Elie Chahda

Project description

Strategy research has traditionally adopted a microeconomic lens, rather than a socially-oriented focus on the actual strategising practices that take place within organisations (Jarzabkowski, et al., 2007). However, the recent perception of strategy as something that people do rather than an organisational position has resulted in the emergence of Strategy as Practice (SAP) as a sub-field of strategy research (Jarzabkowski, 2005). Within the broader umbrella of contemporary SAP research, strategic openness has been increasingly gaining popularity, as organisations of different types have begun exhibiting this socially oriented behaviour (Birkinshaw, 2017). What differentiates this unconventional practice from traditional strategy-making is the inclusion of a more comprehensive array of internal and/or external stakeholders, as well as the transparent dissemination of richer information throughout the strategic planning process (Birkinshaw, 2017; Gegenhuber and Dobusch, 2017; Whittington, 2019). This approach does not aim to transfer strategic decision-making rights, but rather refers to shared opinions, views, knowledge, and information (Whittington, et al., 2011).

This research is a case study of a higher education institution where explicit calls for participation are repeatedly issued to stakeholders, and updates on how strategic plans are evolving are regularly provided. It has been clearly articulated that the conversations that are taking place will directly inform strategic plans. Therefore, this case highlights a strong manifestation of the two pillars of openness: inclusion and transparency.  The shift towards increased inclusiveness has so far been made visible via informing agenda-setting activities with stakeholder input, as well as inviting them to participate in strategic conversations that will shape future plans. Increased transparency is evidenced by openly discussing the university’s strategic orientation, plans and agenda, as well as eliciting feedback from all quarters. 

The thesis follows a three papers structure where each focuses on a different aspect of opening up parts of the strategy process. The first paper investigates the antecedents and motives for openness, the second explores the roles and power dynamics throughout praxis during the formulation stage, and the third examines the implications for the process and involved actors. A methodological mix of participant observations, content analysis, and semi-structured interviews is adopted to delve into deep layers of investigation. Such a mixed approach would enable in-depth analyses of the strategy-making process along its progression throughout the different phases, as well as minimise any potential biases that might threaten the validity of the findings.