Toward a Process Theory of Making Sustainability Strategies Legitimate in Action

We draw on a three-year qualitative study of the processual dynamics of implementing a sustainability strategy alongside an existing mainstream competitive strategy. We show that despite the legitimacy of the sustainability strategy at the organizational level, actors experience tensions with its implementation at the action level vis-à-vis the mainstream strategy, thus creating the potential for decoupling. Our findings show that working through these tensions on specific tasks, enables actors to legitimate the sustainability strategy in action and to co-enact it with the mainstream strategy within those tasks. Cumulatively, multiple instances of such co-enactment at the action level reinforce the organizational-level legitimacy of the sustainability strategy and its integration with the mainstream strategy. We draw these findings together into a dynamic process model that contributes to the literature on integration of dual strategies at the action and organizational levels as a process of legitimacy making

Practicing Capitals Across Fields: Extending Bourdieu to Study Inter-Field Dynamics

This essay extends a Bourdieusian perspective on the microfoundations of institutions. Drawing on this perspective, we argue that the recursive dynamics of institutions and action orient actors towards the maintenance of distinct and contradictory practices within, rather than bridging across, different fields. We corroborate our argument with an illustration of how corporate executives strategize within the tax field compared to the philanthropy field. Specifically, we show how actors are simultaneously oriented by different capitals towards apparently contradictory strategies. Our essay provides promising avenues for future research on the microfoundations of institutions, inter-field dynamics, and critical accounting and business ethics studies

Trading risks: The value of relationships, models and face-to-face interaction in the global reinsurance market

Over the past 20 years, the reinsurance industry has experienced three profound forces for change. First, technological change has improved information distribution and strengthened connections between global markets. Second, regulatory emphasis on global equivalence in trading practices has generated pressure for convergence across different marketplaces. Third, the widespread acceptance of vendor property catastrophe models has led to more standardised approaches to the evaluation of reinsurance risks, levelling the playing field for decision-making on at least some classes of business. These changes have intensified competition between reinsurance markets. Reinsurance trading centres in remote geographic locations, such as Bermuda, where it is more difficult to transact business face-to-face, have been able to write risk via electronic communications and now have very significant positions in the global reinsurance market. Simultaneously, Lloyd’s of London, one of the original reinsurance markets that is still very much based on the face-to-face approach, has demonstrated its capability to weather financial shocks and downturns and remains an important player in global reinsurance

Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge

In this paper we outline a methodological framework for studying the inter-organizational aspects of paradoxes and specify this in relation to grand challenges. Grand challenges are large-scale, complex, enduring problems that affect large populations, have a strong social component, and appear intractable. Our methodological insights draw from our study of the insurance protection gap, a grand challenge that arises when economic losses from largescale disaster significantly exceed the insured loss, leading to economic and social hardship for the affected communities. We provide insights into collecting data to uncover the paradoxical elements inherent in grand challenges and then propose three analytical techniques for studying inter-organizational paradoxes: zooming in and out, tracking problematization, and tracking boundaries and boundary organizations. These techniques can be used to identify and follow how contradictions and interdependences emerge and dynamically persist within inter-organizational interactions and how these shape and are shaped by the unfolding dynamics of the grand challenge. Our techniques and associated research design help advance paradox theorizing by moving it to the inter-organizational and systemic level. This paper also illustrates paradox as a powerful lens through which to further our understanding of grand challenges

Agreeing on what? creating joint accounts of strategic change

This paper addresses a fundamental conundrum at the heart of meaning-making: how are multiple meanings accommodated within a joint account, given the plurivocal nature of organizations? While a new strategic initiative introduces new meanings that must coexist within multiple prevailing meanings; studies on meaning-making processes place different emphases on the accommodation of such multiplicity within a joint account. Based on the findings from a longitudinal case study conducted in a university setting, we develop a framework that demonstrates two patterns of meaning-making on the basis of distinct micro processes of expanding, combining and reframing that are involved in the accomplishment of a joint account. Our study offers counter-intuitive insights into the way vested interests enable or constrain the construction of a joint account of meaning. In doing so, we contribute to knowledge about resistance, ambiguity and the role of agreement, or lack of agreement in constructing joint accounts within a plurivocal context

