ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Making Strategy Out of Everyday Tools: A Collective Bricolage Perspective
Isabelle Corbett-Etchevers1* and Aura Parmentier-Cajaiba2
1Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble INP, CERAG, 38000 Grenoble, France
2Université Côte d’Azur, GREDEG, France
Citation: M@n@gement 2022: 25(3): 39–56 - http://dx.doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.4560.
Handling Editor: Thomas Roulet
Copyright: © 2022 Corbett-Etchevers and Parmentier-Cajaiba. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Published by AIMS, with the support of the Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences (INSHS).
Received: 23 March 2020; Accepted: 7 July 2021; Published: 15 September 2022
*Correspondence to: Isabelle Corbett-Etchevers, Email: isabelle.corbett@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Abstract
In this article, we explore how non-strategy tools – which we call ‘occupational’ because they emerge from actors’ daily work – allow managers to strategize. Specifically, we focus on the crafting process of such tools, or what we call the strategy tooling process. We take an organizational bricolage perspective to identify the resources that practitioners draw upon in the tool crafting process and the types of dialogues they engage in. Empirically, we draw upon our comparison of two longitudinal case studies to identify a process model of collective bricolage. Combining the literature on collective bricolage with strategy tools allows to cast light on the emergence of strategy from the bottom up. Our contributions are twofold. First, we identify different categories of repertoires and dialogues and highlight their dynamic interactions in the process of bricolage. Second, our study of dialogues broadens the practice perspective on tools beyond the discursive turn. This paper is also relevant for managerial practice at a time when a growing interest in a participatory approach to strategy requires an understanding of how occupational tools help carry out strategy at the operational level.
Keywords: Strategy tools; Collective bricolage; Dialogue; Strategy emergence
Strategy tools play a critical role in the strategy process (Grant, 2003); they are defined as ‘numerous techniques, tools, methods, models, frameworks, approaches and methodologies which are available to support decision making within strategic management’ (Clark, 1997, p. 417). The diffusion, adaptation and use of formal tools such as Boston Consulting Group (BCG) matrix, Strength Weakness Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) analysis, Porter’s five forces and Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 2001) are well documented in different streams of research, ranging from management fashion (Mazza & Alvarez, 2000) to strategy-as-practice (Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015; Paroutis et al., 2015). Strategy tools are mostly used by managers who have received formal training in management, but the tools are often considered by other employees to be too conceptual and remote from everyday practice. Indeed, beyond the role of formal tools in the operationalization of strategy, researchers have also drawn attention to the use of mundane artefacts (Jarzabkowski et al., 2015; Kaplan, 2011) and tools linked to specific occupations. At a time when calls are increasing for a more participatory and open approach to strategy (Smith et al., 2018; Tavakoli et al., 2017), we argue that it is essential to consider the actual tools that practitioners are familiar with in their everyday activity, and through which they may interpret, implement or even formulate strategy. Such occupational tools contribute to both top-down and bottom-up strategizing (Leonard & Mcadam, 2002), yet there is little in the strategy literature about the role of these occupational tools even though research in other fields shows how such tools contribute to tactical strategy (Clegg et al., 2018; Herazo et al., 2012).
In this article, we are interested in how these non-strategy tools – which we call ‘occupational’ because they emerge from actors’ daily occupation – help operational managers bring their strategic issues to the fore. Hence, we explore how occupational tools turn into strategizing tools. Specifically, we focus on the crafting process of such tools, or what we call the strategy tooling process. We take a bricolage perspective (Duymedjian & Rüling, 2010; Lévi-Strauss, 1966; Rüling & Duymedjian, 2014) to understand how organizational actors strategize with the available resources. Organizational bricolage allows us to explore the resources used, as well as the dialogues that take place as part of the collective negotiation over the tool. Accordingly, we ask the following research questions: what are the resources that practitioners draw upon in the tool crafting process? What types of dialogues do they engage in?
Empirically, we draw upon our analysis of two longitudinal case studies in two very different contexts – a large company in a traditional process industry and a young start-up in an emerging field – to identify a process model of collective bricolage. This study refines the literature on collective bricolage and strategy tools, specifically in relation to strategy emergence (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). Our contributions are twofold. First, we identify different categories of repertoires and dialogues and highlight their dynamic interactions in the process of bricolage. We go beyond the traditional representation of dialogues as positive to show that counter dialogues are also a constitutive part of the strategy tooling process. Second, our study of dialogues broadens the practice perspective on tools which has so far focused more broadly on discursive practices (Rouleau, 2013). This article is also relevant for managerial practice at a time when a growing interest in a participatory approach to strategy requires an understanding of how occupational tools help carry out strategy at the operational level.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: we first review the practice literature on strategy tools and collective bricolage. We then present our method. In the findings section, we use vignettes to narrate our two cases, with a focus on repertoires and dialogues. Finally, we present our process model and discuss our contributions in relation to the literature.
Tools to strategize
The use of strategy tools
Departing from a rationalist perspective (Ansoff, 1980; Ansoff & Sullivan, 1993; Clark, 1997; Porter, 2008) which considers that tools aid rational processes of decision-making, the practice perspective emphasizes the role of agency and looks at tools-in-use (Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015). Scholars in this perspective outline how users adapt formal tools to their local organizational context (Jarratt & Stiles, 2010; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011; Stenfors & Tanner, 2007), but also how tool affordances enable or constrain strategizing (Demir, 2015; Leonardi, 2015; Paroutis et al., 2015). Others highlight the symbolic and socio-political uses of strategy tools as they enable collective interactions between different occupational and hierarchical boundaries (Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006; Langley, 1989; Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2009). In this sense, they are boundary objects (Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2009) playing a practical and political role (Carlile, 2002). Practical, because they help establish shared meaning; political because they facilitate a process in which individuals can jointly create new organizational knowledge. Belmondo and Sargis-Roussel (2015, p. 91) further analyse the negotiation processes at work when a group of managers turn their individual uses of a strategy tool into a collective use. They characterize strategy tools as having three aspects – ‘language, meaning and intention that must align with the users’ own languages, meanings and intentions’ – and describe the collective negotiations and disagreements that occur over these three aspects. A number of authors call for understanding collective action at the crossroads of practice and communicational perspectives (Arnaud et al., 2018); however, these approaches focus mostly on strategic texts and not on actual dialogues.
