British Journal of Management, Vol.

21, 28–43 (2010)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00665.x

How are Methodologies and Tools Framing

Managers’ Strategizing Practice in
Competitive Strategy Development?
Denise Jarratt and David Stiles1
School of Marketing and Management, Faculty of Business, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst 2795, Australia,
and 1Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand
Corresponding author email: djarratt@csu.edu.au

Criticisms have been levelled at the use of traditional strategic tools such as SWOT,
PEST and BCG in contemporary business environments. In light of these criticisms, the
objective of this research is to understand how senior executives engage with
methodologies and tools as they develop competitive strategy. Within a broader
strategy-as-practice approach, we use an activity theory framework to capture
strategizing insights of senior executives in the UK responsible for competitive
strategy. Our sample includes executives leading manufacturing organizations
embedded in networks and CEOs reported in the financial press as adopting innovative
business models. Our data suggest there is no one preferred practice approach by these
highly regarded executives. Rather, methods and tools are adapted as they are
contextualized in alternative practices. Three dominant strategizing practice models
emerged from the data reflecting alternative applications of methodologies and tools.
The first model captures routinized behaviour adopted by those who view their future as
predictable, and an extension of the current environment. The second model posits
reflective interaction between the strategist, organizational processes, culture, relation-
ships and practice, and the final model shows an imposed engagement with strategizing
methodologies and tools that bypass the organization’s collective structures. These
practice models suggest strategy leaders’ activities depend upon their interpretation of
the operating environment.

Introduction and planning/synoptic formal model (Brews and

Hunt, 1999).
Historically, strategy development has been pre- The alternative dominant model is strategy as an
sented by academics through two competing emergent phenomenon, labelled logical incremen-
models (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Quinn, tal (Quinn, 1980), adaptive (Chaffee, 1985) proces-
1980). The first is formal and process-based, sual (Whittington, 2001) or learning school (Brews
structured and imposed, and developed through and Hunt, 1999). This alternative model views
consultation within the organization, with various organizations refining their strategies incrementally
stakeholders and through examining environmen- in light of new information and opportunities.
tal data. This rational, imposed strategy develop- Previous research shows that under these alter-
ment, planning and implementation approach is native models the selection of tools and how they
variously termed the linear model (Chaffee, 1985), are employed is likely to be practised very
design and positioning schools (Mintzberg, 1990, differently. A formal model involves the applica-
1994), classical perspective (Whittington, 2001) tion of tools that structure analysis (Gunn and

r 2009 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
Managers’ Strategizing Practice 29

Williams, 2007; Pickton and Wright, 1998), while ities. The latter represent the most common appli-
an emergent model sees strategizing reflecting cation of scenario planning.
sense-making and pattern matching, placing less In contrast to strategizing from either a
emphasis on the constraints of the firm and historical or futurist perspective, MacIntosh
historical norms (Bharadwaj, Clark and Kulvi- and Maclean (1999) have argued for a deep
wat, 2005; Weick, 1995). structure view, adopting complexity as a theore-
Traditional tools guiding formal strategizing tical foundation for strategizing, within dissipa-
(e.g. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and tive, self-organizing structures in organizations
threats (SWOT) and political, economic, social undergoing transformation.
and technological (PEST) analyses; and Boston In the context of these differing approaches
Consulting Group (BCG), General Electric and to strategizing evident in the literature, we aim
Ansoff’s matrices) have received significant atten- to understand how senior executives engage with
tion in the literature. From a positivist perspective, methodologies and tools as they strategize in
they are presented as uncomplicated, focusing on practice. Our research objective and approach is
key issues, providing important dimensions for consistent with Whittington’s (2003) call for
interrogation, and offering a structure for analysis empirical practice research to be conducted in
and a framework for strategizing and strategy each of six key areas of strategy practice. One of
decision-making (Gunn and Williams, 2007; Min- these key areas, ‘What are the common tools and
tzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel, 1998; Pickton and techniques of strategizing and organizing and
Wright, 1998). However, others point to dangers how are these used in practice?’, embodies this
of oversimplification, the lack of explanatory or current project.
predictive value, inadequate definition and prior- To date, the application of strategizing meth-
itization of factors identified for interrogation, odologies and tools has been studied indepen-
frequent disagreement on which factors should dently of the context in which they are used
be included, re-enforcing of entrenched mental (Bharadwaj, Clark and Kulviwat, 2005; Burt
models, and confining deliberations to ‘elabora- et al., 2006). To build new insights on metho-
tions and extensions of what is already known’ dology and tool deployment in strategizing, the
(Bharadwaj, Clark and Kulviwat, 2005, p. 353; interaction between practice and strategy knowl-
Burt et al., 2006; Levy, 2000; Pickton and Wright, edge must come to the foreground, redirecting
1998). Calori (1998, p. 284) argues that these the research emphasis away from strategy
frameworks create ‘a bias towards thinking as process, form and content (Johnson, Melin
opposed to other forms of knowledge, a bias and Whittington, 2003; Whittington, 2003). This
towards binary logic and a disregard of feelings’ strategy-as-practice (S-as-P) emphasis focuses on
(emotions and morals) in understanding, reason- the tacit knowledge of how things work as
ing and decision-making. opposed to the explicit knowledge of strategy.
Business applications of scenario planning To prioritize the practice of strategy methodol-
have been refined in the last two decades to ogy and tool deployment, we outline the activity
challenge entrenched mental models and political theory framework guiding our investigation, based
biases in organizations and to build foresight (de on Vygotsky’s (1978) and Leontiev’s (1978)
Geus, 1988; Krentz and Gish, 2000; Wack, 1985; conceptualization of mediated activities. Activity
Watkins and Bazerman, 2003). Two very differ- theory provides a research framework for in-
ent modes of scenario planning have emerged vestigating how the practice of strategizing is
to address the issue of predictability, each with being framed by, and is framing, the perceptions,
fundamentally different assumptions. Verity (2003) views and mental models of leaders as they
and Cornelius, van de Putte and Romani (2005) strategize within their organization’s structures,
distinguish between predictive and exploratory processes, norms and values. This emphasis
modes, with the former tending towards quantifi- on practice offers an approach that can enrich
cation and forecasting in seeking a single ‘future’ our understanding of the roles and contribution
based on statistical probabilities; and the latter of these methodologies in contexts that exhibit
tending towards qualitative preparation, anticipa- variation in structures, norms, values and strat-
tion and multiple futures, all of which are equally egy leaders’ views on competitive strategy and the
plausible and without the assignment of probabil- environment.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

