Practices of Transparency in Open Strategy: Beyond the Dichotomy of Voluntary and Mandatory Disclosure

doi:10.1017/9781108347921.009

Chapter 8 - Practices of Transparency in Open Strategy: Beyond the Dichotomy of Voluntary and Mandatory Disclosure

from Part II - Practices of Open Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2019

Tanja Ohlson and

Edited by

Georg von Krogh and

David Seidl: Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Georg von Krogh: Affiliation:
Swiss Federal University (ETH), Zürich
Richard Whittington: Affiliation:
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Openness is in vogue for a small but growing camp of governance reformers (Tihanyi et al., 2014; McGahan, 2015; Almirall et al., 2014; Kube et al., 2015; Mergel, 2015), and innovation scholars (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Randhawa et al., 2016). Achieved through transparency and/or inclusion (Whittington et al., 2011), openness has recently become a recognizable theme in strategy literature (Birkinshaw, 2017; Alexy et al., 2018; Matzler et al., 2014a) and is implemented by strategy practitioners in profit-based (i.e., IBM) and nonprofit organizations (i.e., Wikimedia and Creative Commons).

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy , pp. 136 - 150

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347921.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Addison, J. T. (2005). The determinants of firm performance: Unions, works councils, and employee involvement. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52, 406–450.Google Scholar

Aggarwal, R., Erel, I., & Starks, L. T. (2015). Influence of public opinion on investor voting and proxy advisors. Fisher College of Business Working Paper No. WP 2014-03-12; Georgetown McDonough School of Business Research Paper No. 2447012; Dice Center Working Paper No. 2014-12. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2447012 Google Scholar

Alexy, O., West, J., Klapper, H., & Reitzig, M. (2018). Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 1704–1727.Google Scholar

Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Open innovation requires integrated competition-community ecosystems: Lessons learned from civic open innovation. Business Horizons, 57, 391–400.CrossRef Google Scholar

Amrollahi, A., Khansari, M., & Manian, A. (2014). How Open Source Software succeeds? A review of research on success of Open Source Software. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 6, 67–77.Google Scholar

Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50, 310–321.Google Scholar

Baptista, J., Wilson, A. D., Galliers, R. D., & Bynghall, S. (2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50, 322–336.Google Scholar

Becht, M., Franks, J., Mayer, C., & Rossi, S. (2010). Returns to shareholder activism: Evidence from a clinical study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund. Review of Financial Studies, 23, 3093–3129.Google Scholar

Benner, M. J., & Zenger, T. (2016). The lemons problem in markets for strategy. Strategy Science, 1, 71–89.Google Scholar

Berger, B., & Vaccarino, E. (2016). Codetermination in Germany – A role model for the UK and the US? [Online]. Bruegel. Available: http://bruegel.org/2016/10/codetermination-in-germany-a-role-model-for-the-uk-and-the-us/ [Accessed October 27, 2017].Google Scholar

Beunza, D., & Garud, R. (2007). Calculators, lemmings or frame‐makers? The intermediary role of securities analysts. The Sociological Review, 55, 13–39.Google Scholar

Birkinshaw, J. (2017). Reflections on open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50, 423–426.Google Scholar

Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social activism in and around organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 671–727.Google Scholar

Chakravarthy, B. S. (1986). Measuring strategic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 437–458.Google Scholar

Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1–23.Google Scholar

Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. New frontiers in open innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.Google Scholar

Cowen, A. P., & Marcel, J. J. (2011). Damaged goods: Board decisions to dismiss reputationally compromised directors. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 509–527.Google Scholar

Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39, 699–709.Google Scholar

Dobusch, L., & Muller-Seitz, G. (2015). Closing open strategy: Strategy as a practice of thousands in the case of Wikimedia. Free University of Berlin working paper. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.Google Scholar

Doshi, A. R., Dowell, G. W., & Toffel, M. W. (2013). How firms respond to mandatory information disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1209–1231.Google Scholar

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60, 2835–2857.Google Scholar

Eccles, R. G., Serafeim, G., & Krzus, M. P. (2011). Market interest in nonfinancial information. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 23, 113–127.Google Scholar

Ertimur, Y., Ferri, F., & Oesch, D. (2013). Shareholder votes and proxy advisors: Evidence from say on pay. Journal of Accounting Research, 51, 951–996.Google Scholar

Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Beauchamp, T. & Bowie, N. (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75–93). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Fauver, L., & Fuerst, M. E. (2006). Does good corporate governance include employee representation? Evidence from German corporate boards. Journal of Financial Economics, 82, 673–710.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gast, A., & Zanini, M. (2012). The social side of strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 82–93.Google Scholar

Gegenhuber, T., & Dobusch, L. (2017). Making an impression through openness: How open strategy-making practices change in the evolution of new ventures. Long Range Planning, 50, 337–354.Google Scholar

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448.Google Scholar

Goodman, J., Louche, C., van Cranenburgh, K. C., & Arenas, D. (2014). Social shareholder engagement: The dynamics of voice and exit. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 193–210.Google Scholar

Goranova, M., & Ryan, L. V. (2014). Shareholder activism: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 40, 1230–1268.Google Scholar

Gramm, J. (2016). Dear chairman: Boardroom battles and the rise of shareholder activism. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Greve, H., Rowley, T., & Shipilov, A. (2013). Network advantage: How to unlock value from your alliances and partnerships. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Haefliger, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D., & von Krogh, G. (2011). Social software and strategy. Long Range Planning, 44, 297–316.Google Scholar

Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.Google Scholar

Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50, 298–309.Google Scholar

Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1727–1748.Google Scholar

Heracleous, L., Goesswein, J., & Beaudette, P. (2018). Open strategy-making at the Wikimedia Foundation: A dialogic perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54, 5–35.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, 125–139.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, 479–496.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12, 414–434.Google Scholar