Table 1 describes the key works and contributions on tools in the strategy literature, pointing to the prevalence of formal strategy tools, and to a deliberate strategy carried out by top management.
In brief, over the last two decades, the practice approach has contributed great insights into the origin, uses and impact of strategy tools. It has brought to attention the role of agency in the implementation of strategy tools. Formal strategy tools remained the focus of interest of the practice approach until 2013 when a ‘material turn’ brought attention to the use of non-strategy tool in the practice of strategy (Arnaud et al., 2016; Demir, 2015; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), and to the role of practitioners other than top managers.
The use of non-strategy tools
Some non-strategy tools have attracted the attention of practice scholars in the last decade. The seminal paper of Kaplan (2011) showed that generic tools such as PowerPoint documents actually contribute to strategy definition, while Arnaud et al. (2016) described how a local manager’s material text production fosters employee support of company strategy. Beyond the tool itself, it is the way it is used that fosters collaboration and representation to create new strategic knowledge (Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015; Paroutis et al., 2015). Dameron et al. (2015) call for more research on the role of materiality in strategy work, especially regarding artefacts, technologies, built space and human bodies. Demir (2015) further highlights the entanglement between actors’ strategic intent and the opportunities for action afforded by the strategic objects themselves. However, the use of these non-strategy tools is mainly studied at the strategic level or in relation to decision-making (Begkos et al., 2020). Even though some scholars acknowledge that practitioners use occupational tools to strategize, we still know little about how they came to be.
The use of occupational tools
A number of strategy scholars have paid attention to occupational tools in the practice of strategy. Clark (1997, p. 425) highlights the use of a wide range of tools to ‘support strategic evaluation and decision making’ and the need for ‘recognition of the contribution of these tools’. Demir (2015) provides an interesting perspective on how occupational tools interact with strategic tools in the practice of strategy; similarly, Leonardi (2015) shows that the use of occupational tools – such as a trend briefing book developed by a marketing team – contributes to redefining strategy. Martineau (2017) highlights that the use of managerial artefacts varies depending on the context. Yet, in these examples, strategy is a side effect; the tools are first of all used for an occupational purpose. Therefore, we need to turn to more operational fields to find out how occupational tools contribute to strategy. For instance, in project management, Clegg et al. (2018) underline the roles of project portfolios to deal with a great variety of strategic issues, such as governance alignment, long-term development and strategy formulation. Herazo et al. (2012) exemplify how projects can be used to align strategy with sustainable requirements. In the field of public policy, Begkos et al. (2020) show how professionals elaborate tools and practices out of their daily activity in order to strategize. In other fields such as quality control, total quality management tools contribute to realizing intended strategies and providing access to emergent ones (Leonard & McAdam, 2002). This operational literature highlights how occupational tools contribute to a bottom-up approach (Begkos et al., 2020; Herazo et al. 2012) and play a key role in aligning short-term objectives at the tactical, operational level (Leonard & McAdam, 2002) with the general strategic orientation of the firm (Herazo et al., 2012). All in all, this literature shows that strategy is also enacted through the use of tools related to a specific occupation, yet we know very little about how practitioners tinker with these tools to align their activity with the wider strategy.
This article draws attention to how managers rely on available resources (i.e., the tools of their trade) within everyday (strategic) activity. We look at how strategy is carried out through occupational tools, focusing on how such tools turn strategic, or what we call the strategy tooling process. Despite acknowledging the constructed nature of strategy tools (Clark, 1997), the strategy literature is lacking on the elaboration of tools, hence we turn to the literature on organizational bricolage. Bricolage in organization studies is mostly associated with modes of use. It is grounded in a practice epistemology, and it is part of everyday strategizing practice (Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006) where practitioners creatively tinker with strategy tools, putting them to unexpected uses.
Contribution of a bricolage lens to the practice perspective on tools
Bricolage, defined as ‘making do with whatever is at hand’ (Lévi-Strauss, 1966), has gained attention in organization studies (Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011; Duymedjian & Rüling, 2010; Phillips & Tracey, 2007; Rüling & Duymedjian, 2014). Baker and Nelson (2005, p. 333) offer an integrative definition of bricolage as ‘making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities’.
In a practice perspective, bricolage provides a useful lens for analysing how actors use artefacts in creative and adaptive ways. It involves taking existing tools and fashioning them to an individual’s own ends, without particular regard for the original purpose of the tool (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Lévi-Strauss, 1966). It casts light on the making-do and ‘artisan-like inventiveness’ (De Certeau, 1984, p. xviii) by which actors produce their own intentful activities (Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006, p. 360). In this sense, bricolage is close to the garbage can model (Cohen et al., 1972) suggested by Jarzabkowski and Kaplan (2015) to explain how people select strategy tools: given a particular circumstance, they will pick the first tool that they know how to use that seems to fit the problem at hand.
Lévi-Strauss (1966) described the process of bricolage as involving three overlapping stages: stock or repertoire, dialogue and outcome.
Repertoire includes the material resources at hand, such as occupational tools, and also immaterial resources in the environment that are part of a practitioner’s cognitive template (linked to education, personal and professional experiences).
Dialogue, according to Lévi-Strauss, is a solitary, introspective activity in which the bricoleur ‘interrogates all the heterogeneous objects of which his treasury is composed to discover what each of them “signify” and so [could] contribute to the definition of a set which has yet to materialize’ (Lévi-Strauss, 1966, p. 12). Finally, outcome refers to the final tool crafted, which still shows the bits and pieces from which it was assembled, thus reflecting the underlying process.