30 D. Jarratt and D. Stiles

Our contribution is twofold. First, our findings analysing human practices, with activities shaped
are important in suggesting neither formal nor by and shaping perceptions and mental models
incremental models provide ‘pure’, unadulterated (Kuutti, 1996; Marshall and Rollinson, 2004;
strategizing solutions in practice. Rather, meth- Weick, 2001). Knowledge is viewed less as static
ods and tools are adapted as they are contextua- and objectified, owned by individuals and groups,
lized in hybridized practices. Three dominant and more as a dynamic, negotiated phenomenon,
strategizing practice hybrid models emerged from both situated and social (Marshall and Rollinson,
the data reflecting alternative applications of stra- 2004).
tegy methodologies and tools. Second, we add Two related activity theory frameworks are
value to empirical work on strategizing because distinguished through their definition of objects
of the quality of our interviewees: our sample of activity. The first approach reflects work of
included CEOs reported in the financial press as Vygotsky (1978) and Leontiev (1978), which
leading change through adopting innovative explores activities from an individual’s perspec-
business models. Following the development of tive, although all activities are considered social
the activity theory framework, we describe our in nature (Kaptelinin, 2005). Incorporation of
research, present findings and discuss conclusions collective structures as a dimension of the acti-
within the context of prior literature, before vity system emphasizes the social system of
tendering implications for practice. cultural practices, values, organizing systems
and processes which enfold the activity.
Engeström (1999, 2001) offers an extension of
An activity theory framework for Vygotsky’s and Leontiev’s work, describing
studying the practice of strategizing activities as collective from both a scale perspec-
tive (i.e. undertaken by a community) and a form
We seek to understand what methodologies and/ perspective (i.e. undertaken collectively). Enges-
or tools strategists engage with as they make sense tröm’s incorporation of collectivity and commu-
of their world, and how this engagement occurs nity aligns activity theory with organizational
in practice. Understanding the application of these change (Kaptelinin, 2005).
methodologies and frameworks is important, to Vygotsky’s and Leontiev’s framework is im-
reveal constructed knowledge of challenges, op- portant where activities are carried out by
portunities and the business landscape shaping individuals, are performed individually and col-
strategic choices. lectively and where the object of the activity is
As a relatively new direction, S-as-P research related to the needs of the individual – in this
posits alternative frameworks to capture the ‘un- case, the need to develop strategy. This applica-
heroic work of ordinary strateg(y) practitioners tion is closely aligned with the domain of
in their day-to-day routines’ (Whittington, 1996, psychology (Kaptelinin, 2005). We have adapted
p. 734). What makes S-as-P different is its Vygotsky’s and Leontiev’s approach since we are
emphasis on the activities of strategy knowledge interested in understanding senior executives’
creation and re-creation by those responsible strategizing, which is individual and social.
for leading change (Jarzabkowski, 2005). Within The organizations in which strategist informers
a diverse set of S-as-P approaches, our focus are located comprise the activity systems for this
is on strategizing methodologies and tools that study, with interaction occurring between the
‘mediate’ (i.e. guide) strategy knowledge forma- strategist, his or her organization’s collective
tion. This represents a ‘drilling down’ from structures and the activity of strategizing. Con-
Jarsabkowski’s (2003) comprehensive frame- sistent with complexity theories, each dimension
work. of the activity system shapes and is shaped by
Among other approaches to theorizing about other dimensions within the activity system
practice, such as situated learning, distributed (Sherman and Schultz, 1999).
cognition and sense-making, activity theory pro- Although likely to consult and/or strategize
vides a platform for understanding knowledge with their top management team, it is leaders’
creation central to practice research (Blackler, individual frames of reference, their understand-
1993, 1995; Engeström, 2001; Jarzabkowski, ing of strategy information and the mediation of
2003). Activity theory offers a way forward for their strategizing processes that is foreground.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Managers’ Strategizing Practice 31

Strategy Leader

Mediation through
tools,
methodologies and
frameworks

Collective
organizational Strategizing
structures

After Vygotsky (1978), Leontiev (1978), Jarzabkowski (2003)

Figure 1. Activity theory framework informing the study

Their allocated responsibility for strategy deter- approaches: interactive discussion groups, self-
mination and resource allocation means their reporting techniques, or practitioners as research-
strategizing practice is likely to be highly influ- ers. However, they also highlight the time
ential within their organizations. Studying the requirements of (a) initial trust building prior to
application of methodologies-in-use therefore implementation, (b) the level of non-relevant
requires an individual emphasis within the social information contained in diaries and (c) the
context of shared understandings of techniques potential for ‘phenomenon cleaning’ associated
and their outputs in practice (Whittington, 2003). with their implementation. These limitations
An activity theory approach prioritizes the role of encouraged exploration of alternative methods.
organizational leaders in strategizing, shaping Our activity theory framework considered
our research design. information not only within the ‘research parti-
We define collective organizational structures cipant’s world as they construct it’ (Jones, 1985,
(Figure 1) to be strategy history, formal and p. 56) but also within the context of the bodies of
informal organizational structures, culture, strat- knowledge underpinning the research objec-
egy systems and processes and normative strate- tive(s). Unstructured interviews of approximately
gizing behaviour. Normative behaviour reflects two hours were based on a ‘means–end chain’
‘shared typifications’ derived from a history technique (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). Re-
of negotiations embodied in the tacit knowledge spondents recalled recent and past strategizing
of ‘the way we go about strategizing’ (Barley and experiences. We then drilled down into explana-
Tolbert, 1997; Jarzabkowski, 2003). tions of why specific aspects of their approach
were important, to generate reflective data on
experiences. Data were collected through tape
Research method recording (written agreement was obtained from
respondents) and transcribed, categorizing data
The purpose of this study is to examine the on each transcription. Practices integrating col-
practice of senior executives as they apply laborative structures, mediation frameworks and
strategizing methodologies and tools. Although strategizing were shaped from the data, and then
ethno-methodologies involving discussions with revisited, reviewed, and revised or rejected.
multiple layers of organizational members over Further cases were then categorized, examining
time provide one platform from which to study for consistency or inconsistency with developed
the practice of strategizing, such techniques are themes, seeking explanations, adjusting, and then
invasive and resource intensive. Balogun, Huff examining for consistency with those cases
and Johnson (2003) recommend three alternative categorized first (Dey, 1993, Marshall and Ross-

