Centralised or decentralised? Strategic implications of resource allocation models

This paper examines the strategic implications of resource allocation models (RAMs). Four interrelated aspects of resource allocation are discussed: degree of centralisation, locus of strategic direction, cross-subsidy, and locus of control. The paper begins with a theoretical overview of these concepts, locating the study in the contexts of both strategic management literature and the university. The concepts are then examined empirically, drawing upon a longitudinal study of three UK universities, Warwick, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and Oxford Brookes. Findings suggest that RAMs are historically and culturally situated within the context of each university and this is associated with different patterns of strategic direction and forms of strategic control. As such, the RAM in use may be less a matter of best practice than one of internal fit. The paper concludes with some implications for theory and practice by discussing the potential trajectories of each type of RAM

The Influence of Routine Interdependence and Skillful Accomplishment on the Coordination of Standardizing and Customizing

This paper advances understanding of the coordination of interdependence between multiple intersecting routines and its influence on the balancing of coexisting ostensive patterns. Building on a professional service routine – the deal appraisal routine – and its intersections with four related routines, we develop a dynamic framework that explains the coordination of standardization and flexibility in four ways. First, intersecting routines have shifting salience in the performance of a focal routine, and this shifting salience is enacted through professional skill and judgment. Second, each intersection amplifies pressure towards one or the other ostensive pattern thus introducing dynamism into the balancing of competing ostensive patterns. Third, professionals skillfully acknowledge these pressures from intersecting routines to orient towards one ostensive pattern and then reorient the performance of the routine towards the opposite ostensive pattern. Fourth, this balancing act, which we theorize as reciprocal task interdependence, occurs within the moment of performing each task, so providing a highly dynamic understanding of the association between routine interdependence and the coordination of coexisting ostensive patterns

Building a strategy toolkit:lessons from business : executive briefings

In an increasingly competitive business environment, the ability to spot and seize new opportunities, to plot a path of successful growth for an organisation, and to use resources effectively and efficiently, becomes paramount. Managers have a number of management tools at their disposal to help meet the challenges that they face. By consulting with both business academics and alumni on their knowledge and use of strategy tools, this report contains a number of strategy tools that managers would benefit from being familiar and using in their work, particularly as their experience and seniority increases

Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism

This chapter takes a social theory of practice approach to examining institutional work; that is, how institutions are created, maintained, and disrupted through the actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors. We examine alternative approaches that organizations use to deal with institutional pluralism based on a longitudinal real-time case study of a utility company grappling with opposing market and regulatory logics over time. These two logics required the firm to both mitigate its significant market power and also maintain its commercially competitive focus and responsiveness to shareholders. Institutional theorists have long acknowledged that institutions have a central logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991) or rationality (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995/2001; Townley, 2002), comprising a set of material and symbolic practices and organizing principles that provide logics of action for organizations and individuals, who then reproduce the institutions through their actions (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Despite a monolithic feel to much institutional theory, in which a dominant institutional logic appears to prevail, institutional theorists also acknowledge the plurality of institutions (e.g. Friedland & Alford, 1991; Kraatz & Block, 2008; Lounsbury, 2007; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Whittington, 1992). While these pluralistic institutions may be interdependent, they are not considered to coexist in harmony; “There is no question but that many competing and inconsistent logics exist in modern society” (Scott, 1995: 130)

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

Pensando e agindo estrategicamente:novos desafios para a análise estratégical

Este artigo estabelece uma postura crítica e analítica em relação às abordagens baseadas em microatividades para se entender a estratégia. Argumenta-se que tais abordagens trazem desafios teóricos e empíricos importantes. Argumenta-se também contra a tendência ao reducionismo, sem igual ênfase nas influências contextuais que configuram a estratégia em um nível micro. Finalmente, o artigo defende uma abordagem mais internacional e comparativa para os estudos da estratégia em um nível micro. This paper takes a critical and evaluative stance toward micro-activity-based approaches to understanding strategy. It argues that such approaches bring with them important theoretical and empirical challenges. The paper argues against a tendency to reductionism without equal emphasis to the contextual influences that bound micro-strategising. Finally, the paper argues for a more international and comparative approach to micro-strategy studies than has currently been the case

Charting new territory for organizational ethnography: Insights from a team-based video ethnography of reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London

Increasing complexity, fragmentation, mobility, pace, and technological intermediation of organizational life make “being there” increasingly difficult. Where do ethnographers have to be, when, for how long, and with whom to “be there” and grasp the practices, norms, and values that make the situation meaningful to natives? These novel complexities call for new forms of organizational ethnography. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the above issues

Beyond borders:charting the changing global reinsurance landscape

This report presents the full results from a two-phase study commissioned by the IICI, looking at the London, Bermuda, Continental European and Asia Pacific reinsurance markets from the perspective of cedents, reinsurers and brokers. An interim report from Phase 1 was released at Monte Carlo in 2010

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