Collective bricolage (Rüling & Duymedjian, 2014) explores the processes through which heterogeneous groups of people or teams working under conditions of uncertainty complete a task. They recommend that researchers identify the specific characteristics of the resources used and the coordination mechanisms – such as the role of dialogues – that enable bricolage across different occupational communities. Available resources can be material, such as artefacts, or physical, such as people with specific skills (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Ciborra, 1996; Garud & Karnøe, 2003), but also socio-cognitive: ‘the collectively held knowledge about how a task is performed and how activities advance’ (Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011, p. 241).
Contrary to Lévi-Strauss, in collective bricolage, researchers refer to real dialogues between people. Dialogue – across hierarchy and occupations – enables mutual adjustment. For instance, Rüling and Duymedjian (2014, p. 106) show that in the production of digital visual effects (VFX), the final outcome is ‘generally the result of ongoing dialogue between the director, the VFX supervisor and the various teams and individuals involved’. More recently, Parmentier-Cajaiba et al. (2021) have shown how new routines are created via entrepreneurial bricolage based on collective work. They emphasize the collective nature of entrepreneurial bricolage through different types of dialogues and the process of elaborating new resources or transforming resources (Desa, 2012).
Boundary objects are another important coordination mechanism (Rüling & Duymedjian, 2014). Boundary objects have different meanings in different social worlds; they act as a means of translation (Star & Griesemer, 1989) between communities. Boundary objects enable dialogue and create the conditions for negotiation and coordination (Cartel et al., 2017). While the literature tends to depict boundary objects in a positive light, Carlile (2002) reminds us that boundary objects can be ‘bad’ when individuals within different functional or occupational boundaries fail to establish a shared syntax or language and therefore to transform current knowledge into new knowledge by straddling boundaries.
These works have highlighted convincing examples of collective bricolage focusing on the nature of resources and on coordination mechanisms. Yet, dialogue, an essential feature outlined by Lévi-Strauss (1966), needs to be further delved into. While managers’ ability to creatively tinker with strategy tools is acknowledged (Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006), we still know little about the strategy tooling process itself. In this article, combining the practice perspective on tools with collective bricolage, we aim to dig into the strategy tooling process. We shall identify the types of resources that managers draw upon in crafting a tool, and the types of dialogues they engage in. Ultimately, our aim is to understand how resources and dialogues interact dynamically to help craft a tool.
Method: A comparative case study of strategy tooling
Our research is based on the comparison of two longitudinal case studies in two industries: cement and pesticides. Our case-study approach serves both a theory-building and an illustrative purpose (Siggelkow, 2007). It allows for the emergence of a theory which develops ‘recognizing patterns of relationships among constructs within and across cases and their underlying logical arguments’ (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, p. 25). The comparison of the two cases allows us to carry out a cumulative analysis in order to propose a generic model synthesizing the patterns identified in each case (Garreau, 2020). The choice to study these two cases together came about following conversations between authors 1 and 2 at the end of their theses. They realized that quite strikingly, they had observed very similar phenomena despite the different company contexts. This triggered an abductive process of comparing and contrasting the cases, and based on observations, making suggestions in relation to existing literature (Avenier, 2010; Bamberger, 2019; Lorino, 2018).
In the two cases, the researchers carried out collaborative research (Adler et al., 2004; Shani et al., 2007) and were involved in the elaboration and diffusion of a tool in response to a strategic challenge. The main actors were occupational managers who sought to develop a tool that stemmed from their work activity and that would increase their strategic importance within the company.
We present in Table 2 the main characteristics of our cases.
The two cases differ in terms of industry, size, age and type of strategic challenge. Exploring the same phenomenon – the strategy tooling process – in two different contexts allows us to highlight the general conditions, as well as specific boundary conditions, for successful collective bricolage, i.e., the development of a tool that serves strategizing. It allows patterns in the data to be compared and contrasted more easily and provides a stronger base for theory building (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2009).
Case 1: Constructor, creating meta-standards to improve performance
Constructor is a global company in the cement industry. Constructor shares the characteristics of global organizations (Bartlett & Goshal, 1989): it is centralized, and knowledge held at the centre is considered superior. Knowledge developed at technical headquarters is diffused in a top-down way through the regional technical centre experts, who are in charge of sharing the methods and best practice to the plants in their area. At the time of this study, a cost-reduction programme aimed at saving €450 million over the following 5 years was launched. The ‘Excellence’ programme aimed to reduce fixed costs while improving plant performance. The strategy discourse emphasized the importance of knowledge management for achieving these objectives.
Author 1 was a part-time member of the technical headquarters Knowledge Management team. She was involved in the Product Quality department initiative to standardize methods for product quality control in the group’s 150 plant labs in line with the group performance improvement strategy. This consisted of capturing the tacit know-how of lab operators in order to produce written procedures. The object of study was the crafting process of these operating procedures known as Quality Technical Standards (QTS).
Case 2: Agronate – Abiding by the European regulation on pesticides
Agronate is a small company in the biocontrol industry. This nascent industry offers biopesticide substitutes for chemical pesticides. The development of these niche products is mainly carried out by small companies. However, the rapid growth of the biopesticides market1 has attracted large agrochemical companies such as Bayer, members of the International Biocontrol Manufacturer Association (IBMA).2
In Europe, a major change in the environment of the biopesticide industrial segment occurred in 2001. The 91/414 European Directive on pesticide control was extended to biopesticides (2001/36 commission directive). European biocontrol ventures were suddenly required to register their product through an overarching regulation that had been designed for chemical firms. As such, this regulation was not adapted to the properties of biocontrol products. This environmental change led to major strategic change for biocontrol companies. The case of Agronate shows how the registration team3 crafted tools in order to comply with the European Community (EC) directive.
Author 2 was hired as a researcher to work on the topic of product registration. She was in charge of implementing and developing the registration activity. The object of the study was the crafting process of a European biopesticide dossier.
