Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Introduction
- Part I The Concept of Open Strategy
- Part II Practices of Open Strategy
- Part III Technological Assemblages for Open Strategy
- Part IV Theoretical Perspectives
- Part V Challenges of Open Strategy
- Chapter 18 The Politics of Openness
- Chapter 19 The Relation between Openness and Closure in Open Strategy: Programmatic and Constitutive Approaches to Openness
- Index
- References
Chapter 19 - The Relation between Openness and Closure in Open Strategy: Programmatic and Constitutive Approaches to Openness
from Part V - Challenges of Open Strategy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2019
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Introduction
- Part I The Concept of Open Strategy
- Part II Practices of Open Strategy
- Part III Technological Assemblages for Open Strategy
- Part IV Theoretical Perspectives
- Part V Challenges of Open Strategy
- Chapter 18 The Politics of Openness
- Chapter 19 The Relation between Openness and Closure in Open Strategy: Programmatic and Constitutive Approaches to Openness
- Index
- References
Summary
Two facets are all but universally present in current works on Open Strategy. First, while being aware of and addressing challenges and dilemmas associated with openness in strategy making (Hautz et al., 2017), increasing openness is mostly perceived as normatively good, as an ideal that should be achieved. Generally speaking, studies on openness in strategy making focus on different forms and degrees of collaboration with newly invited actors and on the potential benefits of Open Strategy by generating more and more suitable ideas (Whittington et al., 2011; Stieger et al., 2012; Aten & Thomas, 2016). Even when tensions and dilemmas of greater openness such as “compromising speed,” “undermining competitiveness,” or “burdening wider audiences with the pressures of strategy” (all taken from the overview in Hautz et al., 2017: 302) are discussed, these are considered limitations or hurdles to be overcome for achieving the desired greater openness.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy , pp. 326 - 336Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included. Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2019). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business & Society, 58(2), 268–297.Google Scholar
Armbrüster, T., & Gebert, D. (2002). Uncharted territories of organizational research: The case of Karl Popper’s open society and its enemies. Organization Studies, 23(2), 169–188.Google Scholar
Ashcraft, K. L. (2001). Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1301–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aten, K., & Thomas, G. F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 148–180.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(3), 322–336.Google Scholar
Bauer, R. M., & Gegenhuber, T. (2015). Crowdsourcing: Global search and the twisted roles of consumers and producers. Organization, 22, 661–681.Google Scholar
Calpin, C. M. (2017). Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Ohio NUL Rev., 43, 219.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 57–76.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (2015). Peering into transparency: Challenging ideals, proxies, and organizational practices. Communication Theory, 25(1), 70–90.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. (1994). Weber and Foucault: Social theory of the study of organizations. Organization, 1(1), 149–178.Google Scholar
Costas, J., & Grey, C. (2014). Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes of organizational secrecy. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1423–1447.Google Scholar
Dahlander, L., & Piezunka, H. (2014). Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention. Research Policy, 43(5), 812–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, J. (1998). Archive fever: A Freudian impression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7), 52–60.Google Scholar
Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3), 343–370.Google Scholar
Dobusch, L., & Kapeller, J. (2018). Open strategy-making with crowds and communities: Comparing Wikimedia and Creative Commons. Long Range Planning, 51(4), 561–579.Google Scholar
Dobusch, L., Kremser, W., Seidl, D., & Werle, F. (2017). A communication perspective on open strategy and open innovation. Managementforschung, 1–21.Google Scholar
Du Gay, P., & Lopdrup-Hjorth, T. (2016). Fear of the formal. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 3(1), 6–40.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 281–317.Google Scholar
Fenster, M. (2015). Transparency in search of a theory. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 150–167.Google Scholar
Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (2014). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. (1972–1973). The tyranny of structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 17, 151–164.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(3), 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, H. K., & Flyverbom, M. (2015). The politics of transparency and the calibration of knowledge in the digital age. Organization, 22(6), 872–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 298–309.Google Scholar
Heimstädt, M. (2017a). Open(ing up) data: A study on the creation of openness as an institution. Doctoral thesis, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Heimstädt, M. (2017b). Openwashing: A decoupling perspective on organizational transparency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 77–86.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L., Gößwein, J., & Beaudette, P. (2018). Open strategy-making at the Wikimedia Foundation: A dialogic perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 5–35.Google Scholar
Hutter, K., Nketia, B. A., & Füller, J. (2017). Falling short with participation – Different effects of ideation, commenting, and evaluating behavior on open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.Google Scholar
Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management. Employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961 to 1996. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(7), 960–984.Google Scholar
King, J. (2006). Openness and its discontents. In Dean, J., Anderson, J. W., & Lovink, G. (Eds.), Reformatting politics: Information technology and global civil society (pp. 43–45). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Laari-Salmela, S., Kinnula, M., & Väyrynen, K. (2017). Open Strategy on Stage: Participation in the Performances of Strategy-Making. Paper presented at the 33rd EGOS Colloquium “The Good Organization,” Sub-theme 50: Open Strategy: Practices, Perspectives and Problems, Copenhagen, Denmark.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(3), 371–384.Google Scholar
Mack, D. Z., & Szulanski, G. (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 385–396.Google Scholar
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. M. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.Google Scholar
Noon, M. (2010). The shackled runner: Time to rethink positive discrimination? Work, Employment & Society, 24(4), 728–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plous, S. (1996). Ten myths about affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 52(4), 25–31.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1966 [1944]). The open society and its enemies. Volumes I and II. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Powell, C. (2013). Radical relationism: A proposal. In Powell, C. & Dépelteau, F. (Eds.), Conceptualizing relational sociology: Ontological and theoretical issues (pp. 187–207). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Macdonald, K. M., Turner, C., & Lupton, T. (1963). A conceptual scheme for organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8(3), 289–315.Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reagle, J. (2012). “Free as in sexist?” Free culture and the gender gap. first monday, 18(1), http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4291Google Scholar
Reyna, C., Tucker, A., Korfmacher, W., & Henry, P.J. (2005). Searching for common ground between supporters and opponents of affirmative action. Political Psychology, 26(5), 667–682.Google Scholar
Schmitt, R. (2010). Dealing with wicked issues: Open strategizing and the Camisea case. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. M., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68.Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
Thompson, P., & Alvesson, M. (2005). Bureaucracy at work: Misunderstandings and mixed blessings. In Du Gay, P. (Ed.), The values of bureaucracy (pp. 89–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tkacz, N. (2012). From open source to open government: A critique of open politics. ephemera, 12(4), 386.Google Scholar
Tkacz, N. (2015). Wikipedia and the politics of openness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Turco, C. J. (2016). The conversational firm: Rethinking bureaucracy in the age of social media. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
van den Brink, M., Benschop, Y., & Jansen, W. (2010). Transparency in academic recruitment: A problematic tool for gender equality? Organization Studies, 31(11), 1459–1483.Google Scholar
Verbeek, S., & Groeneveld, S. (2012). Do “hard” diversity policies increase ethnic minority representation? An assessment of their (in)effectiveness using administrative data. Personnel Review, 41(5), 647–664.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: Outline of interpretive sociology, Volume Two. Roth, G. & Wittich, C. (Eds.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531–544.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(3), 411–422.Google Scholar
- 12
- Cited by