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

32 D. Jarratt and D. Stiles

man, 1989). Findings were then compared to Table 1. Industries represented in the study
previous studies to identify where and how extant Case Description
knowledge in the field was represented and what
extensions to that knowledge had been made 1 Pharmaceutical manufacturer
through the research. This process follows an 2 Automotive electronics manufacturer
3 Chemical manufacturer
analytic induction approach, combining both 4 Aviation
inductive and deductive approaches to data 5 Brakes
analysis, as theoretical ideas are tested and 6 Tobacco
retested through analysis of subsequent cases 7 Aviation
(Strauss and Corbin, 1990). 8 Chemical
9 Waste management
Interviewees met the following theoretic sam- 10 Shop fitters
pling criteria (Marshall and Rossman, 1989; 11 IT – solutions
Strauss and Corbin, 1990): (a) they were respon- 12 Reagents
sible for determining competitive strategy direc- 13 Brakes
tion, (b) they had the authority to operationalize 14 IT – technology
15 Distribution
that strategy and (c) they had extensive strategy 16 Wealth management
responsibility experience. We also sought repre- 17 Gas supplier
sentation across a broad range of industries. 18 Mining
Leadership networks, industry connections of 19 Re-insurance
20 Insurance
the researchers and consultants helped identify
21 On-line insurance
and access executives, many of whom were 22 Bank
regarded by peers as exemplars in leading 23 High technology consumables
strategy. Some leaders represented the largest 24 Industrial electronics manufacturer
and most influential companies in the country, 25 Contract manufacturing
necessitating considerable time and effort gaining 26 Healthcare systems
27 Credit management service
access. Each leader represented one unit of 28 Bank
analysis within a setting (a holistic design), 29 Musical instruments manufacturer
holding their current organizational positions 30 Automotive parts manufacturer
for a minimum of two years to be able to
describe and rationalize strategizing (Slater, Hult
and Olson, 2007). Interviews were completed by
February 2007 with 30 UK leaders in seven broad Results
sectors: automotive/transport, business services,
financial services, healthcare, IT/electronics, ex- The activity frameworks generated from the data
tractive, and chemical industries (see Table 1). revealed differences in leaders’ strategizing prac-
Executives held positions of CEO, board chair, tice, and provide context for understanding the
managing director, director and strategy director, application of strategizing methodologies. We
and represented organizations operating in a describe these strategizing activity practice frame-
number of different markets nationally and/or works as routinized practice (Figures 2(a)(i) and
globally. Our sample included those leading 2(a)(ii)), reflective practice (Figure 2(b)) and
manufacturing organizations that are embedded imposed practice (Figure 2(c)).
in supply chains and business networks, and In instances where the strategy leader identifies
CEOs reported in the financial press as leading ‘there is commonality’ (Case 3) across the strategic
change through adopting innovative business arenas of the organization’s operation and/or
models. Executives responsible for strategy de- where future growth is viewed as an expansion
termination have a ‘strong strategy orientation of the current environment, e.g. ‘the key changes
[and] have typically led major initiatives or in the external environment are predictable not
businesses and worn many operating hats before exceptional’ (Case 1), and, further,
taking on the role’ (Breene, Nunes and Shill,
2007, p. 86). They are in a position to reveal the an awful lot of companies have either closed down
tacit knowledge of strategizing in their own their manufacturing facilities, or have been bought
contexts. out by larger organizations. And the companies

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Managers’ Strategizing Practice 33

SL SL SL

P P P

C S C S C S

(a)(i) and (a)(ii)a (b) (c)

Routinized practice Reflective practice Imposed practice
a(i) has a unidirectional link from SL to P; (ii) has a bidirectional link from SL to P.

Figure 2. Activity frameworks observed in the data (SL, strategy leader; C, collaborative structures; S, strategizing; P, practices
(mediation methodologies))

themselves, they are getting bigger, we are dealing sional new insights were revealed on their
with a smaller number of larger companies that have application or ordering of their use. This reflec-
larger demand requirements [and] as the markets are tion on, and challenge to, traditional applications
shrinking the number of the companies is shrinking, is captured in the bidirectional arrow between
but the power is getting bigger (Case 3) strategy leader and practice – Figure 2(a)(ii).
Strategizing under both 2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii) activity
culturally embedded strategizing practice shows frameworks are predominantly directed at addres-
little evidence of reflection on the impact of sing an alignment gap emerging between the
strategizing methodologies on competitive strat- organization and its stakeholders, adjusting im-
egy or on practice norms. Figure 2(a)(i) captures peratives to offset competitive gains and/or emer-
the routinized activity of strategizing under gent needs/issues, i.e. a stakeholder driven approach.
embedded collaborative structures. Under this Complexity of the strategic arenas in which
activity framework, several methodologies are organizations were operating was described by
generally employed, non-reflectively and directly many respondents as having intensified through,
as learned (whether resource-based methodolo- for example, globalization, industry restructuring
gies, game metaphors or design and/or posi- and/or environmental shocks. Here, strategy lea-
tioning school methodologies) (‘the opportunities ders, collective structures and practices represented
and threats and the strengths and weaknesses are a dynamic system of engagement, incorporating
the areas that we would look at to see where we reflection on, and in some cases challenging,
would be going in the future’, Case 15). embedded practices, systems, priorities and/or
Collaborative structures provide a ‘general for- methodologies in strategizing practice (this reflec-
mat’ and climate for routinized strategizing tive practice is captured in Figure 2(b) and
activity, e.g. a strategizing process guided by exemplified by Cases 4, 12, 14 and 29). In Case
key questions: ‘what position are we in the world, 4, the development and use of an envisioning
how could you grow by using numbers, . . . or scenario system as a foundation for strategizing
goals . . . [and] . . . then through a strategic arose from recognizing the need to move outside
planning process . . . normally a five year plan’ traditional business configurations to facilitate
(Case 5). They also describe values of collabora- strategizing in an increasingly global, projectized
tion (‘workshop with a customer’ and ‘we industry, where international partnerships were
gathered together as a team’), trust (‘this is a forged and exited to access required resources.
process of trust’) and communication (‘It is Under reflective strategizing practice, competitive
communication’) associated with routinized stra- strategy was framed around how an organization
tegizing practice (Case 3). might meet the challenges of or influence possible
Design and positioning school methodologies futures, as well as around learning and creativity,
dominated discourse in routinized, culturally resulting in stakeholder driving initiatives as well as
embedded strategizing practices. However, occa- stakeholder driven options.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

34 D. Jarratt and D. Stiles

The activity system captured in Figure 2(c) was ing defence and attack in competitive environ-
evident in Case 6. Here strategy was developed ments: ‘the Indians are coming over the hill, you
through incrementally adjusting current strategy can sit there and defend, but they keep picking off
in line with profit imperatives, independently of people every time they come over. So you go off
the organization’s value system and of any at night and do a bit of damage back at the camp’
internal or external stakeholder engagement: ‘this – Case 5. Indeed, for Case 23 strategizing practice
is a top-down process where we think about our is captured in ‘my favourite tools are SWOT
divisions and put in financial numbers and also analysis and Ansoff’s matrices [and] Al Rees and
strategy for the division’ (Case 6). Jack Trout, which is very much about a game’.
Five competitive strategy perspectives evident For others operating in highly competitive
in the data provide a foundation for examining environments, stakeholder engagement was fore-
the variation in practice of applying methodolo- ground in discourse (‘We set up a partnership
gies and tools. The rational-economic discourse with our customers, the customer does a lot of
surrounding themes of alignment, game meta- the R&D’ – Case 12; ‘Understand their [client
phors and resource reconfiguration emphasized organization] philosophy, and then you will get
routinized strategizing practice as a response to the business’ – Case 10) particularly where custo-
specific stakeholder needs or issues (Figures mer intimacy (alongside benchmarking against
2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii)). Under routinized practice, the European market leader for Case 10) was
strategizing methodologies were employed di- viewed as critical to growth.
rectly (Figure 2(a)(i)) or adjusted to address Where combinations of design and positioning
perceived issues surrounding their use (Figure school methodologies were applied, the sequen-
2(a)(ii)). Competitive strategy as a lived experi- cing of the tool application was generally
ence and as challenging the dominant model consistent. SWOT and/or PEST were generally
captured an organic, learning and reflective employed early to define internal and external
practice approach to strategizing to meet the environments, forming the information platform
challenge of moving outside current issues and for strategizing. Risk analysis, profitability ana-
stakeholder engagement, and driving change lysis, portfolio analysis, Ansoff’s matrix and
(Figure 2(b)). Competitive strategy as incremen- value streaming explored or defined the potential
tal change was implemented through an imposed of alternative strategies, and assured the mix of
practice model (Figure 2(c)). opportunities in the business portfolio supported
growth in the short, medium and long term,
offsetting risk.
Competitive strategy as aligning an organization
Descriptions of practice reflected lessons learned
with its stakeholders/environment and capturing
in educational institutions populated by academics
emerging opportunities
and practitioners in strategic management.
Design and positioning school methodologies,
I am an MBA and used the traditional approach –
game metaphors and stakeholder intimacy domi-
looked at the marketplace in terms of who clients were
nated discourse, and were viewed as mechanisms and what they were doing. Looked at what environ-
for linking growth imperatives to current market mental factors and the economic and political factors
conceptualizations. For example, Cases 1, 2, 3, 5, that control them, competitors and technology.
11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 26 all utilized a Inside the organization I looked at its history, people
SWOT framework early in the strategizing and skills and performance in terms of revenue and
process (‘the past is a great predictor in terms profit. (Case 11)
of how that one area of the business [general
market] will grow’ – Case 12; ‘SWOT analysis, Rational orthodoxy was apparent even where
. . . really to gauge a view of where we are right the management team was described as dynamic,
now and to see where we’ve been’ – Case 15). A having a vision of growth and flexibility, organic
variety of tools such as risk analysis, portfolio and adhering to the principles of the quality of
analysis, McKinsey’s 7Ss, Ansoff’s matrices the business (Cases 1 and 24).
and value streaming were then added to both ‘We use standard strategy techniques’ (Case 24). ‘I
triangulate and structure strategy knowledge. appreciated SWOT etc. when the business plan was
Game metaphors provided analogies for explor- put together, and balanced scorecards’ (Case 18).