Data collection
Both studies are the result of a 3-year immersion in the field. The two authors conducted in-depth processual and longitudinal studies (Langley, 2007). They relied heavily on ethnographic techniques to collect rich data as the events unfolded. The data collected are summarized in Tables 3, 4 and 5. The two studies can be considered as collaborative research (Shani et al., 2007). Both authors were working within the company and carried out a number of operational tasks in relation to their object of study. Both authors kept a field diary in which they kept track of events and of their involvement both as a researcher and as a practitioner.
We provide a detailed description of the data collected in the two cases and highlight the position of actors regarding their proximity to the locus of strategic decision-making.
Data analysis
Data analysis occurred in three main stages in which we moved back and forth between our empirical data and bricolage literature to reconstitute the strategy tooling process.
Step 1: Sequencing the chronological narratives
We started from the existing chronological account of each case. Author 1 had written a monograph of her case which narrated the unfolding of the different plots following Ricoeur’s (1983) concept of emplotment (Corbett-Etchevers & Mounoud, 2011), while Author 2 had created a visual map depicting the course of events (Langley, 1999; Parmentier-Cajaiba & Cajaiba-Santana, 2020). We used abductive reasoning to code our data into NVivo, progressively comparing the unfolding of events across our two cases. This step allowed us to identify two phases in the strategy tooling process: recognition of a strategic issue and crafting the tool. Table 6 presents the two phases of the tooling process.
Step 2: Thematic coding of the material according to the bricolage framework
While describing our cases, we noticed that in each phase, the main actors drew on certain types of resources and engaged in dialogue with different stakeholders in order to advance their strategic agenda. Therefore, in order to dig deeper into the tooling process, we turned to the literature on bricolage. Understanding what is going on in terms of bricolage means paying attention to the significance of each element picked by the bricoleur (Lévi-Strauss, 1966): the resources, or in Lévi-Strauss’ words, repertoire, as well as to dialogues on how to use the resource at hand.
Accordingly, each author went back to her narrative and, within each phase of the tooling process, deducted coding categories based on repertoire and dialogue. We then compared our coding in order to fine-tune our initial framework with the data set. We focused on the bricolage practices, on their commonalities and differences in order to generalize out of this two-case comparison.
In a final round of coding, we further refined our coding scheme. As a result, we broke the concept of repertoire into four subcategories: organizational culture, regulatory, occupational and managerial. Similarly, we identified five different types of dialogue: reflexive conversation, within occupational community, cross-occupational community, cross-hierarchical dialogue and counter dialogue (Table 7).
Step 3: Identification of sequencing triggers
We went on describing our cases through the two stages of the tooling process – recognition of a strategic issue and crafting the tool – and highlighted the use and implementation of elements of repertoire and dialogue. We conducted an axial analysis (Charmaz, 2014) comparing similarities and differences at each phase. We observed similarities between the two phases, thus pointing to a generic strategic tooling process. Specifically, we noted that the trigger element between each phase was the creation of an object: an intermediary tool in phase 1 which leads to the elaboration of the final object in phase 2 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Phases of the strategic tooling process
To conclude, our analysis led to the characterization of the strategy tooling process as the combination of different types of repertoires and dialogues within and across occupational and hierarchical boundaries.
Findings
This section describes the two cases according to the two stages of the tooling process: recognition of a strategic issue and crafting the tool. We highlight the use and implementation of elements of repertoire and dialogue at each phase. For each case, we sum up the highlights of phases 1 and 2 in the form of vignettes, and based on the cumulative analysis of the elements we identified in each case, we draw up a generic strategy tooling process model (Garreau, 2020).
Phase 1: Recognition of a strategic issue
Case 1: Constructor
In Vignette 1, the quality community draws on three repertoires: occupational, managerial and organizational repertoires. The round-robin test belongs to the quality occupational repertoire. It helps lab experts make sense of the performance issue in terms of their work activity. The KPI draws upon two other repertoires. First, the managerial repertoire: KPI is a popular tool which links performance to strategic goals. Second, the particular insistence on performance is part of the Constructor organizational culture repertoire.
Dialogue occurs first among members of the product quality activity as the community devises the tool, and then with top management. The Lab Accuracy Index (LAI) is communicated to top management as a Key Performance Indicator (KPI). We can observe here the importance of naming. The transformation of a lab practice (round-robin test) into an organizational concern occurs through the designation of the LAI as KPI. Shared language allows those involved to switch repertoire and creates common ground for dialogue outside the occupational community. This phase highlights how naming the tool turns it into an intermediary object between different communities, thus creating a symbolic space for dialogue. In this phase, the convergence of three repertoires sets the scene for collective dialogue beyond occupational communities.
Case 2: Agronate
Vignette 2 shows two interesting aspects: first, the integration of a new repertoire (registration procedures) that becomes occupational. Second, a shift from the occupational repertoire of registration to the managerial one which emphasizes concerns in terms of cost, processes, delay and services over the technical skills of RMS. This shift to the managerial repertoire allows those involved to get the attention of the top management and highlights the strategic importance of registration.
This phase also features a variety of dialogues. Dialogues occur with external registration experts to acquire knowledge. Dialogues also develop4 across hierarchies, which leads to the shift from the registration to the managerial repertoire. Hence, we identify two roles for dialogues. First, dialogues within the occupational arena help integrate knowledge. Second, the shift from the occupational to the managerial repertoire creates a symbolic space for talking about registration across the hierarchy. Crossing hierarchical boundaries allows registration to be recognized as strategic. This phase ends with the creation of an intermediary tool that supports dialogues about registration activity (Table 7).
The comparison of our two cases highlights the role of dialogue in creating a convergence of interest between occupational and strategic levels. Intermediary tools are a first outcome of the interplay between the managerial repertoire and dialogues; they bridge the different fields of activity and contribute to raising occupational matters to a more strategic level.
