Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:22:25.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - Practices of Transparency in Open Strategy: Beyond the Dichotomy of Voluntary and Mandatory Disclosure

from Part II - Practices of Open Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2019

By
Tanja Ohlson  and
Basak Yakis-Douglas
Edited by
David Seidl ,
Georg von Krogh  and
Richard Whittington
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Georg von Krogh
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal University (ETH), Zürich
Richard Whittington
Affiliation:
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Openness is in vogue for a small but growing camp of governance reformers (Tihanyi et al., 2014; McGahan, 2015; Almirall et al., 2014; Kube et al., 2015; Mergel, 2015), and innovation scholars (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Randhawa et al., 2016). Achieved through transparency and/or inclusion (Whittington et al., 2011), openness has recently become a recognizable theme in strategy literature (Birkinshaw, 2017; Alexy et al., 2018; Matzler et al., 2014a) and is implemented by strategy practitioners in profit-based (i.e., IBM) and nonprofit organizations (i.e., Wikimedia and Creative Commons).

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy , pp. 136 - 150
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addison, J. T. (2005). The determinants of firm performance: Unions, works councils, and employee involvement. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52, 406–450.Google Scholar
Aggarwal, R., Erel, I., & Starks, L. T. (2015). Influence of public opinion on investor voting and proxy advisors. Fisher College of Business Working Paper No. WP 2014-03-12; Georgetown McDonough School of Business Research Paper No. 2447012; Dice Center Working Paper No. 2014-12. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2447012Google Scholar
Alexy, O., West, J., Klapper, H., & Reitzig, M. (2018). Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 1704–1727.Google Scholar
Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Open innovation requires integrated competition-community ecosystems: Lessons learned from civic open innovation. Business Horizons, 57, 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amrollahi, A., Khansari, M., & Manian, A. (2014). How Open Source Software succeeds? A review of research on success of Open Source Software. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 6, 67–77.Google Scholar
Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50, 310–321.Google Scholar
Baptista, J., Wilson, A. D., Galliers, R. D., & Bynghall, S. (2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50, 322–336.Google Scholar
Becht, M., Franks, J., Mayer, C., & Rossi, S. (2010). Returns to shareholder activism: Evidence from a clinical study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund. Review of Financial Studies, 23, 3093–3129.Google Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Zenger, T. (2016). The lemons problem in markets for strategy. Strategy Science, 1, 71–89.Google Scholar
Berger, B., & Vaccarino, E. (2016). Codetermination in Germany – A role model for the UK and the US? [Online]. Bruegel. Available: http://bruegel.org/2016/10/codetermination-in-germany-a-role-model-for-the-uk-and-the-us/ [Accessed October 27, 2017].Google Scholar
Beunza, D., & Garud, R. (2007). Calculators, lemmings or frame‐makers? The intermediary role of securities analysts. The Sociological Review, 55, 13–39.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. (2017). Reflections on open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50, 423–426.Google Scholar
Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social activism in and around organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 671–727.Google Scholar
Chakravarthy, B. S. (1986). Measuring strategic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 437–458.Google Scholar
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1–23.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. New frontiers in open innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.Google Scholar
Cowen, A. P., & Marcel, J. J. (2011). Damaged goods: Board decisions to dismiss reputationally compromised directors. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 509–527.Google Scholar
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39, 699–709.Google Scholar
Dobusch, L., & Muller-Seitz, G. (2015). Closing open strategy: Strategy as a practice of thousands in the case of Wikimedia. Free University of Berlin working paper. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.Google Scholar
Doshi, A. R., Dowell, G. W., & Toffel, M. W. (2013). How firms respond to mandatory information disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1209–1231.Google Scholar
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60, 2835–2857.Google Scholar
Eccles, R. G., Serafeim, G., & Krzus, M. P. (2011). Market interest in nonfinancial information. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 23, 113–127.Google Scholar
Ertimur, Y., Ferri, F., & Oesch, D. (2013). Shareholder votes and proxy advisors: Evidence from say on pay. Journal of Accounting Research, 51, 951–996.Google Scholar
Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Beauchamp, T. & Bowie, N. (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75–93). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Fauver, L., & Fuerst, M. E. (2006). Does good corporate governance include employee representation? Evidence from German corporate boards. Journal of Financial Economics, 82, 673–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gast, A., & Zanini, M. (2012). The social side of strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 82–93.Google Scholar
Gegenhuber, T., & Dobusch, L. (2017). Making an impression through openness: How open strategy-making practices change in the evolution of new ventures. Long Range Planning, 50, 337–354.Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448.Google Scholar
Goodman, J., Louche, C., van Cranenburgh, K. C., & Arenas, D. (2014). Social shareholder engagement: The dynamics of voice and exit. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 193–210.Google Scholar
Goranova, M., & Ryan, L. V. (2014). Shareholder activism: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 40, 1230–1268.Google Scholar
Gramm, J. (2016). Dear chairman: Boardroom battles and the rise of shareholder activism. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Greve, H., Rowley, T., & Shipilov, A. (2013). Network advantage: How to unlock value from your alliances and partnerships. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Haefliger, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D., & von Krogh, G. (2011). Social software and strategy. Long Range Planning, 44, 297–316.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.Google Scholar
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50, 298–309.Google Scholar
