Strategy as a ‘Project’: overcoming dualisms in the strategy debate

David Knights · Frank U. Mueller

29 citations0/0 files storedEuropean Management Review

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Management and Organizational Studies Management and Organizational Practices Organizational Strategy and Culture

Abstract

Abstract This paper is concerned to challenge a selection of the strategy literature on the basis that it tends to follow one or other side of a polarity between a subjective and an objective approach. There is a tendency here for strategy analysis to collapse into subjectivism (e.g. a reification of personalities) or objectivism (e.g. structural determinism) respectively. In seeking to avoid the worst excesses of dualism, we focus on strategy as a project in which numerous stakeholders make demands and serve to condition its development. A notion of strategy as a perennially unfinished project allows us to see how it is in a continuous process of self‐formation and reconstruction. As a project, strategy may appear in different discursive configurations depending on which of the stakeholders (e.g. managers, shareholders, competitors, suppliers, intermediaries, the financial community, consultants, regulators, and customers) a corporation is focused on impressing or placating. For example, managers might embrace a core competence narrative or cost‐cutting practices in order to maintain or enhance stock market ratings in the financial community. At the same time, strategy is invariably focused on securing the support or loyalty of its customers. This may involve heavy resources being directed towards advertising and brand imaging as well as service quality as part of a strategy of constituting the subjectivity of the (actual or prospective) customer. All this takes place within the framework of constraints laid down by regulators that leave corporate decision‐makers limited room for manoeuvre. The paper draws on a limited number of empirical vignettes through which to illustrate our arguments concerning this approach to strategy as a project.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage 2004Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage 1995Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches 1993The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view 1993Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks 1990Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice 1991Towards a dynamic theory of strategy 1988The Practice of Everyday Life

Cited by

2009A multi-level investigation of international marketing projects: The roles of experiential knowledge and creativity on performance 2015Framing Dynamically Changing Firm–Stakeholder Relationships in an International Dispute Over a Foreign Investment 2018Managing patterns of internationalization, integration, and identity transformation: The post-acquisition metamorphosis of an Arabian Gulf EMNC 2024From impact to impacting: A pragmatist perspective on tackling grand challenges 2011From Levitt to the global age: one more time, how do we define our business?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.