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Managers’ Strategizing Practice 35

‘You won’t just focus on one, but I need a SWOT market segments or particular types of technolo-
analysis’ (Case 3). ‘We are all aware of the SWOT gical innovation would change the nature of the
analysis, and we always have it at the back of our business environment: ‘Everything changes. Your
minds . . . . We produce three slides: market over five competitors change, the new entrants change, the
years, competitor shares and strategy statement built substitution changes. . . . It’s actually . . . very
around a SWOT . . . SWOT helps organize informa-
powerful.’ In this case, Porter’s five forces model
tion’ (Case 1).
was the basis of strategy decision-making and
Case 1 highlighted the importance of ‘strategic post-strategy rationalization.
skills in terms of having a vision of what to do Limitations of SWOT were identified as the
with this business, skills in putting together a lack of emphasis on the interaction between
coherent business plan’, and working in partner- strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
ship with government agencies, highlighting the (Case 19), the scope of the framework and its
integration of collective structures in strategizing emphasis on looking backwards and at the
activity. Partnership with government agencies current business situation. Case 29 described
was critical to Case 1’s strategic goal of interna- SWOT as offering an external, industry-based
tional accreditation to facilitate global expansion. perspective and therefore also applied SWOT
Emphasis on leveraging core strengths to address concurrently from an internal perspective, creat-
an increasing global demand (opportunity) and ing eight rather than the traditional four dimen-
the strong barriers limiting the entry of new sions for strategizing: ‘the extra four boxes are
technologies and competitors provided contex- things . . . that we need to start doing now’.
tual relevance for the application of selected Alternatively, Case 13 viewed an early empha-
strategizing methodologies. sis in strategizing on what has been, and is,
happening ‘is like driving a car and looking out
We have looked at changes in the industry, we have the back window’. In this high technology
looked at how the (. . .) industry has been virtualizing organization, strategizing began with environ-
for one thing but those external changes, those mental scanning across networks of stakeholders
external drivers, it’s like the key changes in the which assisted in identifying emerging opportu-
external environment is predictable not exceptional nities for organizational realignment. This ap-
and companies are all merging. As a result of that,
proach was designed to provide an extended
these are producing big opportunities for us, not only
in acquiring some of our products but also in
temporal dimension to strategizing to achieve
manufacturing products for them because they competitive advantage. In addition to more
rationalize in their production facilities. general environmental scanning, Case 13 ‘devel-
oped what we call a technology roadmap . . .
Another rationale for using SWOT, BCG and looking at where the industry is perhaps leading
portfolio tools involved forming a frame of us and where we want to take it’. Although this
reference for brainstorming. In Case 23, tools contains elements of the theme ‘Competitive
were viewed as a mechanism for ‘get(ing) people strategy as challenging the dominant business
thinking’ and ‘capture(ing) the environment’. model’ below, the dominant discourse concerned
Also, ‘We examine the market, competitors, aligning with a future anticipated environment,
turnover, and market forecasts’. SWOT, Ansoff’s rather than changing that possible future. Here,
and BCG matrices all contributed to the devel- SWOT usefully examined the (current) industry
opment of strategy knowledge and analysis. A attractiveness of strategic options.
game metaphor was also introduced to enhance
understanding of competitors’ tactics. Competitive strategy as resource reconfiguration
Consistent with the activity framework in
Figure 2(a)(ii), Cases 19 and 26 provided inter- Cases 1, 2, 7 and 8 prioritized investing in core
esting examples of traditional analytical tools and competencies and capabilities and building com-
frameworks being adapted and/or combined in a petitive advantage. Case 1 exemplifies the com-
unique way to enhance their usefulness in the plexity of relationships between culture, structure
strategizing. Case 19 utilized Porter’s five forces and strategizing around core competencies.
model to demonstrate to the top management Although we need to retain our core values of ethical,
team how the future selection of alternative high quality, and reputable, we are shifting from a