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1727–1748.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L., Goesswein, J., & Beaudette, P. (2018). Open strategy-making at the Wikimedia Foundation: A dialogic perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54, 5–35.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125–139.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P., Whittington, R., Johnson, G., & Schwarz, M. (2006). The role of strategy workshops in strategy development processes: Formality, communication, co-ordination and inclusion. Long Range Planning, 39, 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12, 414–434.Google Scholar
Iliev, P., & Lowry, M. (2014). Are mutual funds active voters? The Review of Financial Studies, 28, 446–485.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.Google Scholar
Klein, A., & Zur, E. (2009). Entrepreneurial shareholder activism: Hedge funds and other private investors. The Journal of Finance, 64, 187–229.Google Scholar
Kube, M., Hilgers, D., Koch, G., & Fuller, J. (2015). Explaining voluntary citizen online participation using the concept of citizenship: An explanatory study on an open government platform. Journal of Business Economics, 85, 873–895.Google Scholar
Litov, L. P., Moreton, P., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Corporate strategy, analyst coverage, and the uniqueness paradox. Management Science, 58, 1797–1815.Google Scholar
Luedicke, M. K., Husemann, K. C., Furnari, S., & Ladstaetter, F. (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the Premium Cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, D. Z., & Szulanski, G. (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50, 385–396.Google Scholar
Matzler, K., Fuller, J., Hutter, K., Hautz, J., & Stieger, D. (2014a). Open strategy: Towards a research agenda. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2416937Google Scholar
Matzler, K., Fuller, J., Koch, B., Hautz, J., & Hutter, K. (2014b). Open strategy – A new strategy paradigm? In Matzler, K., Pechlaner, H., & Renzl, B. (Eds.), Strategie und Leadership. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.Google Scholar
McGahan, A. (2015). Opening governance. Theme for the 75th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 2015. Academy of Management, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Mergel, I. (2015). Opening government: Designing open innovation processes to collaborate with external problem solvers. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 599–612.Google Scholar
Muller-Seitz, G., & Guttel, W. (2014). Toward a choreography of congregating: A practice-based perspective on organizational absorptive capacity in a semiconductor industry consortium. Management Learning, 45, 477–497.Google Scholar
Neeley, T. B., & Leonardi, P. M. (2018). Enacting knowledge strategy through social media: Passable trust and the paradox of nonwork interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 922–946.Google Scholar
Newstead, B., & Lanzerotti, L. (2010). Can you open-source your strategy? Harvard Business Review, October 2010.Google Scholar
Page, R. (2009). Co-determination in Germany – A beginner’s guide. Arbeitspapier 33 (Ed.). Düsseldorf: Hans Böckler Stiftung.Google Scholar
Partnoy, F., & Davidoff, Solomon, S. (2017). Frank and Steven’s excellent corporate raiding adventure. The Atlantic [Online]. Available: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/frank-and-stevens-excellent-corporate-raiding-adventure/521436/ [Accessed October 17, 2017].Google Scholar
Plesner, U., & Gulbrandsen, I. T. (2015). Strategy and new media: A research agenda. Strategic Organization, 13, 153–162.Google Scholar
Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (2002). Managing cognition and strategy: Issues, trends and future directions. Handbook of Strategy Management Communication Quarterly, 165–181.Google Scholar
Primark, (2018). Es lief vieles nicht fair. Einblick. DGB.Google Scholar
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33, 750–772.Google Scholar
Rindova, V. P., & Fombrun, C. J. (1999). Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 691–710.Google Scholar
Sandbu, M. (2017). Hail the large activist investor. Financial Times [Online]. Available: www.ft.com/content/2833b1f6-bd5a-11e7-b8a3-38a6e068f464.Google Scholar
Sauder, A. (2018). #1: Push or Pull in Transformations? [Online]. Available: www.linkedin.com/pulse/1-push-pull-transformations-axel-sauder/ [Accessed July 22, 2018].Google Scholar
Schilling, M. A. (2010). Strategic management of technological innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Ziv, M., & Weisbach, M. S. (2013). What do boards really do? Evidence from minutes of board meetings. Journal of Financial Economics, 108, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipilov, A. V., Greve, H. R., & Rowley, T. J. (2010). When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 846–864.Google Scholar
Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In Hambrick, D. (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35–65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. J. C. M. R. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54, 44–68.Google Scholar
Tackx, K., & Verdin, P. (2014). Can co-creation lead to better strategy? An exploratory research. Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Working Papers, 14–027.Google Scholar
Tihanyi, L., Graffin, S., & George, G. (2014). Rethinking governance in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1535–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6, 280–321.Google Scholar
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis‐Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22, 531–544.Google Scholar
Whittington, R., Yakis-Douglas, B., Ahn, K., & Cailluet, L. (2016). Strategic planners in more turbulent times: The changing job characteristics of strategy professionals, 1960–2003. Long Range Planning, 50(1), 108–119.Google Scholar
Wigboldus, J. E., Grift, Y., van den Berg, A., & Looise, J. K. (2016). The economic effects of works councils: Channels and conditions. Using secondary data to test a new theoretical model. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 37, 535–565.Google Scholar
Yakis-Douglas, B., Angwin, D., Ahn, K., & Meadows, M. (2017). Opening M&A strategy to investors: Predictors and outcomes of transparency during organisational transition. Long Range Planning, 50, 411–422.Google Scholar
Zenger, T. (2013). What is the theory of your firm? Harvard Business Review, 91, 72–78.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Wiersema, M. F. (2009). Stock market reaction to CEO certification: The signaling role of CEO background. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 693–710.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1398–1438.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, E. W. (2000). Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and de-diversification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 591–619.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×