Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Introduction
- Part I The Concept of Open Strategy
- Part II Practices of Open Strategy
- Chapter 5 Practices of Inclusion in Open Strategy
- Chapter 6 Interorganizational Strategizing
- Chapter 7 Crowdsourcing in Open Strategy: What Can Open Strategy Learn from Open Innovation?
- Chapter 8 Practices of Transparency in Open Strategy: Beyond the Dichotomy of Voluntary and Mandatory Disclosure
- Chapter 9 Orientations of Open Strategy: From Resistance to Transformation
- Part III Technological Assemblages for Open Strategy
- Part IV Theoretical Perspectives
- Part V Challenges of Open Strategy
- Index
- References
Chapter 6 - Interorganizational Strategizing
from Part II - Practices of Open Strategy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2019
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Introduction
- Part I The Concept of Open Strategy
- Part II Practices of Open Strategy
- Chapter 5 Practices of Inclusion in Open Strategy
- Chapter 6 Interorganizational Strategizing
- Chapter 7 Crowdsourcing in Open Strategy: What Can Open Strategy Learn from Open Innovation?
- Chapter 8 Practices of Transparency in Open Strategy: Beyond the Dichotomy of Voluntary and Mandatory Disclosure
- Chapter 9 Orientations of Open Strategy: From Resistance to Transformation
- Part III Technological Assemblages for Open Strategy
- Part IV Theoretical Perspectives
- Part V Challenges of Open Strategy
- Index
- References
Summary
Increasingly, organizations choose to develop their strategy collaboratively with other organizations, which is known as “interorganizational strategizing.” These new forms of collaboration are quite remarkable not least because they seem to go against much of the traditional strategy research (Barney, 2001), which puts a premium on inimitability. Interorganizational strategizing can be formally defined as engaging in a strategy process jointly with other organizations. This definition distinguishes interorganizational strategizing from other forms of collaboration that do not involve autonomous organizations. Interorganizational strategizing may be asymmetrical, with one organization explicitly taking the lead and asking other organizations to join its strategy process (e.g., Aten & Thomas, 2016), or symmetrical, with several organizations joining forces on a more or less equal basis (e.g., Teulier & Rouleau, 2013). Interorganizational strategizing also varies in its degree of formality. On the one end of the spectrum we have collaborations in the form of official workshops and meetings. On the other end we have informal discussions on strategy among strategists that meet for instance at a conference.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy , pp. 106 - 120Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Abrahamsen, M. H., Henneberg, S. C., Huemer, L., & Naudé, P. (2016). Network picturing: An action research study of strategizing in business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 107–119.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. E. (2016). Getting acquainted with social networks and apps: Picking up the slack in communication and collaboration. Library Hi Tech News, 9, 6–9.Google Scholar
Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aten, K., & Thomas, G. F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 148–180.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 15–36.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition – Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456.Google Scholar
Bowman, G. (2016). The practice of scenario planning: An analysis of inter- and intra-organizational strategizing. British Journal of Management, 27(1), 77–96.Google Scholar
Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brummans, B., Cooren, F., Robichaud, D., & Taylor, J. (2014). Approaches to the communicative constitution of organizations. In Putnam, L. L. & Mumby, D. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 173–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 98. https://hbr.org/2008/05/strategy-as-a-wicked-problemGoogle Scholar
Cardon, P. W., & Marshall, B. (2015). The hype and reality of social media use for work collaboration and team communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(3), 273–293.Google Scholar
Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 895–907.Google Scholar
Colville, I., Brown, A. D., & Pye, A. (2012). Simplexity: Sensemaking, organizing and storytelling for our time. Human Relations, 65(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170.Google Scholar
Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.Google Scholar
de Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., van Kranenburg, H., & Freeman, E. (2017). Reviewing the role of stakeholders in operational research: A stakeholder theory perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 402–410.Google Scholar
de Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., van Kranenburg, H., Freeman, E., & van Breen, H. (2016). Sustainability transition dynamics: Towards overcoming policy resistance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111 (October 2016), 135–145.Google Scholar
Deken, F., Berends, H., Gemser, G., & Lauche, K. (2018). Strategizing and the initiation of interorganizational collaboration through prospective resourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1920–1950.Google Scholar
Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2001). Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 167.Google Scholar
Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2008). Fast strategy: How strategic agility will help you stay ahead of the game. Harlow, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. (2000). Group support systems: A descriptive evaluation of case and field studies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 115–159.Google Scholar
Franco, L. A. (2008). Facilitating collaboration with problem structuring methods: A case study of an inter-organisational construction partnership. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(4), 267–286.Google Scholar
Franco, L. A., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(3), 489–500.Google Scholar