Phase 2: Crafting the tool
Case 1: Constructor
The LAI turned KPI is an intermediary tool that enables collective dialogue and allows both the quality community and top management to make sense of quality issues. In Vignette 3, we describe the crafting of the tool that is intended to solve the labs’ quality problem. At Constructor, knowledge codification in the form of best practices is seen as a key driver for group performance. Over the years, the group’s technical know-how has been captured in the form of Best Practices available on the intranet. Quality engineers and lab analysts are also familiar with quality norms such as ISO 9000 procedures and regulatory quality standards enacted by the EU or the US (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards).
Dialogue is essential, as writing the standard is a collective effort. Once the document was ready, another challenge emerged.
This second phase is extremely complex as the crafting of the tool relies on different repertoires, and different types of dialogues with a multiplicity of actors. It alternates between convergence and divergence. Vignette 3 first highlights the convergence of the organizational and occupational repertoires in the solution to the lab problems: the codification of procedures. This shared practice brings legitimacy to the initiative at both the organizational and occupational levels. It highlights the role of the organizational repertoire, which represents the group strategy discourse, as an important resource in the tooling process. However, Vignette 4 shows that dialogue within and outside the occupational community soon turns into disagreement. Within the Lab Community, negotiations over the contents of the document prove tiresome. Cross-occupational dialogue is characterized by divergence over the naming of the document. Such reactions illustrate the failure of collective dialogue. We labelled such instances as ‘counter-dialogue’. Unlike phase 1, where shared language created space for dialogue across the occupational communities, in phase 2, disagreement over the name created divergence as the organizational and occupational repertoires (quality and KM) were at odds.
Case 2: Agronate
Phase 2 covers the creation and implementation of procedures to go through the first European registration dossier. The creation of this tool is strategic in the sense that it organizes the registration process and sets a template for further registration rounds. Registration is a central activity for drugs and pesticide market access. As such, it impacts research and development (R&D) strategy by linking the opportunities to market to the internal R&D capacity. As such, the registration dossier is a tool both to organize the activity of R&D and to aid management in strategic decision-making. Its elaboration requires collaboration between departments.
Vignette 5 highlights a turning point when dialogues cross disciplinary boundaries and increase in number and diversity. Dialogues organize the work to be done by probing into existing occupational repertoires or by defining new tasks. These dialogues imply new practices for actors in the company and allow the capability and resources of each team and the eventual need for external resources to be assessed.
In this phase, the repertoire draws on occupational domains (microbiology, agronomics, chemistry and registration) and associated resources. This phase consists of formalizing the occupational knowledge of the firm in a format that is consistent with institutional requirements. The following quotes show that willingness to cooperate is lessened when it modifies the operational routines and knowledge patterns, or when it jeopardizes the skills of the R&D team. At this stage of the strategy tooling process, dialogues are mostly cross-occupational and at the same hierarchical level. In this phase, we also notice the rise of counter dialogues denoting local resistance with regard to organizational changes required by registration activity. However, in the end, R&D and the registration team agreed on the contents of the file.
Our two cases show that the tool crafting process relies on two major elements: the different repertoires available, and dialogues within and across occupational and hierarchical boundaries. In both cases, we pinpoint the beginning of the strategy tooling process to a turnaround in the corporate strategy. In both cases, managers seize upon the strategic challenge to bring their occupational specificity to the forefront (Table 8).
Once the strategic aspect of the activity is acknowledged, we observed a convergence of interests ending in a common tool. This convergence of interests is made possible through cross-occupational dialogues and the shift from an occupational to a managerial repertoire.
In spite of an agreement on the strategic importance of an activity, the second phase, ‘crafting a tool’, appears rather conflictual. It is characterized by alternating bouts of convergence and divergence, typical of negotiation processes, which eventually lead to the emergence of the final tool (Table 9).
Figure 2 represents the phases of the strategy tooling process, highlighting the ongoing interplay between dialogue and repertoires. In brief, collective bricolage starts with the available resources from the occupational repertoire. In order for the strategic issue to reach beyond the community, the issue is translated in managerial terms through the creation of intermediary tools, which open a symbolic space for discussing strategy. There, dialogues across occupational communities and hierarchies converge (1) towards the intention of developing a tool (2) to address the strategic issue. In the second phase, crafting the tool requires negotiating across occupations and hierarchies (3). Cross-occupational dialogues are characterized by a strong presence of counter dialogues. In the two cases, counter dialogues are constitutive of tool construction (4). The arguing about which aspects of practice should be retained or discarded reveals the will of each party to defend the legitimacy of their activity. Counter dialogues illustrate a clash of repertoires which paradoxically leads to a form of convergence allowing the different parties involved to find common ground. We qualified this negotiation process as ‘constructive divergence’.
Figure 2. The strategy tooling process model
Discussion
We compared two strategy tooling processes in two very different companies. In both cases, the trigger element, tooling processes and the successive objects stemming from the process proved to have many features in common. Our analysis allowed us to uncover the specific bricolage mechanisms contributing to strategy emergence. We shall first focus on dialogues, and then on the tools and the repertoires they draw on.
The performative role of dialogues
Our fine-tuned study of dialogues in the process of bricolage contributes to the practice perspective on tools, which so far has focused more broadly on discursive practices. Here we consider actual dialogues occurring in vivo rather than discourses such as texts (Arnaud et al., 2016, 2018; Vaara et al., 2010) and other strategy discourses (Kaplan, 2011; Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011). We underline the importance of naming, which can act as a trigger to switching repertoire. In that sense, the naming of tools is performative (Austin, 1962). Naming enables an occupational tool developed at the periphery to become a strategy tool used at the centre. Managerial language appears as a lingua franca within the company and acts as a mechanism for strategizing and decision-making.