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

36 D. Jarratt and D. Stiles

manufacturing to a service focus [and] a cultural Internal and external collaborative structures
change to support this change of emphasis is yet to were essential to this form of strategizing. Staff
materialize. were continually encouraged to engage in in-
Case 2 is an original equipment manufacturer dustry and trade events, and contribute to
where, although the tie between supplier and strategizing and writing the plan. Major custo-
contractor is strong, the power resides with the mers were also integral to the process, providing
contractor. Traditional tools and frameworks inputs through their vision of the future, and
were not engaged with as the core objective was their roadmaps. Case 7’s new organizational
cost reduction, while retaining quality and structure took three years of negotiation. They
functionality. Achievement of this objective was benchmark against their major competitors, seek
not viewed to be solely through manufacturing innovation from synergistic industries, and share
process innovation, but was pervasive through- ideas with others.
out the culture and design team. Six Sigma was Traditional frameworks such as SWOT and
employed to create a ‘can do’ culture to enable PEST were not used in strategizing in Cases 7, 14,
implementation of a lean manufacturing philo- 20 or 21, although brainstorming, value based
sophy and reduce costs. However, once success- analysis, financial measures and learning from
fully implemented, the cultural shift required to opportunistic market engagement contributed to
deliver quality, lean manufacturing was unable conversations. Learning and responding quickly
to support a subsequent desired strategic shift to emerging challenges or opportunities embod-
towards customer solutions. Together with cap- ied the essence of their strategizing.
ability development, the whole-of-company cul-
tural realignment required to develop specialized Competitive strategy as challenging the dominant
capabilities to support a strategic shift was now business model
part of the strategizing framework.
Key methodologies employed by Cases 4, 27, 28
Ansoff’s ideas having highly structured, detailed, and 29 included scenario planning, envisioning,
time-based, objective-based plans were unfeasible in environmental change/industry transformation
the modern period world . . . you need a certain kind
techniques, technology and economic cycles.
of fuzziness and broadness around your plans.
Strategizing in these organizations involved
interrogating industry boundaries and redefining
Competitive strategy as a lived experience industry and distribution networks, within col-
lective structures exhibiting trust, commitment,
Several cases (7, 14, 20 and 21) described strategiz-
collaboration and cooperation.
ing methodologies embodying learning, flexibility
and reconfiguring to address emerging challenges We try to devolve authority to the lowest common
or new forms of competition. denominator. . . . The CEO started here as an
apprentice . . . . The Engineering Director also was an
If we saw an opportunity in those [markets] or even apprentice. They have confidence through the commit-
one of those other areas in which we think we do well, ment of the staff, which leads to empowerment. (Case 4)
we’d go out and grab them. We wouldn’t strategically
be saying ‘Oh, we can’t do [that]’. Strategy is actually Case 28 established a new banking model,
a straitjacket, which keeps companies from making through negotiations with regulators and consulta-
good decisions because they have ‘strategy’ and we tion with customers, adopting a business model
feel that one of our great advantages is, certainly in anticipated to become the benchmark in other
the market we’re in, is being nimble, is being
countries. Case 4’s scenario planning system
opportunistic, not being chained by some strategic
integrated risk and probabilities of between-firm
intent. (Case 20)
project collaborations, cooperative agreements and
Case 14 was a competitor in a rapidly changing mergers and acquisitions. As in cases adopting a
market. Strategizing practice was described as learning approach, strategic flexibility was consid-
‘ongoing – constantly revisiting, organic’, and ered important.
‘Can’t tell the future – events come out of the An innovative business model reshaping
blue – but can identify long-term trends . . . .’ ‘We industry practice was developed by Case 29
aim sufficiently far ahead of our competition.’ through reflecting on ‘What do we think the

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Managers’ Strategizing Practice 37

world will look like through our eyes in five years capture the dominant behaviour associated with
time? What would we like it to be?’, and then strategizing activity (Figure 3).
assessing their current situation through SWOT A representation of the interaction between
analysis. Case 29 established innovative parallel leaders’ strategy perspectives, their view of the
distribution channels to confront the traditional operating environment and the activity frame-
industry distribution model. What was particu- works appears in Figure 3. Strategy leaders’
larly interesting was the timing of the introduc- engagement with methodologies and tools ex-
tion of traditional methodologies: ‘our first hibited clear differences across the activity frame-
process is to try and imagine where you want to works, with practices grounded in the leaders’
be . . . and the second stage is where are you now’. strategy perspective, their view of the operational
That is, sequencing SWOT analysis subsequent to context (e.g. from protected, mature with high
envisioning in this case organization encouraged entry barriers, stable, highly competitive, to
thinking about the gap between current and dynamic and complex) and their confidence in
future possibilities. Enthusiasm was generated specific methodologies and tools to generate
through a culture of trust and ‘genuinely, a strategy-relevant knowledge for that operational
family’ feeling in the company. These cultural context.
values and vision shaped the strategizing context, The practice of engaging with design and
encouraging creativity tied to a commitment to positioning school methodologies exhibited dif-
achieve a future market position where the brand ferences across the activity frameworks. Routi-
would be respected. nized strategizing practice often meant
 applying SWOT early in strategizing,
Competitive strategy as incremental change  adding data generated through the application
of tools such as PEST, McKinsey’s 7Ss,
In Case 6, strategy was incrementally adjusted in Ansoff’s matrix, value streaming, game meta-
line with key profit targets. The market was phors, and/or resource and performance
described as extremely mature and highly regu- benchmarking to generate a knowledge base
lated, restricting local market growth potential. to identify potential options, and then
Growth was being achieved through international  employing risk analysis and portfolio analysis
expansion, incrementally adjusting strategy to to assess options.
retain ‘global best practice in manufacturing’, high
productivity and cost containment: ‘We establish a This research has extended current under-
market position for new brands, and are cost standing of the application of these traditional
obsessive . . . . We develop a broad market methodologies through providing insights of the
picture, focusing on size and market concentra- context within which this routinized practice
tion, as well as barriers for entry. For attractive occurs. Normative strategic planning processes
markets we gain access through acquisition.’ interleaved with five year plans provided a
‘general format’ for routinized practice, opera-
tionalized in a climate of communication, trust
Discussion and conclusions and collaboration. Routinized practice under-
pinned most contexts where
Adopting an activity theory framework has
 the future was considered to be predictable
enabled us to examine the application of meth-
and/or an extension of the current environ-
odologies within the collective structures of the
ment, and
organization and from the strategizing perspec-
 the leaders’ strategic intent was to align the
tive of the leader, i.e. understand how things
organization with its environment and/or
work. The important contributions of this project
reconfigure resources.
are the three activity frameworks and associated
strategy themes generated from the data provid- However, some variation was noted within the
ing explanations of the roles of methodologies routinized strategizing practice model in applying
and tools in strategizing practice. The three SWOT. While most leaders used SWOT definitively
activity frameworks are labelled routinized prac- as learned through management programmes,
tice, reflective practice and imposed practice, and some had reflected on its key limitations, developed

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

38 D. Jarratt and D. Stiles

LEADER’S COMPETITIVE STRATEGY PERSPECTIVE

Stakeholder/ Resource Lived Challenging Incremental

market reconfiguration experience dominant change
alignment model

SL SL SL

P P P

C S C S C S
Routinized practice Reflective practice Imposed practice

Predictable and/or Complex, dynamic Stable

extension of current environment environment
environment
LEADER’S VIEW OF THE OPERATING CONTEXT

Figure 3. Interaction of leader’s competitive strategy perspective, view of operating context and activity frameworks

variations to address those limitations, and inte- (b) reflective practice is generally observed where
grated these into routinized practice (represented by leaders view the environment as complex and
the broken bidirectional arrow in Figures 2(a)(ii) dynamic and strategy as a lived experience or
and 3). These variations in practice included the challenging the dominant model; and
application of Porter’s five forces model to multiple (c) imposed practice is observed when leaders
arenas to generate differing landscapes and oppor- assess the environment as stable and strategy
tunities into strategic conversations, the application as incremental.
of SWOT at both industry and organizational
Importantly, however, not all leaders intending
levels to broaden strategy knowledge, and con-
to align with future markets or those viewing the
sideration of the interaction of SWOT dimensions
environment as predictable exhibited routinized
in strategizing. These new practice insights for
practice (note the clear, block arrows in Figure 3).
generating strategy knowledge provide practi-
Holding a view that the early application of
tioners with options for extending the scope of
SWOT encouraged looking back rather than
their strategic conversations.
forward, one strategy leader used SWOT only
The grey, block arrows flowing from strategy
to examine the currency of future strategic
leaders’ perspectives to specific practice models
options. This leader exhibited reflective strategiz-
and the arrows flowing upwards from operating
ing practice, engaging in extensive environmental
contexts to practice models indicate the common
scanning involving leveraging knowledge in
associations observed between models, strategy
embedded stakeholder relationships and technol-
perspectives and operational contexts (Figure 3).
ogy roadmaps, even though his strategic perspec-
That is,
tive was alignment.
(a) routinized practice is generally observed where Generally, however, it was the strategy leader’s
the operating context is viewed as predictable view of the complexity and non-predictability of
and the strategy perspective is centred on the environment that encouraged reflective stra-
alignment and/or resource reconfiguration; tegizing practice. The leader’s perspective, the

