Recent studies have raised participation as one of the key issues of Open Strategy (Luedicke et al., 2017; Mack & Szulanski, 2017). However, participation has a longer tradition in strategy research (Laine & Vaara, 2015; Mantere & Vaara, 2008) from which Open Strategy could learn from and contribute to. In this chapter, we review research on participation in strategy and discuss its implications for Open Strategy and vice versa. Participation is a dynamic and multifaceted phenomenon, the nature and effects of which are not easy to pin down in strategy making. Participation can generate engagement and create commitment to strategy and similarly improve the quality of decision making (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000). In contrast, limiting participation through secrecy and exclusion may result in ineffective implementation (Mintzberg, 1994), and from a critical perspective, exacerbate organizational inequality (Knights & Morgan, 1991; McCabe, 2010). However, participation can also slow down decision making and constrain the strategy process (Collier et al., 2004; Anderson, 2004). Moreover, widespread participation can create expectations that are then not satisfied, particularly where the decision might be contrary to the advice given by participants (Kornberger & Clegg, 2011).

We did not anticipate the first edition of the Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice to be followed by a new version this soon. In the five years since the first edition was published, however, the field of practice-based strategy research has moved on considerably. New theoretical perspectives have been advanced, alternative methodologies have been suggested and new topics have been explored. In reaction to these developments, we have put this second edition together. We have included twenty new chapters and have substantially revised and updated all the original ones. In addition, the overall structure of the handbook has been changed: We have added Part III, covering organization and management theory perspectives on strategy as practice (SAP), such as the institutional perspective, alternative strategy perspectives, the routine dynamics perspective, the identity theory perspective, the communicative constitution of organizations perspective, the power perspective and the critical perspective. We have also added Part V, on substantive topic areas in strategy as practice research, which includes chapters on strategic planning, strategy meetings, the role of materiality in strategy, the strategic role of middle managers, participation in strategy and the role of emotions in strategy. Moreover, we decided to drop the original Part IV, on exemplary empirical research, as we felt that it was no longer possible to provide a representative overview of the wide variety of empirical studies conducted in the area of strategy as practice. Since the respective empirical chapters are still of great value to practice-based researchers, however, we have made them freely available on the website of Cambridge University Press: to access the papers, please visit www.cambridge.org/golsorkhi.

Working on this second edition has been a wonderful journey, as we have had the opportunity to learn new things and get to know new people. This book project has been an important way for us to participate in the development of the SAP agenda, and we are especially happy about the dialogue that has been established with those who have not usually been considered to be part of the SAP community. All this has required a great deal of effort from the authors. We are grateful to the authors of the previous edition, who without hesitation agreed to revise and update their chapters, and to the new ones, for so generously accepting the challenge to join us in this great adventure.

Introduction

This chapter examines participation in strategy research in general and in strategy-as-practice research in particular. Participation is arguably a key issue in strategy process research because it helps to create commitment to strategies, and its absence may have a negative impact on the quality of decision-making (Floyd and Wooldridge 2000). It may also take other forms, as in emergent strategies (Burgelman 1983; Mintzberg and Waters 1985) or in autonomous strategy work (Mirabeau and Maguire 2014), that are important in process studies. Participation is also a central issue in SAP research that examines the activities of multiple actors and the practices they draw upon in strategy work (Mantere 2008). From a more critical perspective, it can be seen as closely connected to subjectivity (Ezzamel and Willmott 2010; Knights and Morgan 1991) and resistance (McCabe 2010; Ezzamel and Willmott 2008). It may also be regarded as a deeper-level ethical issue in terms of (in)equality linked with organizational decision-making and managerial dominance.

Nevertheless, participation has received relatively little explicit attention in strategy research. Hence, it is the purpose of this chapter to provide an overview of research on participation. As relatively few studies have explicitly focused on this issue (Mantere and Vaara 2008), in this overview we will include a number of studies that have only touched upon participation. Our point of departure is to argue that different streams of research offer fundamentally different conceptions of strategic decision-making, strategy processes and strategic practices, and thus of participation as a social and organizational phenomenon. Accordingly, we spell out four perspectives on participation: participation as a non-issue; participation as a part of strategy process dynamics; participation as produced in and through organizational practices; and participation as an issue of subjectivity. First, within conventional strategy research, strategy has mostly been understood as decision-making accomplished by top management (Ansoff 1965; Chandler 1962; Hambrick and Mason 1984). Since they are top managers who participate in strategic practices, the participation of others is a non-issue within this stream of research. Second, strategy process studies have examined strategy both as intended and emergent (Burgelman 1983; Mintzberg and Waters 1985), which provides us with an understanding of others – especially middle managers (Floyd and Wooldridge 1992; 2000; Ketokivi and Castañer 2004) – as part of strategy-making. In this view, participation can be seen as an essential part of strategy process dynamics.