Research has acknowledged the role of discourse in the elaboration of strategy (Jarratt & Stiles, 2010; Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015; Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006; Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2009; Stenfors & Tanner, 2007). In this paper, we cast light on the specific role of dialogue in the elaboration of all sorts of tools rather than focusing on the managers’ internal logics (Wright et al., 2013). We identify different types of dialogues that occur within/across the occupational community and hierarchy. This points to the relational nature of dialogues in bridging occupations. Thus, we extend the view of strategy formulation as a communicative process (Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011).
The literature on collective bricolage has usually treated dialogue in a positive light and indiscriminately. Dialogue is described as a coordinating mechanism that allows alignment between different professionals from different disciplines (Belmondo & Sargis-Roussel, 2015; Duymedjian & Rüling, 2010), while tensions and disagreements are vaguely alluded to under the terms of ‘negotiation’ or ‘mutual adjustment’. We show that the resistance expressed in counter dialogues is constitutive of the strategy tooling process. Counter dialogues illustrate a clash of repertoires which paradoxically leads to a form of convergence allowing the different parties involved to find common ground. We call this process ‘constructive divergence’. It resonates with the contextualization/decontextualization described by Belmondo and Sargis-Roussel (2015), which enables agreement to be reached over an existing tool.
Of repertoires and tools
In relation to the bricolage literature, we offer more refined study by identifying different repertoires: occupational, organizational and managerial repertoires. We join previous works on the recursiveness in bricolage (Cartel & Boxenbaum, 2019) whereby repertoire, dialogue and outcome intermingle and feed off one another. Specifically, we show that the ongoing interaction between repertoires and dialogues produces temporary outcomes in the form of intermediary tools. This invites further research that might consider the concept of bricolage in terms of the duality between ends and means put forward in a pragmatist perspective (Lorino, 2018).
The heteroclite nature of intermediary tools, or bundled affordances (Demir, 2015), reflects the involvement of different hierarchical levels and occupations in the process. We highlight their boundary spanning role, which enables dialogue and coordination (Cartel et al., 2017; Christiansen & Lounsbury, 2013) outside occupational boundaries (Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2009). As such, we conceptualize these tools as intermediaries; they are not truly occupational, nor purely managerial. They represent a first stabilized agreement on local knowledge (Belmondo & Sargis-Roussel, 2015; Leonardi, 2015), which is the starting point for crafting the final tool. We consider these tools as epistemic objects in the sense that they embed occupational know-how rather than the theoretical stabilized knowledge of strategy tools (Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015). Kaplan (2011) showed how generic tools, due to their wide acceptance in society (Yates & Orlikowski, 2007), influence the definition of strategy. We also show that the similarity of the intermediary tools with widely accepted managerial tools makes them legitimate in the eyes of the different occupational communities.
Mechanisms of strategy emergence
This article highlights the role and nature of mundane tools in the elaboration of strategy (Arnaud et al., 2016; Demir, 2015; Jarzabkowski et al., 2015; Leonardi, 2015), in particular through the interplay between occupational repertoires and dialogues. Specifically, we highlight the role of dialogue and counter dialogue in combining a variety of resources. We offer a further illustration of how managers tinker with the material and socio-cognitive resources at hand (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011). This is consistent with the idea that strategy at the periphery comes from managers who draw from a combination of resources by probing into their environment (Lévi-Strauss, 1966; Regnér, 2003).
We note how actors rely on the occupational repertoire to devise a tool that stems from their situated activity to play a role in company strategy. Refining on the work of Regnér (2003), this provides evidence on the mechanisms that make strategy a concern at the periphery, and how it then reaches the centre. Unlike studies of the micro-processes of strategizing based on written texts (where strategizing is studied a posteriori), we have attempted to capture strategizing in action through the ‘live’ dialogues occurring between practitioners. Thus, we provide mechanisms for how managers cope with strategy and act in a dwelling mode (Bouty et al., 2019; Chia & Holt, 2006; Chia & Rasche, 2015).
Conclusion
In this article, we have endeavoured to look beyond the forest of formal strategy tools to see the occupational tools that take root in the shadow of the canopy. Specifically, we aimed to explore how managers tinker with tools of their trade to bring occupational issues to the strategic fore and introduce change. We adopted a bricolage perspective (Duymedjian & Rüling, 2010; Lévi-Strauss, 1966; Rüling & Duymedjian, 2014) in order to identify the repertoires and dialogues that enter in the strategy tooling process. We have proposed a process model of collective bricolage based on the dynamic interplay between repertoires and dialogues. This study suggests paying greater attention to the role of dialogues and occupational tools in everyday strategic activity
Our operationalization of the collective bricolage concept answers Duymedjian and Rüling’s (2010) call to identify the specific characteristics of the resources used. Our focus on occupational tools-turned strategic extends the strategy-as-practice agenda, which focuses mostly on the situated use of formal strategy tools (Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006). It goes beyond the idea that strategy tool choice and use depend on organizational configuration or context (Jarratt & Stiles, 2010; Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015; Langley, 1989). In addition to contributing to collective bricolage and the practice perspective on tools, this article joins the conversation on emerging strategy (Bouty et al., 2019; Mirabeau & Maguire, 2014). We show that managers rely on occupational repertoires to orient and participate in strategic action. The expansion of the occupational repertoire through dialogues across occupational and hierarchical boundaries contributes to explaining how strategy comes to be. We invite further research to refine and expand on the mechanisms that lead to strategy emergence. All in all, these findings further advance the potential of a bricolage perspective for strategy and organization studies.
Despite the differences in the two cases – small company versus major group, biotechnology versus process industry and vertical versus more horizontal organization – our model bears witness to similar processes for bringing occupational matters to the forefront. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that our collective bricolage process model is derived from our analysis of two different settings. It could be interesting to study the strategy tooling process in different contexts to refine the general character of our findings, in particular to dig into the mechanisms or conditions that lead to making these tools legitimate in the eyes of others.