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Managers’ Strategizing Practice 39

collective structures and strategizing practice From examining the differences between rou-
under this activity framework represented a tinized and reflective activity frameworks, it can
dynamic system, with strategizing process inno- be concluded that the timing of engagement with
vation and involvement changing to meet the traditional methodologies in strategizing alters
challenges of building quality, strategy knowl- their role in practice. Where traditional tools
edge and foresight. were introduced following an envisioning phase
Strategy as an emergent, adaptive phenome- in reflective practice, strategizing was enveloped
non (Chaffee, 1985; Quinn, 1980; Whittington, in a culture of creativity, cooperation and trust,
2001) was evidenced through those organiza- with ‘respect of brand’ central to the process.
tions that described competitive strategy as a SWOT was then used to define the current
lived experience. Consistent with prior research landscape so that strategies to address the gap
their strategizing methodologies embodied learn- between the current and envisaged state could be
ing, being nimble, opportunistic, and flexibly developed. This role is in direct contrast to that
adjusting to meet emerging challenges, opportu- generally ascribed to traditional methodologies,
nities or new forms of competition (learning i.e. that of defining and assimilating strategy
school – Brews and Hunt, 1999). This current knowledge, and therefore represents a contribu-
project has extended knowledge of strategy as an tion to knowledge.
emergent phenomenon through capturing addi- Design and positioning school methodologies
tional insights on the interaction between the played little role in the reflective practice of those
collective structures, the leader’s strategy per- challenging the dominant model, with two
spective and his/her view of the organization’s organizations being established in recent years
environment underpinning this approach. In the as a result of thinking beyond traditional
cases studied, collaborative structures involving industry arenas. While further research is re-
employees and major customers in strategizing quired to support a definitive conclusion, case
underpinned engagement with brainstorming evidence supports the views of Bharadwaj, Clark
methodologies and learning from prior opportu- and Kulviwat (2005) and Calori (1998) that
nistic market engagement. Adaptation and re- traditional methodologies contain strategizing
sponding quickly were confirmed as critical to thinking around current industry structures and
success in following this competitive strategy business models. These two organizations recog-
perspective. nized strategy as a ‘work-in-progress’, the need to
Engagement with design and positioning think outside the ‘box’ and the need for strategic
school methodologies is consistent with Hodg- and organizational flexibility, thus challenging
kinson et al.’s (2006) quantitative research, which rationalist assumptions.
found SWOT, PEST, value chain analysis and In support of a learning framework, Chakra-
BCG were introduced in 62%, 17.2%, 15.1% and varthy (1997) argued strategy frameworks ad-
8.6%, respectively, of recent strategy workshops. dressing the fleeting nature of competitive
‘Just as BCG consultants have spread the BCG advantage should play a more dominant role
matrix as one tool for managing the diversified particularly in high technology contexts. Simi-
firm, consultants, management gurus, as well as larly, Hamel and Prahalad (1994) confirmed that
the business graduates produced by the now developing a point of view about the future
numerous business schools across Europe, may should be an ongoing debate within a company,
constitute a ‘‘virtual community’’ directing com- not a massive one-time effort, and that strategy
panies essentially in similar directions’ (Ruigrok should change rather than accommodate existing
et al., 1999, p. 64). The case data confirmed that industry structure. In addition, Mintzberg, Ahl-
in addition to the methodologies and tools strand and Lampel (1998) promoted the notions
specified above, engagement with cost efficiency of emergence, sense-making, action research,
tools, resource reconfiguration and relationship action learning and adaptive experimentation,
management frameworks was also evident in with companies supporting those strategies that
routinized practice to enhance ordering and are ‘working’ and discarding those that fail to
integration of strategy knowledge, and in reflec- deliver on expectations. While confirming that
tive practice to explore alternative organizational strategy leaders employ reflective practices to
structures and networks. challenge the dominant model and explore what

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

40 D. Jarratt and D. Stiles

is possible, the current research also recognizes Practice insights

the leader’s routinized engagement with tradi-
This research has confirmed that there is not one
tional methodologies in contexts which are
definitive strategizing practice model adopted by
predictable and the forces of change known,
successful business leaders. Leaders’ views on (a)
and where strategic alignment to build client
whether to adopt a stakeholder driven or
organization commitment is sought.
stakeholder driving competitive strategy perspec-
Multiple and/or adjusted traditional methodol-
tive, a combination of these two options, or an
ogies were selected to reduce the risk of misin-
incremental financial model, and (b) their con-
terpreting challenges and comparative resource
fidence in their assumptions underpinning how
constraints influencing current performance.
the business environment will unfold will frame,
However, consistent with prior research, strategy
and be framed by, their practice of engaging with
leaders were of the view that if these methodol-
strategizing methodologies within the collective
ogies are used early in strategizing in environ-
structures of their organization. In contexts
ments considered to be complex and dynamic
where being stakeholder driven defines a strategy
they are unlikely to contain risk as they place ‘no
leader’s competitive strategy perspective and
emphasis on understanding the evolution of in-
unanticipated events do not challenge his or her
cidents, trends, and issues over time, and how
routinized application of strategizing methodol-
these may mutate in the future and result in struc-
ogies, practice norms become entrenched. In
tural changes and discontinuities’ (Burt et al.,
other words, their competitive strategy perspec-
2006, p. 59). Further investigation is encouraged
tive is successfully realized through engaging with
to determine how the timing of engagement with
various combinations of design and positioning
traditional methodologies influences creativity in
school methodologies, game metaphors and
strategizing and subsequently influences long-
resource reconfiguration options.
term performance.
However, in contexts considered dynamic and
There was little evidence of systems designed
complex, and where competitive strategy is viewed
to capture ‘soft or weak signals’ (i.e. observed
as taking the initiative to pre-empt anticipated
events not directly linked to, but intuitively
possible futures, learning methodologies and those
thought to have relevance for, a specific environ-
supporting the articulation of possible futures
ment – van der Heijden, 1997) that can transform
dominate practice. Here, design and positioning
industries. This may be a consequence of the
methodologies play supportive roles such as identi-
challenges of developing and interpreting ex-
fying the gap between the current situation and a
ploratory modes of scenario planning that cap-
future desired position and/or communicating
ture and extract meaning from weak signals, or
strategy knowledge across the organization.
that the interface between scenarios and decision-
The practice-based research approach has
makers has been neglected (Burt et al., 2006; de
revealed that some strategy leaders continue to
Geus, 1988; Wack, 1985; Weick, 1995). Recent
engage with multiple design and positioning
work in the field of exploratory envisioning and
methodologies in their strategizing practice.
foresight explaining the development of multiple,
These traditional approaches are viewed by these
qualitatively prepared, futures includes van der
leaders as offering an appropriate structure for
Heijden et al.’s (2002) influential book referring
collecting and interrogating strategy knowledge,
to the exploratory mode as ‘adaptive organiza-
particularly where future environments are con-
tional learning’. Crossnan et al. (2005) use the
sidered to be an extension of current situations
term ‘organizational improvisation’ to mean a
and/or emerging forces thought to shape antici-
flexible, loose preparatory style of scenario
pated future environments are known.
planning. ‘Futures research’ is also a generic
However, where
term that describes a broad movement within
social science towards developing loose, multiple
pictures of the future for organizations (Adam, (1) a leader has determined that traditional
1997, 2006; Brand, 1999; Slaughter, 2004). This methodologies and tools in their current form
work will be of interest to managers seeking to are unable to capture the interactions and/or
build exploratory approaches within their envi- complexity of the current and emerging
sioning systems. environment, and/or