Navigating the tensions of quality in qualitative research

In this essay that serves to introduce the So!apbox Forum on quality in qualitative research, we argue that achieving quality involves a process of navigating the tensions between structure and creativity, and between accountability and professionalism. Guidelines for achieving quality such as those offered in this forum or elsewhere should not therefore be seen as absolute standards, templates or checklists to be strictly followed, but rather as toolkits that can assist in navigating the tensions involved in participating in and developing the qualitative research craft as a community of scholars, reviewers and editors

Islamic Family Business: The Constitutive Role of Religion in Business

Religion has significantly influenced societies throughout history and across the globe. Family firms—particularly those operating in strongly religious regions—are more likely to be subject to the influence of religion. However, little is known about the mechanisms by which religion affects business activities in family firms. We study how religion impacts business activities through a qualitative study of two Anatolian-based family firms in Turkey. We find that religion provides a dominant meaning system that plays a key role in constituting business activities through three mechanisms: (1) family imports religious practices as business practices; (2) family adheres to religious values as a rationale for business actions; and (3) family religious values define business taboos by avoiding the evil eye. These mechanisms highlight how religion becomes a source of well-understood business practices, how religion defines the nature of rationality that guides business activities, and how religious taboos can delimit the range of potential business activities, respectively

Completing the adaptive turn: An integrative view of strategy implementation

Based on our review of the past forty years of strategy implementation research, we find that the focus of the research area has moved from the pioneering structural control view to a more adaptive conception of strategy implementation. While early research focused mainly on how to conceptualize strategy implementation plans and how to establish optimal structures, systems, incentives, and controls for strategy implementation, the adaptive turn has shifted the research emphasis on to how organizations make sense of and enact strategies in practice. Although this adaptive turn has contributed significantly to understanding how strategies are implemented and adapted, it has also led to a further fragmentation of the field. We put forward an integrative view that aims at combining the distinctive strengths of the two complementary views. Instead of focusing either on conceptualizing or on enacting, we call for researchers to examine the continuous interplay of conceptualizing and enacting strategies at multiple hierarchical levels and in multiple organizational units simultaneously. We hope that our review will inspire future strategy implementation research to complete the adaptive turn through an enhanced, integrative view of strategy implementation

Discourse revisited : dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption

Despite decades of research on strategy, we still know little about what the concept of strategy means to actual strategists and how they use it in practice. Working at the intersections of institutional and practice theories, we use exploratory interviews with strategy directors and a longitudinal case study to uncover four dimensions of first-order strategy discourse: functional, contextual, identity, and metaphorical. We also reveal three phases in the interrelation between first-order strategy discourse and institutional work: shaping, settling, and selling and a differential emphasis (selective focusing) on dimensions of the first-order strategy discourse during the institutional adoption process. We contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept of strategy in practice, the process of institutional adoption, and of the role of discourse in this process

Producing persuasive findings: Demystifying ethnographic textwork in strategy and organization research

Despite the importance and proliferation of ethnography in strategy and organization research, the central issue of how to present ethnographic findings has rarely been discussed. Yet, the narratives we craft to share our experience of the field are at the heart of ethnographic papers and provide the primary basis for our theorizing. In this article, we explain the “textwork” involved in writing persuasive findings. We provide an illustrative example of ethnographic data as it is recorded within fieldnotes and explain the necessary conceptual and writing work that must be done to render such data persuasive, drawing on published exemplars of ethnographic articles. This allows us to show how such texts, through various forms of writing and data representation, are transformed from raw fieldnotes to comprehensible findings. We conclude by asserting the value of these specifically ethnographic ways of presenting evidence, which are at odds with the canonical methods of data presentation in management studies