Introduction
Strategic management is a complex and creative activity of a company, as well as involved stakeholders, which is aimed at the development of long-term guidelines in the formation of competitive advantages and ways of their implementation in a specific environment. According to Balogun, Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2007), the definition of strategy as practice (SAP) is as follows: “our central research interest focuses on explaining who strategists are, what they do and why and how that is consequential in socially accomplishing strategic activity” (p. 19). This essay will focus on discussing this statement in terms of the pluralistic nature of SAP and its feasibility.
Strategy as Practice: Nature and Perspectives
Strategy as practice can be analysed through a 3P framework, including praxis, practices and practitioners. Praxis refers to a strategic activity and its relationships within social, institutional and organisational environments. The concept of practices can be understood as instruments, methods and procedures that are applied during strategizing, while various actors, such as CEOs, directors or consultants are practitioners (Johnson et al., 2016). For example, Apple’s praxis is to provide high-quality gadgets to build strong relationships with customers (practices) through managers, leaders, and CEOs. The literature on SAP integrates various perspectives on the implementation of SAP, providing insights on its roles and impacts. For example, the study by Dahl, Kock and Lundgren-Henriksson (2016) focuses on conceptualising cooperation and underline SAP’s deliberate and dynamic nature. The mentioned authors state that organisational performance can be directly affected by practices, which is one of the key benefits. More to the point, consistent with Porter, Dahl, Kock and Lundgren-Henriksson (2016) conclude that all the individuals involved in SAP play an essential role in its implementation. The interactions between practitioners are of a social nature, which prioritises cooperation and competitiveness.
Another perspective of SAP as a metaphor is provided by Mueller (2018), who examines Goffman’s work in the field of sociology and strategic management. While the fundamentals of SAP were extensively developed by Whittington, Goffman distinguishes between strategy praxis performance, where the credibility and competence of practitioners largely determine the outcomes (Silva & Goncalves, 2016). According to Mueller (2018), “‘organisations’ and ‘positions’ are thing-like in their solidity only because they are continuously and repeatedly enacted in a series of micro-situations” (p. 16). In this connection, the concept of strategising acquires a special role since it requests clarifying how exactly a strategy is performed. This approach is criticised as excessively managerial by Balogun, Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2015), which is expressed in the failure to pay attention to all the elements of SAP simultaneously. Indeed, it seems that Goffman’s perspective is largely concerned with sociological topics, but SAP needs to be considered more comprehensively.
While Porterian approach with its forces signifies economies and external environment, SAP pays attention to a micro-analytical level. Practice is seen as the rationale for action that should be performed by actors, both managers and researchers. In turn, both Simon (1957) and Mason and Mitroff (1981) agree that in terms of SAP, research strategies should focus on the current, everyday activities of practitioners, and the ways in which their actions are related to the final strategic results. This can provide a deeper understanding of what actually happens when people carry out such practices as strategic planning, strategy reviews, strategic workshops, et cetera (Paine & Anderson, 1975). In this case, a company is both an emerging pattern and a set of chosen elements composing its structure, which also reflects the polyvalent nature of SAP.
Conclusion
To conclude, the understanding of a strategy as what managers do rather than what companies have is central to the concept of strategy as practice. On the basis of observations that were made in this essay, it becomes clear that firms can identify which particular combinations of actions most often led to success, which seems to be knowledge that is most relevant to practitioners. It is found that Goffman’s perspective considers SAP from a merely managerial position, while the Porterian approach posits on the role of the economies. The literature points to the need to employ a comprehensive approach to the understanding of SAP to enhance organisational performance outcomes and research in the given field.
Reference List
- Balogun, J., Bartunek, J. M. & Do, B. (2015) ‘Senior managers’ sensemaking and responses to strategic change’. Organization Science, 26(4), pp. 960-979.
- Balogun, J., Jarzabkowski, P. & Seidl, D. (2015) ‘Strategy as practice perspective’, in M. Jenkins, V. Ambrosini, and N. Collier, (eds.), Advanced strategic management: a multi-perspective approach (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 196-211.
- Dahl, J., Kock, S. & Lundgren-Henriksson, E. L. (2016) ‘Conceptualizing coopetition strategy as practice: a multilevel interpretative framework’. International Studies of Management & Organization, 46(2-3), pp. 94-109.
- Johnson, G. et al. (2016) Exploring strategy: text and cases. New York: Pearson Education.
- Mason R. O. & Mitroff I. I. (1981) Challenging strategic planning assumptions: theory cases and techniques. New York: Wiley Inter-Science.
- Mueller, F. (2018) ‘Taking Goffman seriously: developing strategy-as-practice’. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 53, pp. 16-30.
- Paine F. & Anderson C. (1975) ‘Managerial perceptions and strategic behaviour’. Academy of Management Journal, 18, pp. 811-823.
- Silva, E. R. D. & Goncalves, C. A. (2016) ‘Practice genealogy and its implications for strategy as practice’. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 17(4), pp. 130-152.
- Simon H. A. (1957) Administrative behaviour (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.