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Managers’ Strategizing Practice 41

(2) a leader’s competitive strategy perspective is particularly adamant that traditional tools were
one of driving stakeholder environments or a not used in strategizing: ‘I have been told by . . .
combination of stakeholder driven and driv- (Professor of Supply Chain Management) that it
ing approaches, and/or is important to use a triangulation of tools.
(3) events emerged that were not anticipated However, here tools aren’t used’ (Case 7). Others
through current strategizing practice, and/or employed these traditional approaches following
(4) the organization failed to achieve profit envisioning to assess the gap between current and
targets as a consequence of current strategiz- future possibilities.
ing practice and processes, Given the recognition by some informants of
the limitations of traditional methodologies, they
leaders’ reflection on their engagement with sought to address these limitations through
strategizing methodologies was apparent.
The shortcomings of traditional methodologies  using multiple methodologies, e.g. SWOT was
identified in the case data, particularly combined with risk analysis, portfolio analy-
sis, McKinsey’s 7Ss and/or Ansoff’s matrix;
 inadequate definition of factors and an in-  examining the interaction effects between the
ability to capture factor interaction, dimensions contained in frameworks, e.g.
 routinized strategizing leading to the develop- interactions between strengths and both op-
ment of competitive strategic responses similar portunities and threats;
to those of other organizations also engaging  increasing the number of framework dimensions
in similar practice, and – SWOT was implemented at both organiza-
 the belief that the assumption that future tional and industry levels to include challenges
environments are ‘elaborations and extensions being faced by the organization, the industry,
of what is already known’ (Bharadwaj, Clark related industries and the broader economy;
and Kulviwat, 2005, p. 353) is false,  using traditional frameworks in unique ways –
Porter’s five forces model was used to demon-
confirm Pickton and Wright’s (1998), Levy’s
strate how strategic choices can impact on
(2000) and Burt et al.’s (2006) findings. This
stakeholder selection; and
practice-based research approach has revealed an
 introducing frameworks late in the strategizing
alternative reflective practice model of engage-
process, engaging with envisioning prior to
ment with these methodologies. Reflection on
SWOT.
engagement with these methodologies was ap-
parent at a minimalistic level through some
adaptation of the design and positioning meth-
Limitations and future research
odologies under a routinized activity framework,
and also more overtly following engagement with Although (a) the study was designed to capture
learning and envisioning techniques that offer the practice of strategists leading successful
insights into possible futures and discussions on organizations across a broad range of industries
how actions might change those possible futures. in the UK, (b) a large number of cases were
In the latter approach to strategizing practice, included in the current study, and (c) engagement
design and positioning methodologies assume with design and positioning school methodolo-
different roles, an important contribution of this gies observed within the case data was consistent
research. Leaders’ reflective practice was gener- with recent quantitative research (Hodgkinson
ally tied to a view of their business context as et al., 2006), it is possible that alternative
complex and dynamic and, consequently, not strategizing practice frameworks may become
based on the assumption that the future would be evident in an extension of this work. We focused
an extension of the current environment. Reflec- on those leading successful medium and large
tive practice embraced thinking beyond tradi- organizations in the UK; however, some of these
tional boundaries through envisioning and organizations operated beyond UK boundaries,
learning methodologies embedded in a suppor- while others had merged with large European-
tive ‘can do’ culture underpinned by collabora- based organizations, requiring specific changes to
tion and innovation. Some strategists operating leaders’ strategizing practice. Future research might
within this reflective activity framework were focus on specific industries and a comparison of

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

42 D. Jarratt and D. Stiles

strategizing practice of those who have success- Blackler, F. (1995). ‘Knowledge, knowledge work and organi-
fully improved their market position with that of zations: an overview and interpretation’, Organization
those whose market position has remained static Studies, 16, pp. 1021–1046.
Brand, S. (1999). The Clock of the Long Now: Time and
or declined. This might provide important insight Responsibility. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson.
for leaders seeking to build performance. Breene, R. T. S., P. F. Nunes and W. E. Shill (2007). ‘The chief
Of course, methodological limitations provide strategy officer’, Harvard Business Review, 85, pp. 84–93.
opportunities for future research. ‘Drilling down’ Brews, P. J. and M. R. Hunt (1999). ‘Learning to plan and
to interview others involved in strategizing in these planning to learn: resolving the planning school/learning
school debate’, Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 889–
companies may provide other perspectives, 913.
although we have already noted the invasiveness Burt, G., G. Wright, R. Bradfield, G. Cairns and K. van der
and resource intensity of such an approach. Heijden (2006). ‘The role of scenario planning in exploring
Finally, there may be issues of power and identity the environment in view of the limitations of PEST and its
in strategizing not revealed by our method, such as derivatives’, International Studies of Management and Orga-
nizations, 36, pp. 50–76.
the degree to which leaders set and influence the Calori, R. (1998). ‘Essai: philosophizing on strategic manage-
strategic agenda and ideological conflicts between ment models’, Organization Studies, 19, pp. 281–306.
stakeholders. Alternative discursive methods may Chaffee, E. E. (1985). ‘Three models of strategy’, Academy of
focus on such issues, although our approach does Management Review, 10, pp. 89–98.
not deny or downgrade their influence. Chakravarthy, B. (1997). ‘A new strategy framework for
coping with turbulence’, Sloan Management Review, 38, pp.
The collection of our data was completed prior 69–82.
to the current global economic crisis and it is Cornelius, P., A. van de Putte and M. Romani (2005). ‘Three
anticipated that the strategizing practice models decades of scenario planning in Shell’, California Manage-
observed here will be adjusted to meet the ment Review, 48, pp. 92–109.
challenges of the emergence of new business models Crossnan, M., M. P. E. Cunha, D. Vera and J. Cunha (2005).
‘Time and organizational improvisation’, Academy of Man-
and changes in cultures, structures and stakeholder agement Review, 30, pp. 129–145.
relationships as a consequence of economic down- Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis – A User Friendly
turn. It may be that consolidation and retrench- Guide for Social Scientists. London: Routledge.
ment strategies will play a more important role Engeström, Y. (1999). ‘Activity theory and individual and
during such periods. Revisiting the companies may social transformation’. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and
R.-L. Punamäki (eds), Perspectives on Activity Theory, pp.
provide additional insights, although recession-
19–38. New York: Cambridge University Press.
based strategies may be more time specific than Engeström, Y. (2001). ‘Expansive learning at work: towards an
the broader contextual models described here activity theoretical reconceptualization’, Journal of Education
evolving from leaders’ experiences over substantive and Work, 14, pp. 133–156.
time frames. de Geus, A. P. (1988). ‘Planning as learning’, Harvard Business
Review, 66, pp. 70–74.
Gunn, R. and W. Williams (2007). ‘Strategic tools: an empirical
investigation into strategy in practice in the UK’, Strategic
References Change, 16, pp. 201–216.
Hamel, G. and C. K. Prahalad (1994). ‘Competing for the
Adam, B. (1997). Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment future’, Harvard Business Review, 72, pp. 122–128.
and Invisible Hazards. London: Routledge. van der Heijden, K. (1997). Scenarios, Strategies and the
Adam, B. (2006). ‘Time’, Theory, Culture and Society, 23, pp. Strategy Process. Breukelen: Nijenrode University Press.
119–126. van der Heijden, K., R. Bradfield, G. Burt, G. Cairns and
Balogun, J., A. S. Huff and P. Johnson (2003). ‘Three responses G. Wright (2002). The Sixth Sense: Accelerating Organiza-
to the methodological challenges of studying strategizing’, tional Learning with Scenarios. Chichester: Wiley.
Journal of Management Studies, 40, pp. 197–224. Hodgkinson, G. P., R. Whittington, G. Johnson and M.
Barley, S. R. and P. Tolbert (1997). ‘Institutionalization and Schwarz (2006). ‘The role of strategy workshops in strategy
structuration: studying the links between action and institu- development processes: formality, communication, co-ordi-
tion’, Organisation Studies, 18, pp. 93–117. nation and inclusion’, Long Range Planning, 39, pp. 479–496.
Bharadwaj, S., T. Clark and S. Kulviwat (2005). ‘Marketing, Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). ‘Strategic practices: an activity theory
market growth, and endogenous growth theory: an inquiry perspective on continuity and change’, Journal of Manage-
into the causes of market growth’, Journal of the Academy of ment Studies, 40, pp. 23–55.
Marketing Science, 33, pp. 347–359. Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as Practice: an Activity Based
Blackler, F. (1993). ‘Knowledge and the theory of organiza- Approach. London: Sage.
tions: organizations as activity systems and the reframing of Johnson, G., L. Melin and R. Whittington (2003). ‘Micro
management’, Journal of Management Studies, 30, pp. 863– strategy and strategizing: towards an activity-based view’,
884. Journal of Management Studies, 40, pp. 3–22.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Managers’ Strategizing Practice 43

