Strategic narratives and competitive advantage : do winners speak differently?

Concepts, models, or theories that end up shaping practices, whether those practices fall in the domains of science, technology, social movements, or business, always emerge through a change in language use. First, communities begin to talk differently, incorporating new vocabularies (Rorty, 1989), in their narratives. Whether the community’s new narratives respond to perceived anomalies or failures of the existing ones (Kuhn, 1962) or actually reveal inadequacies by addressing previously unrecognized practices (Fleck, 1979; Rorty, 1989) is less important here than the very phenomena that they introduce differences. Then, if the new language proves to be useful, for example, because it helps the community solve a problem or create a possibility that existing narratives do not, the new narrative will begin circulating more broadly throughout the community. If other communities learn of the usefulness of these new narratives, and find them sufficiently persuasive, they may be compelled to test, modify, and eventually adopt them. Of primary importance is the idea that a new concept or narrative perceived as useful is more likely to be adopted. We can expect that business concepts emerge through a similar pattern. Concepts such as “competitive advantage,” “disruption,” and the “resource based view,” now broadly known and accepted, were each at some point first introduced by a community. This community experimented with the concepts they introduced and found them useful. The concept “competitive advantage,” for example, helped researchers better explain why some firm’s outperformed others and helped practitioners more clearly understand what choices to make to improve the profit and growth prospects of their firms. The benefits of using these terms compelled other communities to consider, apply, and eventually adopt them as well. Were these terms not viewed as useful, they would not likely have been adopted. This thesis attempts to observe and anticipate new business concepts that may be emerging. It does so by seeking to observe a community of business practitioners that are using different language and appear to be more successful than a similar community of practitioners that are have not yet begun using this different language as extensively. It argues that if the community that is adopting new types of narratives is perceived as being more successful, their success will attract the attention of other communities who may then seek to adopt the same narratives. Specifically, this thesis compares the narratives used by a set of firms that are considered to be performing well (called Winners) with those of set of less-successful peers (called Losers). It does so with the aim of addressing two questions: - How do the strategic narratives that circulate within “winning” companies and their leaders differ from those circulating within “losing” companies and their leaders? - Given the answer to the first question: what new business strategy concepts are likely to emerge in the business community at large? I expected to observe “winning” companies shifting their language, abandoning an older set of narratives for newer ones. However the analysis indicates a more interesting dynamic: “winning” companies adopt the same core narratives as their “losing” peers with equal frequency yet they go beyond these. Both “winners” and “losers” seem to pursue economies of scale, customer captivity, best practices, and securing preferential access to resources with similar vigor. But “winners” seem to go further, applying three additional narratives in their pursuits of competitive advantage. They speak of coordinating what is uncoordinated, adopting what this thesis calls “exchanging the role of guest for that of host,” and “forcing a two-front battle” more frequently than their “loser” peers. Since these “winning” companies are likely perceived as being more successful, the unique narratives they use are more likely to be emulated and adopted. Understanding in what ways winners speak differently, therefore, gives us a glimpse into the possible future evolution of business concepts.

Let Go and Remember. How Finnish Communities Experienced and Memorialized School Shootings

This study examines the aftermath of mass violence in local communities. Two rampage school shootings that occurred in Finland are analyzed and compared to examine the ways in which communities experience, make sense of, and recover from sudden acts of mass violence. The studied cases took place at Jokela High School, in southern Finland, and at a polytechnic university in Kauhajoki, in western Finland, in 2007 and 2008 respectively. Including the perpetrators, 20 people lost their lives in these shootings. These incidents are part of the global school shooting phenomenon with increasing numbers of incidents occurring in the last two decades, mostly in North America and Europe. The dynamic of solidarity and conflict is one of the main themes of this study. It builds upon previous research on mass violence and disasters which suggests that solidarity increases after a crisis, and that this increase is often followed by conflict in the affected communities. This dissertation also draws from theoretical discussions on remembering, narrating, and commemorating traumatic incidents, as well as the idea of a cultural trauma process in which the origins and consequences of traumas are negotiated alongside collective identities. Memorialization practices and narratives about what happened are vital parts of the social memory of crises and disasters, and their inclusive and exclusive characteristics are discussed in this study. The data include two types of qualitative interviews; focused interviews with 11 crisis workers, and focused, narrative interviews with 21 residents of Jokela and 22 residents of Kauhajoki. A quantitative mail survey of the Jokela population (N=330) provided data used in one of the research articles. The results indicate that both communities experienced a process of simultaneous solidarity and conflict after the shootings. In Jokela, the community was constructed as a victim, and public expressions of solidarity and memorialization were promoted as part of the recovery process. In Kauhajoki, the community was portrayed as an incidental site of mass violence, and public expressions of solidarity by distant witnesses were labeled as unnecessary and often criticized. However, after the shooting, the community was somewhat united in its desire to avoid victimization and a prolonged liminal period. This can be understood as a more modest and invisible process of “silent solidarity”. The processes of enforced solidarity were partly made possible by exclusion. In some accounts, the family of the perpetrator in Jokela was excluded from the community. In Kauhajoki, the whole incident was externalized. In both communities, this exclusion included associating the shooting events, certain places, and certain individuals with the concept of evil, which helped to understand and explain the inconceivable incidents. Differences concerning appropriate emotional orientations, memorialization practices and the pace of the recovery created conflict in both communities. In Jokela, attitudes towards the perpetrator and his family were also a source of friction. Traditional gender roles regarding the expression of emotions remained fairly stable after the school shootings, but in an exceptional situation, conflicting interpretations arose concerning how men and women should express emotion. The results from the Jokela community also suggest that while increased solidarity was seen as important part of the recovery process, some negative effects such as collective guilt, group divisions, and stigmatization also emerged. Based on the results, two simultaneous strategies that took place after mass violence were identified; one was a process of fast-paced normalization, and the other was that of memorialization. Both strategies are ways to restore the feeling of security shattered by violent incidents. The Jokela community emphasized remembering while the Kauhajoki community turned more to the normalization strategy. Both strategies have positive and negative consequences. It is important to note that the tendency to memorialize is not the only way of expressing solidarity, as fast normalization includes its own kind of solidarity and helps prevent the negative consequences of intense solidarity.