Finally, our study provides insights for practitioners. It shows that strategy is not a top-down process from formulation to implementation, but that it pervades all organizational levels. It calls for a more ‘open strategy’ where the practice of strategy occurs everywhere, with everyone, within and outside the organization. In other words, an approach which is in line with the current organizational transformation towards more bottom up and participatory processes in all fields.
References
| Adler, N., Shani, A. R. & Styhre, A. (2004). Collaborative research in organizations: Foundations for learning, change, and theoretical development. Sage Publications. |
| Ansoff, H. I. (1980). Strategic issue management. Strategic Management Journal, 1(2), 131–148. 10.1002/smj.4250010204 |
| Ansoff, H. I. & Sullivan, P. A. (1993). Optimizing profitability in turbulent environments: A formula for strategic success. Long Range Planning, 26(5), 11–23. doi: 10.1016/0024-6301(93)90073-O |
| Arnaud, N., Fauré, B., Mengis, J. & Cooren, F. (2018). Interconnecting the practice turn and communicative approach to organizing: A new challenge for collective action? M@n@gement, 21(2), 691–704. doi: 10.3917/mana.212.0691 |
| Arnaud, N., Mills, C. E., Legrand, C. & Maton, E. (2016). Materializing strategy in mundane tools: The key to coupling global strategy and local strategy practice? British Journal of Management, 27(1), 38–57. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12144 |
| Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press. |
| Avenier, M.-J. (2010). Shaping a constructivist view of organizational design science. Organization Studies, 31(9–10), 1229–1255. doi: 10.1177/0170840610374395 |
| Baker, T. & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329 |
| Bamberger, P. (2019). On the replicability of abductive research in management and organizations: Internal replication and its alternatives. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5, 103–108. doi: 10.5465/amd.2019.0121 |
| Bartlett, C. A. & Goshal, S. (1989). Managing across border. The transnational solution. Harvard Business School Press. |
| Bechky, B. A. & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239–261. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.60263060 |
| Begkos, C., Llewellyn, S. & Walshe, K. (2020). How do medical managers strategize? A strategy-as-practice perspective. Public Money & Management, 40(4), 265–275. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2020.1727110 |
| Belmondo, C. & Sargis-Roussel, C. (2015). Negotiating language, meaning and intention: Strategy infrastructure as the outcome of using a strategy tool through transforming strategy objects. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S90–S104. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12070 |
| Bouty, I., Gomez, M.-L. & Chia, R. (2019). Strategy emergence as wayfinding. M@n@gement, 22(3), 438–465. doi: 10.3917/mana.223.0438 |
| Boxenbaum, E. & Rouleau, L. (2011). New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 272–296. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41318001 |
| Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953 |
| Cartel, M. & Boxenbaum, E. (2019). Materiality in institutional analysis: A bricolage approach. In F.-X. de Vaujany, A. Adrot, E. Boxenbaum & B. Leca (Eds.). Materiality and institutions (pp. 37–52). Palgrave McMillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-97472-9_2 |
| Cartel, M., Boxenbaum, E., Aggeri, F. & Caneill, J.-Y. (2017). Policymaking as collective bricolage: The role of the electricity sector in the making of the European carbon market. In C. Garsten & A. Söbom (Eds.), Power, policy and profit (pp. 64–81). Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781784711207/9781784711207.00009.xml |
| De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. F. Rendall, Trad.). University of California Press. |
| Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage Publications. |
| Chia, R. & Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as practical coping: A Heideggerian perspective. Organization Studies, 27(5), 635–655. doi: 10.1177/0170840606064102 |
| Chia, R. & Rasche, A. (2015). Epistemological alternatives for researching strategy as practice: Building and dwelling worldviews. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (2e éd., pp. 44–57). Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139681032.003 |
| Christiansen, L. H. & Lounsbury, M. (2013). Strange brew: Bridging logics via institutional bricolage and the reconstitution of organizational identity. In L. H. Christiansen & M. Lounsbury (Eds.), Institutional logics in action, Part B (pp. 199–232). Emerald Group Publishing. doi: 10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039B020 |
| Ciborra, C. U. (1996). The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures, and surprises. Organization Science, 7(2), 103–118. doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.2.103 |
| Clark, D. N. (1997). Strategic management tool usage: A comparative study. Strategic Change, 6(7), 417–427. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1697(199711)6:7<417::AID-JSC281>3.0.CO;2-9 |
| Clegg, S., Killen, C. P., Biesenthal, C. & Sankaran, S. (2018). Practices, projects and portfolios: Current research trends and new directions. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 762–772. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.008 |
| Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. doi: 10.2307/2392088 |
| Corbett-Etchevers, I. & Mounoud, E. (2011). A narrative framework for management ideas: Disclosing the plots of knowledge management in a multinational company. Management Learning, 42(2), 165–181. doi: 10.1177/1350507610394579 |
| Dameron, S., Lê, J. K. & LeBaron, C. (2015). Materializing strategy and strategizing material: Why matter matters. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S1–S12. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12084 |
| Demir, R. (2015). Strategic activity as bundled affordances. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S125–S141. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12083 |
| Desa, G. (2012). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 727–751. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00430.x |
| Duymedjian, R. & Rüling, C.-C. (2010). Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31(2), 133–151. doi: 10.1177/0170840609347051 |
| Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 |
| Garreau, L. (2020). Petit précis méthodologique. Le Libellio d’Aégis, 16(2), 51–64. |
| Garud, R. & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277–300. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00100-2 |
| Grant, R. M. (2003). Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: Evidence from the oil majors. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6), 491–517. doi: 10.1002/smj.314 |
| Herazo, B., Lizarralde, G. & Paquin, R. (2012). Sustainable development in the building sector: A Canadian case study on the alignment of strategic and tactical management. Project Management Journal, 43, 84–100. doi: 10.1002/pmj.21258 |
| Jarratt, D. & Stiles, D. (2010). How are methodologies and tools framing managers’ strategizing practice in competitive strategy development? British Journal of Management, 21(1), 28–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00665.x |
| Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. & Spee, A. P. (2015). Constructing spaces for strategic work: A multimodal perspective. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S26–S47. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12082 |
| Jarzabkowski, P. & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding ‘technologies of rationality’ in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 537–558. doi: 10.1002/smj.2270 |
| Jarzabkowski, P., Spee, A. P. & Smets, M. (2013). Material artifacts: Practices for doing strategy with ‘stuff’. European Management Journal, 31(1), 41–54. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2012.09.001 |
| Jarzabkowski, P. & Wilson, D. C. (2006). Actionable strategy knowledge: A practice perspective. European Management Journal, 24(5), 348–367. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2006.05.009 |
| Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87–104. doi: 10.2308/acch.2001.15.1.87 |
| Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and powerpoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22(2), 320–346. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0531 |
| Langley, A. (1989). In search of rationality: The purposes behind the use of formal analysis in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), 598–631. doi: 10.2307/2393569 |
| Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. doi: 10.2307/259349 |
| Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271–282. doi: 10.1177/1476127007079965 |
| Leonard, D. & Mcadam, R. (2002). The strategic placement of TQM in the organisation: A grounded study. Managing Service Quality, 12, 43–53. doi: 10.1108/09604520210415380 |
| Leonardi, P. M. (2015). Materializing strategy: The blurry line between strategy formulation and strategy implementation. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S17–S21. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12077 |
| Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. University of Chicago Press. |
| Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and organization studies. Oxford University Press. |
| Martineau, R. (2017). What are management tools made of? The ‘listic’ structure of managerial artifacts. M@n@gement, 20(3), 239–262. doi: 10.3917/mana.203.0239 |
| Mazza, C. & Alvarez, J. L. (2000). Haute couture and prêt-à-porter: The popular press and the diffusion of management practices. Organization Studies, 21(3), 567–588. doi: 10.1177/0170840600213004 |
| Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250060306 |
| Mirabeau, L. & Maguire, S. (2014). From autonomous strategic behavior to emergent strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1202–1229. doi: 10.1002/smj.2149 |
| Parmentier-Cajaiba, A., Lazaric, N. & Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2021). The effortful process of routines emergence: The interplay of entrepreneurial actions and artefacts. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 31(1), 33–63. doi: 10.1007/s00191-020-00691-7 |
| Parmentier-Cajaiba, A. & Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2020). Visual maps for process research: Displaying the invisible. M@n@gement, 23(4), 65–79. doi: 10.37725/mgmt.v23i4.4501 |
| Paroutis, S., Franco, L. A. & Papadopoulos, T. (2015). Visual interactions with strategy tools: Producing strategic knowledge in workshops. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S48–S66. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12081 |
| Phillips, N. & Tracey, P. (2007). Opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial capabilities and bricolage: Connecting institutional theory and entrepreneurship in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5, 313–320. doi: 10.1177/1476127007079956 |
| Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 25–40. |
| Regnér, P. (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive strategy making. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 57–82. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00004 |
| Ricoeur, P. (1983). Temps et récit. Editions du Seuil. |
| Rouleau, L. (2013). Strategy-as-practice research at a crossroads. M@n@gement 16(5), 574. doi: 10.3917/mana.165.0574 |
| Rüling, C.-C. & Duymedjian, R. (2014). Digital bricolage: Resources and coordination in the production of digital visual effects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 83, 98–110. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.003 |
| Shani, A. B., Mohrman, S. A., Pasmore, W. A., Stymne, B. et al. (2007). Handbook of collaborative management research. Sage Publications. |
| Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160882 |
| Smith, P., Callagher, L., Crewe-Brown, J. & Siedlok, F. (2018). Zones of participation (and non-participation) in open strategy: Desirable, actual and undesirable. M@n@gement, 21(1), 646–666. doi: 10.3917/mana.211.0646 |
| Spee, A. P. & Jarzabkowski, P. (2009). Strategy tools as boundary objects. Strategic Organization, 7(2), 222–232. doi: 10.1177/1476127009102674 |
| Spee, A. P. & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Strategic planning as a communicative process. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1217–1245. doi: 10.1177/0170840611411387 |
| Star, S. L. & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001 |
| Stenfors, S. & Tanner, L. (2007). Evaluating strategy tools through an activity lens. Helsinki School of Economics. |
| Tavakoli, A., Schlagwein, D. & Schoder, D. (2017). Open strategy: Literature review, re-analysis of cases and conceptualisation as a practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(3), 163–184. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2017.01.003 |
| Vaara, E., Sorsa, V. & Pälli, P. (2010). On the force potential of strategy texts: A critical discourse analysis of a strategic plan and its power effects in a city organization. Organization, 17(6), 685–702. doi: 10.1177/1350508410367326 |
| Wright, R. P., Paroutis, S. E. & Blettner, D. P. (2013). How useful are the strategic tools we teach in business schools? Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 92–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01082.x |
| Yates, J. & Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). The PowerPoint presentation and its corollaries: How genres shape communicative action in organizations. In M. Zachry & Y. Thralls (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations (pp. 67–92). Baywood Publishing Company. doi: 10.2190/CPIC4 |
| Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications. |
Footnotes
1. The biopesticides market reached $3.7 billion in 2015 and the expected growth rate for the period 2016–2021 was around 14.1%. In comparison, the synthetic pesticide segment is expected to grow over the same period at a rate of 4.8%. http://www.reportlinker.com/p01414091-summary/Global-Markets-for-Biopesticides.html (retrieved on 9 Feb 2021).
2. https://www.bayer.fr/bayer-un-acteur-engage-du-biocontrole (retrieved on 9 Feb 2021).
3. The ‘registration team’ refers to the people at Agronate involved in the activities of compiling and presenting the information necessary for the launch of products on the European market.
4. ‘Rapporteur Member State’ (RMS): An EU country doing the initial scientific and technical evaluation of an active substance dossier. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/approval_active_substances/application_report_en (retreived on 1 May 2020).