Strategic orientations in practice:Exploring the strategic belief structures of line-managers embedded in practice

Recently researchers have started to investigate the cognitive strategic orientations of individual top managers and have pointed out these may be key in determining the direction and success of their organizations in terms of performance, but they have been unable to effectively operationalize this notion in empirical research and this is holding up knowledge development. To make a contribution that helps overcome this limitation a theoretical framework is developed which specifies the different possible cognitive strategic orientations of top managers as well as those of managers at lower organizational levels involved in the strategy process. This theoretical framework is investigated in the empirical phase of the study into strategic orientations in practice. Additional contributions to knowledge of strategic orientation are made in three main domains. Firstly, current knowledge of strategic orientation is largely limited to analysis at the level of the firm whereas there is a lack of understanding of any relationships with practice at lower organizational levels. The exploratory research undertaken for this thesis contributes to new knowledge of different rational, developmental and interactive strategic orientations of front-line managers and this contributes to a cognitive explanation for emergent strategy linked to strategy processes embedded in practice. In theorising the presence of different strategic orientations in practice the discussion highlights the importance of network and spatial embeddedness within enacted environments. Secondly, a contribution to further knowledge of the links between strategy processes and the content of strategies within a retail context is made. The research highlights different strategy processes used in practice by retail front-line managers in a branch network of stores and these are linked to consequences such as different objectives, performance expectations and the fulfilment of personal goals. Thirdly, a contribution to research methodology is made by addressing problems associated with the comparison of cognitive maps.

The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy

This article addresses the recent turn in strategy research to practice-based theorizing. Based on a data set of 51 meeting observations, the article examines how strategy meetings are involved in either stabilizing existing strategic orientations or proposing variations that cumulatively generate change in strategic orientations. Eleven significant structuring characteristics of strategy meetings are identified and examined with regard to their potential for stabilizing or destabilizing existing strategic orientations. Based on a taxonomy of meeting structures, we explain three typical evolutionary paths through which variations emerge, are maintained and developed, and are selected or de-selected. The findings make four main contributions. First, they contribute to the literature on strategy-as-practice by explaining how the practice of meetings is related to consequential strategic outcomes. Second, they contribute to the literature on organizational becoming by demonstrating the role of meetings in shaping stability and change. Third, they extend and elaborate the concept of meetings as strategic episodes. Fourth, they contribute to the literature on garbage can models of strategy-making.

Strategic planning differences among multiple stakeholder orientation profiles

Despite being a significant topic in the literature, research into stakeholder interests is at an early stage. Although a company has an orientation to each stakeholder group these orientations exist simultaneously, giving a multiple stakeholder orientation profile (MSOP). We theorize that firms with different MSOPs will approach their strategic planning in different ways. We tested our predictions in UK companies, and found that indeed there are many strategic planning differences among different MSOPs. The most striking differences are in learning and innovative management, but there are also differences in objectives, competitive positioning and sustainable competitive advantage. Implications for theory and practice are presented.