Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T07:18:38.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Play, analogical reasoning and dialogue in the crafting of strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2011

Loizos Heracleous  and
Claus D. Jacobs
Loizos Heracleous
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Claus D. Jacobs
Affiliation:
Universität St Gallen, Switzerland
Get access

Summary

In the previous chapter, we developed a concept of crafting strategy as embodied recursive enactment by drawing on theoretical/conceptual antecedents, namely physiological, psychological and communicative aspects of crafting. In this chapter, we extend and nuance this line of reasoning by exploring three social practices that are crucial to crafting strategy as embodied recursive enactment.

First and in terms of the physiological/manual dimension, we explore the concept of play as a human capacity that in our context consists mainly in the relaxation of rational intentionality and manipulation of objects in order to discover new insights. Secondly, and in terms of the cognitive/psychological dimension, we explore the human capacity of analogical reasoning, in our case through the process of constructing and interpreting physical analogs. Thirdly, and in terms of the communicative dimension, we discuss the concept of dialogue as a specific communicative mode that allows for reflective as well as generative meaning negotiation.

Crafting strategy draws on and mobilizes these three related, yet distinct practices in terms of embodied recursive enactment. We present each of them in a separate section and illustrate with empirical examples. Table 5.1 summarizes these considerations.

Playing seriously: relaxing rational intentionality and manipulating objects

Serious play as a technology of foolishness

Strategy formation has intentional as well as emergent aspects. Typically, intentionality in strategy research refers to actions that are deliberately directed towards the achievement of some purpose.

Type
Chapter
Information
Crafting Strategy
Embodied Metaphors in Practice
 , pp. 90 - 114
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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.)

References

Baden Fuller, C. and Stopford, J.M. 1994. Rejuvenating the mature business: The competitive challenge. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, F. J. and Cooperrider, D. L. 1990. Generative metaphor intervention: A new behavioral approach for working with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26: 219–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1): 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, A. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Choi, D. and Valikangas, L. 2001. Patterns of strategy innovation. European Management Journal, 19(4): 424–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, S.E. 1980. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., and Law, K. 1995. MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19(2): 141–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. and Ford, L. 1995. The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 541–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadamer, H. G. 2002. Truth and method. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. and Markman, A. B. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1): 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., and Kokinov, B. N. 2001. The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gergen, K.J., Gergen, M.M., and Barret, F.J. 2004: Dialogue: Life and death of the organization. In Grant, D., Phillips, N., Hardy, C., Putnam, L., and Oswick, C. (eds), Handbook of Organizational Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Google Scholar
Gergen, K.J., McNamee, S., and Barrett, F.J. 2001. Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration. 24 (7/8): 679–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heracleous, L. 2006. Discourse, interpretation, organization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holyoak, K.J. and Thagard, P. 1997. The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W. P., and Yiu, D. 1999. Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25: 417–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huizinga, J. 1950. Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Isaacs, W. 1993. Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning, Organizational Dynamics, 22(2): 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, W. 1999. Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York:Doubleday.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C. D. 2003. Managing organizational responsiveness – toward a theory of responsive practice. Wiesbaden:DUV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C.D. and Coghlan, D. 2005. Sound from silence – on listening in organizational learning. Human Relations, 58(1):115–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C.D. and Heracleous, L. 2005. Answers for questions to come: Reflective dialogue as an enabler of strategic innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(4): 338–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C. and Statler, M. 2006. Constructing shared understanding– The role of embodied metaphors in organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(2): 207–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C. and Statler, M. 2005. Strategy creation as serious play. In Floyd, S.W., Roos, J., Jacobs, C., and Kellermanns, F. (eds.), Innovating Strategy Process. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C. and Statler, M. 2006. Towards a technology of foolishness: Developing scenarios through serious play. International Studies of Management and Organization, 36(3): 7–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janis, I.L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos. Boston, MA:Houghton.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1983. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, D.H. 1993. The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1): 37–50.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MacIntosh, R. and MacLean, D. 1999. Conditioned emergence: a dissipative structures approach to transformation. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (4): 297–316.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G. 1979. The technology of foolishness. In March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (eds.), Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 69–81.Google Scholar
Markides, C.C. 1998. Strategic innovation in established companies. Sloan Management Review, 39(3): 31–42.Google Scholar
Minsky, M.L. 1986. The society of mind, New York:Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York:Basic Books.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B., 1958. The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D. E., and Teece, D. J. (1944). Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Schein, E.H. 1988. Process consultation Vol. I: Its role in organization development. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. 1993. On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2): 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, E. H. 1996. Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom. Systems Practice, 9(2): 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, E. H. 1999. Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Statler, M., Jacobs, C., and Roos, J. 2008. Performing Strategy: Analogical reasoning as strategic practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24: 133–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton-Smith, B. 1997. The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. 1991. The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 566–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H. 1993. Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation in organization theory. Organization Studies, 14(3): 323–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S., and Ortony, A. 1989. Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. and Cole, M.. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2): 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winnicott, D.W. 1971. Playing and reality. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×