Gadde, L.-E., Huemer, L., & Håkansson, H. (2003). Strategizing in industrial networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(5), 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, A. O., & Hunton-Clarke, L. (2003). A typology of stakeholder participation for company environmental decision-making. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5), 292–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hákansson, H., & Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55, 133–139.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. (1982). Environmental scanning and organizational strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 3(2), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2006). Swimming with sharks: Creating strategic change through multi-sector collaboration. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 1(1/2), 96.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 7–18.Google Scholar
Heger, T., & Boman, M. (2015). Networked foresight – The case of EIT ICT Labs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 147–164.Google Scholar
Henneberg, S. C., Mouzas, S., & Naudé, P. (2006). Network pictures: Concepts and representations. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 408–429.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P. (1997). Cognitive inertia in a turbulent market: The Case of UK residential estate agents. Journal of Management Studies, 34(6), 921–945.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P., Whittington, R., Johnson, G., & Schwarz, M. (2006). The role of strategy workshops in strategy development processes: Formality, communication, co-ordination and inclusion. Long Range Planning, 39(5), 479–496.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. (2011). Research in cognition and strategy: Reflections on two decades of progress and a look to the future. Journal of Management Studies, 48(3), 665–695.Google Scholar
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1995). A procedural justice model of strategic decision making: Strategy content implications in the multinational. Organization Science, 6(1), 44–61.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.Google Scholar
Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Mattsson, L. G. (1987). Management of strategic change in a “markets-as-networks” perspective. In Pettigrew, A. (Ed.), The management of strategic change (pp. 234–256). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Narayanan, V. K., Zane, L. J., & Kemmerer, B. (2011). The cognitive perspective in strategy: An integrative review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 305–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., & Vogel, D. R. (1991). Information technology for negotiating groups: Generating options for mutual gain. Management Science, 37(10), 1325–1346.Google Scholar
Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail: Avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Nutt, P. C. (2004). Averting decision debacles. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(3), 239–265.Google Scholar
Nutt, P. C. (2008). Investigating the success of decision making processes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 425–455.Google Scholar
Öberg, C., Shih, T. T.-Y., & Chou, H.-H. (2016). Network strategies and effects in an interactive context. Industrial Marketing Management, 52, 117–127.Google Scholar
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 403–445.Google Scholar
Pina e Cunha, M., & Chia, R. (2007). Using teams to avoid peripheral blindness. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 559–573.Google Scholar
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reger, R. K., & Palmer, T. B. (1996). Managerial categorization of competitors: Using old maps to navigate new environments. Organization Science, 7(1), 22–39.Google Scholar
Richardson, G., Andersen, D., Maxwell, T., & Stewart, T. (1994). Foundations of mental model research. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Stirling, Scotland.Google Scholar
Rouwette, E., Bleijenbergh, I., & Vennix, J. (2016). Group model-building to support public policy: Addressing a conflicted situation in a problem neighbourhood. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouwette, E. A., Vennix, J. A., & Mullekom, T. V. (2002). Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18(1), 5–45.Google Scholar
Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 218–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidthuber, L., & Wiener, M. (2018). Aiming for a sustainable future: Conceptualizing public open foresight. Public Management Review, 20(1), 82–107.Google Scholar
Seidl, D., & Werle, F. (2018). Inter-organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic meta-problems: Requisite variety and the dynamics of participation. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 830–858.Google Scholar
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68.Google Scholar
Sutanto, J., Tan, C. H., Battistini, B., & Phang, C. W. (2011). Emergent leadership in virtual collaboration settings: A social network analysis approach. Long Range Planning, 44(5–6), 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Huber, G. P. (1998). Firm and industry as determinants of executive perceptions of the environment. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 793–807.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.Google Scholar
Teulier, R., & Rouleau, L. (2013). Middle managers’ sensemaking and interorganizational change initiation: Translation spaces and editing practices. Journal of Change Management, 13(3), 308–337.Google Scholar
Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161.Google Scholar
van der Duin, P., Heger, T., & Schlesinger, M. D. (2014). Toward networked foresight? Exploring the use of futures research in innovation networks. Futures, 59, 62–78.Google Scholar
Westley, F., & Vredenburg, H. (1997). Interorganizational collaboration and the preservation of global biodiversity. Organization Science, 8(4), 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis‐Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, A. (2003). Section 1. Introduction to the project. Journal of Risk Research, 6(4–6), 291–293.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, A., & Mangalagiu, D. (2012). Learning with futures to realise progress towards sustainability: The WBCSD Vision 2050 Initiative. Futures, 44(4), 372–384.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by