Jones, S. (1985). ‘The analysis of depth interviews’. In R. Walker Quinn, J. (1980). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism.
(ed.), Applied Qualitative Research, pp. 56–70. Aldershot: Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Gower. Reynolds, T. J. and J. Gutman (1988). ‘Laddering theory,
Kaptelinin, V. (2005). ‘The object of activity: making sense of method, analysis, and interpretation’, Journal of Advertising
the sense-maker’, Mind, Culture and Activity, 12, pp. 4–18. Research, 28, pp. 11–31.
Krentz, S. E. and R. S. Gish (2000). ‘Using scenario analysis to Ruigrok, W., A. Pettigrew, S. Peck and R. Whittington (1999).
determine managed care strategy’, Healthcare Financial ‘Corporate restructuring and new forms of organizing:
Management, 54, pp. 41–43. evidence from Europe’, Management International Review,
Kuutti, K. (1996). ‘Activity theory as a potential framework for 39, pp. 41–65.
human–computer interaction research’. In B. A. Nardi (ed.), Sherman, H. and R. Schultz (1999). Open Boundaries: Creating
Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human– Business Innovation through Complexity. Boston, MA:
Computer Interaction, pp. 17–44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Perseus Books.
Press. Slater, S. F., G. T. M. Hult and E. M. Olson (2007). ‘On the
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. importance of matching strategic behavior and target market
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Original work pub- selection to business strategy in high-tech markets’, Journal of
lished 1975). the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, pp. 5–17.
Levy, D. L. (2000). ‘Applications and limitations of com- Slaughter, R. A. (2004). Futures beyond Dystopsia: Creating
plexity theory in organization theory and strategy’. In J. Social Foresight. London: Routledge.
Rabin, G. J. Miller and W. B. Hildreth (eds), Handbook of Strauss, A. M. and J. M. Corbin (1990). ‘Grounded theory
Strategic Management, 2nd edn, pp. 67–87. New York: research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria’, Qual-
Dekker. itative Sociology, 13, pp. 3–21.
MacIntosh, R. and D. Maclean (1999). ‘Conditioned emer- Verity, J. (2003). ‘Scenario planning as a strategy technique’,
gence: a dissipative structures approach to transformation’, European Business Journal, 15, pp. 185–195.
Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 297–316. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). ‘Interaction between learning and
Marshall, N. and J. Rollinson (2004). ‘Maybe Bacon had a development’. In M. Gauvain and M. Cola (eds), Readings on
point: the politics of interpretation in collective sensemaking’, the Development of Children, pp. 34–40. New York: Scientific
British Journal of Management, 15, pp. 71–86. American Books.
Marshall, C. and G. B. Rossman (1989). Designing Qualitative Wack, P. (1985). ‘Scenarios: shooting the rapids’, Harvard
Research. London: Sage. Business Review, 63, pp. 139–150.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). ‘The design school: reconsidering the Watkins, M. D. and M. H. Bazerman (2003). ‘Predictable
basic premises of strategic management’, Strategic Manage- surprises: the disasters you should have seen coming’,
ment Journal, 11, pp. 171–195. Harvard Business Review, 81, pp. 72–81.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense Making in Organizations. London:
New York: Free Press and Prentice Hall International. Sage.
Mintzberg, H. and J. Waters (1985). ‘Of strategies, delibe- Weick, K. E. (2001). Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford:
rate and emergent’, Strategic Management Journal, 6, pp. Blackwell Publishing.
257–272. Whittington, R. (1996). ‘Strategy as practice’, Long RangePlan-
Mintzberg, H., B. Ahlstrand and J. Lampel (1998). Strategy ning, 29, pp. 731–735.
Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Whittington, R. (2001). What is Strategy – and Does It Matter?
Management. New York and Hemel Hempstead: Free Press London: Routledge.
and Prentice Hall Europe. Whittington, R. (2003). ‘The work of strategizing and organiz-
Pickton, D. W. and S. Wright (1998). ‘What’s SWOT in ing: for a practice perspective’, Strategic Organization, 1, pp.
strategic analysis?’, Strategic Change, 7, pp. 101–109. 117–126.

Denise Jarratt is Professor of Marketing and Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Business, at
Charles Sturt University, and is a key researcher in the Centre for Research in Complex Systems.
Her research interests are business networks and strategic alliances, scenario planning, relationship
management, trust, competitive strategy.

Dr David Stiles is Senior Lecturer in Management Strategy and International Business, Department
of Management, at the University of Canterbury. His research interests are strategic management,
organizational image and identity, strategy process and joint ventures and foreign direct investment
in China.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Copyright of British Journal of Management is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.