in enabling openness in strategy, literature with an explicit focus on IT has been surprisingly sparse to date (Tavakoli et al., 2015; 2017). Thus far, most papers have been published in Management and Strategic Management outlets (e.g., Whittington et al., 2011; Stieger et al., 2012; Seidl & Werle, 2017), including a special issue on Open Strategy in Long Range Planning (e.g., Hautz et al., 2017).

This Handbook provides foundations for research on a phenomenon, going under many names, that is gripping more and more organizations: Open Strategy. There is a kind of revolution here. Whereas once strategy processes were reserved for senior managers and their immediate advisers, and strategy was highly confidential, now organizations are welcoming new and larger constituencies into strategy making and sharing unprecedented amounts of strategic information both internally and externally. Compared to the old conventions, Open Strategy promises radical advances in strategic inclusiveness and transparency (Whittington et al., 2011; Hautz et al., 2017).

Recent years have seen increasing initiatives involving more open strategizing. These initiatives, referred to as Open Strategy, imply greater transparency and/or inclusiveness in strategy processes (Hautz et al., 2017; Whittington et al., 2011). As such, Open Strategy forms part of a larger societal trend toward greater degrees of openness in all domains of life – such as Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), Open Source Software (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003), Open Government (Janssen et al., 2012), Open Data (Huijboom & van den Broek, 2011), and Open Science (David, 1998). By comparison with some of these domains, research on Open Strategy is still nascent. While substantial theoretical groundwork has been laid, and both qualitative and quantitative studies are now appearing, there remain significant opportunities for more research on what is a fast-developing and wide-ranging set of initiatives. Given this breadth, we identify the key dimensions, practices, and impacts of Open Strategy, and propose promising theoretical perspectives capable of building cumulative knowledge regarding these. We also guide researchers by offering a practical definition that sets boundaries on the phenomenon.

Recently, openness has become a new approach in strategizing as ownership and control of internal assets are no longer vital to achieving competitive advantage (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). Nowadays, knowledge is widespread and open systems are generally regarded as beneficial in terms of organizational design and work culture. However, openness also comes with politics and it is not a practice that will necessarily be welcomed by all. Openness changes the power dynamics within an organization; there are critics as well as friends, as we shall explore. Openness is a process that can change over time, becoming more or less open as events occur and contingencies or actors change. We are interested in how dominant organizational actors can seemingly manipulate “open systems” strategically. Openness is problematic per se for social systems. Systems endogenously construct their differentiation from other systems through closure achieved through specific cognitive rules. In this chapter, we use Clegg’s (1989) “circuits” approach to a theory of power to grasp the politics of openness in terms of three circuits of power. Some of the recent problems posed in the wider world of social media will be analyzed in terms of the three circuits to illustrate some potential problems.

In responding to changing competitive conditions, organizations are adopting increased levels of openness in the form of greater transparency and the inclusion of a larger number and variety of internal and external actors (Whittington et al., 2011; Hautz et al., 2017). Recent societal changes toward more participation in various domains of society (Dobusch et al., 2015) and technological advances in the form of social technologies (Haefliger et al., 2011), in particular, promote increased inclusiveness in strategizing. In this chapter, we pay specific attention to this dimension of inclusiveness in Open Strategy, which involves external and internal consultation to exchange “information, views and proposals intended to shape the continued evolution of an organization’s strategy” (Whittington et al., 2011: 536; Hautz et al., 2017).