Strategy as practice as a research approach

Since early 2000 strategy as practice (SAP) has emerged as a distinctive approach for studying strategic management, strategic decision-making, strategizing, strategy-making and strategy work (Whittington 1996; Johnson, Melin and Whittington 2003; Jarzabkowski, Balogun and Seidl 2007). In recent years SAP research has confirmed its vitality and fulfilled its promise by being more lively than ever (Golsorkhi et al. 2010; Vaara and Whittington 2012; Balogun et al. 2014; Seidl and Whittington 2014). This second edition of the handbook confirms the strong enthusiasm for the generation of new ideas about the way practitioners are doing their strategy work. Strategy-as-practice research focuses on the micro-level social activities, processes and practices that characterize organizational strategy and strategizing. This provides not only an organizational perspective into strategic decision-making but also a strategic angle for examining the process of organizing, and thereby serves as a useful research programme and social movement for connecting contemporary strategic management research with practice-oriented organizational studies.

Strategy as practice can be regarded as an alternative to the mainstream strategy research via its attempt to shift attention away from a ‘mere’ focus on the effects of strategies on performance alone to a more comprehensive, in-depth analysis of what actually takes place in strategy formulation, planning and implementation and other activities that deal with the thinking and doing of strategy. In other words, SAP research is interested in the ‘black box’ of strategy work that once led the research agenda in strategic management research (Mintzberg 1973; Mintzberg and Waters 1985; Pettigrew 1973), but has thereafter been replaced by other issues, not least because of the increasing dominance of the micro-economic approach and a methodological preoccupation with statistical analysis. Because of its micro-level focus, studies following the strategy-as-practice agenda tend to draw on theories and apply methods that differ from the common practices of strategy scholars. In this way, SAP research can contribute to the evolution of strategic management as a discipline and body of knowledge with new theories and methodological choices.

Introduction

In recent years scholars have started to pay attention to the discursive aspects of strategizing (Knights and Morgan 1991; Hendry 2000; Samra-Fredericks 2005; Seidl 2007; Balogun et al. 2014). These studies have highlighted the underlying assumptions of strategy as a body of knowledge (Knights and Morgan 1991), the central role of narratives and other discourse forms in organizations (Barry and Elmes 1997), the importance of rhetorical skills in strategizing (Samra-Fredericks 2003; 2005) and the implications that specific conceptions of strategy have on identity and power (Ezzamel and Willmott 2008; Mantere and Vaara 2008; McCabe 2010). This stream of research can be understood as part of the more general interest in the social and organization practices around strategy, although some scholars have argued that the strategy-as-practice movement has not been able to incorporate or develop original critical discursive perspectives on strategy (Clegg, Carter and Kornberger 2004; Carter, Clegg and Kornberger 2008). In the following I take a broad perspective and focus on the issue of how we can better understand the discursive aspects of strategy and strategizing from a critical angle. My intention is to try to refrain from constructing barriers between SAP studies and critical discursive analyses, as such barriers would do a disservice both to the development of strategy as practice and to the promotion of critical analysis of strategy as discourse and practice.

The purpose of this chapter is to explain how critical discourse analysis can serve to further our understanding of strategy and strategizing. CDA is a methodological approach that allows one to examine the constitutive role that discourses play in contemporary society. Its origins lie in applied linguistics (Fairclough 2003; van Dijk 1998; Wodak and Meyer 2002), and this is why it emphasizes the central role of texts and their analysis more than other approaches – such as Foucauldian and other post-structuralist methodologies – in discourse analysis. Unlike some other linguistic methods, however, CDA underlines the linkage between discursive and other social practices, thus not reducing everything to discourse, as is the danger with some relativist forms of discourse analysis. In brief, I argue that it is precisely through such an approach that we can better map out and understand the role of discursive practices in the micro-level processes and activities constituting strategies and strategizing in contemporary organizations.

Strategy as Practice as a research approach

In recent years, Strategy as Practice has emerged as a distinctive approach for studying strategic management, organizational decision-making and managerial work (Whittington 1996; Johnson et al. 2003; Jarzabkowski et al. 2007). It focuses on the micro-level social activities, processes and practices that characterize organizational strategy and strategizing. This provides not only an organizational perspective into strategy but also a strategic angle for examining the process of organizing, and thereby serves as a useful research programme and social movement for connecting contemporary strategic management research with practice-oriented organizational studies.

Strategy as Practice can be regarded as an alternative to the mainstream strategy research via its attempt to shift attention away from merely a focus on the effects of strategies on performance alone to a more comprehensive, in-depth analysis of what actually takes place in strategic planning, strategy implementation and other activities that deal with strategy. In other words, Strategy as Practice research is interested in the ‘black box’ of strategy work that once led the research agenda in strategic management research (Mintzberg 1973; Mintzberg and Waters 1985; Pettigrew 1973), but has thereafter been replaced by other issues, not least because of the increasing dominance of the micro-economic approach and a methodological preoccupation with statistical analysis. Because of its micro-level focus, studies following the Strategy as Practice agenda tend to draw on theories and apply methods that differ from the common practices of strategy scholars.