Iliev, P., & Lowry, M. (2014). Are mutual funds active voters? The Review of Financial Studies, 28, 446–485.Google Scholar

Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.Google Scholar

Klein, A., & Zur, E. (2009). Entrepreneurial shareholder activism: Hedge funds and other private investors. The Journal of Finance, 64, 187–229.Google Scholar

Kube, M., Hilgers, D., Koch, G., & Fuller, J. (2015). Explaining voluntary citizen online participation using the concept of citizenship: An explanatory study on an open government platform. Journal of Business Economics, 85, 873–895.Google Scholar

Litov, L. P., Moreton, P., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Corporate strategy, analyst coverage, and the uniqueness paradox. Management Science, 58, 1797–1815.Google Scholar

Luedicke, M. K., Husemann, K. C., Furnari, S., & Ladstaetter, F. (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the Premium Cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50, 371–384.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mack, D. Z., & Szulanski, G. (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50, 385–396.Google Scholar

Matzler, K., Fuller, J., Hutter, K., Hautz, J., & Stieger, D. (2014a). Open strategy: Towards a research agenda. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2416937 Google Scholar

Matzler, K., Fuller, J., Koch, B., Hautz, J., & Hutter, K. (2014b). Open strategy – A new strategy paradigm? In Matzler, K., Pechlaner, H., & Renzl, B. (Eds.), Strategie und Leadership. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.Google Scholar

McGahan, A. (2015). Opening governance. Theme for the 75th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 2015. Academy of Management, Vancouver.Google Scholar

Mergel, I. (2015). Opening government: Designing open innovation processes to collaborate with external problem solvers. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 599–612.Google Scholar

Muller-Seitz, G., & Guttel, W. (2014). Toward a choreography of congregating: A practice-based perspective on organizational absorptive capacity in a semiconductor industry consortium. Management Learning, 45, 477–497.Google Scholar

Neeley, T. B., & Leonardi, P. M. (2018). Enacting knowledge strategy through social media: Passable trust and the paradox of nonwork interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 922–946.Google Scholar

Newstead, B., & Lanzerotti, L. (2010). Can you open-source your strategy? Harvard Business Review, October 2010.Google Scholar

Page, R. (2009). Co-determination in Germany – A beginner’s guide. Arbeitspapier 33 (Ed.). Düsseldorf: Hans Böckler Stiftung.Google Scholar

Partnoy, F., & Davidoff, Solomon, S. (2017). Frank and Steven’s excellent corporate raiding adventure. The Atlantic [Online]. Available: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/frank-and-stevens-excellent-corporate-raiding-adventure/521436/ [Accessed October 17, 2017].Google Scholar

Plesner, U., & Gulbrandsen, I. T. (2015). Strategy and new media: A research agenda. Strategic Organization, 13, 153–162.Google Scholar

Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (2002). Managing cognition and strategy: Issues, trends and future directions. Handbook of Strategy Management Communication Quarterly, 165–181.Google Scholar

Primark, (2018). Es lief vieles nicht fair. Einblick. DGB.Google Scholar

Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33, 750–772.Google Scholar

Rindova, V. P., & Fombrun, C. J. (1999). Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 691–710.Google Scholar

Sandbu, M. (2017). Hail the large activist investor. Financial Times [Online]. Available: www.ft.com/content/2833b1f6-bd5a-11e7-b8a3-38a6e068f464.Google Scholar

Sauder, A. (2018). #1: Push or Pull in Transformations? [Online]. Available: www.linkedin.com/pulse/1-push-pull-transformations-axel-sauder/ [Accessed July 22, 2018].Google Scholar

Schilling, M. A. (2010). Strategic management of technological innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar

Schwartz-Ziv, M., & Weisbach, M. S. (2013). What do boards really do? Evidence from minutes of board meetings. Journal of Financial Economics, 108, 349–366.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shipilov, A. V., Greve, H. R., & Rowley, T. J. (2010). When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 846–864.Google Scholar

Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In Hambrick, D. (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35–65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar

Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. J. C. M. R. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54, 44–68.Google Scholar

Tackx, K., & Verdin, P. (2014). Can co-creation lead to better strategy? An exploratory research. Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Working Papers, 14–027.Google Scholar

Tihanyi, L., Graffin, S., & George, G. (2014). Rethinking governance in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1535–1543.CrossRef Google Scholar

Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6, 280–321.Google Scholar

Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis‐Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22, 531–544.Google Scholar

Whittington, R., Yakis-Douglas, B., Ahn, K., & Cailluet, L. (2016). Strategic planners in more turbulent times: The changing job characteristics of strategy professionals, 1960–2003. Long Range Planning, 50(1), 108–119.Google Scholar

Wigboldus, J. E., Grift, Y., van den Berg, A., & Looise, J. K. (2016). The economic effects of works councils: Channels and conditions. Using secondary data to test a new theoretical model. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 37, 535–565.Google Scholar

Yakis-Douglas, B., Angwin, D., Ahn, K., & Meadows, M. (2017). Opening M&A strategy to investors: Predictors and outcomes of transparency during organisational transition. Long Range Planning, 50, 411–422.Google Scholar

Zenger, T. (2013). What is the theory of your firm? Harvard Business Review, 91, 72–78.Google Scholar

Zhang, Y., & Wiersema, M. F. (2009). Stock market reaction to CEO certification: The signaling role of CEO background. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 693–710.Google Scholar

Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1398–1438.Google Scholar

Zuckerman, E. W. (2000). Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and de-diversification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 591–619.Google Scholar