article title
The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
Gerry Johnson, Shameen Prashantham, Steven W. Floyd
and Nicole Bourque
Abstract
Gerry Johnson
University of
Lancaster
Management School,
UK
Shameen
Prashantham
University of
Glasgow, UK
Despite the widespread use of strategy workshops in organizations, few empirical studies
examine this phenomenon. The limited research that exists also lacks a theoretical basis
for explaining why some workshops achieve their espoused purpose while others do not.
We offer a theoretical model of strategy workshop dynamics and outcomes by drawing
on theories of ritual and ritualization. Our central argument is that variations in characteristics of ritualization such as the degree of removal, the use of liturgy and the role of
specialists influence behavioural dynamics within workshops and thereby the extent to
which their purpose is achieved. This perspective extends research on the episodic nature
of strategy development and contributes to a theoretically informed view of strategy practices.
Steven W. Floyd
University of
Virginia, USA
Keywords: strategy workshops, strategy episodes, ritualization, strategy practices
Nicole Bourque
University of
Glasgow, UK
Introduction
‘I really do think once these processes start, you get on and it’s very difficult
to get off.’ (Strategy workshop participant)
Organization
Studies
31(12): 1589–1618
ISSN 0170–8406
Copyright © The
Author(s), 2010.
Reprints and
permissions:
http://www.sagepub.
co.uk/journals
permissions.nav
www.egosnet.org/os
Strategy workshops (or ‘away days’) are episodes, often within a wider strategy
process, where executives set aside typically one or two days, frequently off-site,
to consider strategic issues. In so doing, they may employ strategy concepts,
analytical tools and specialist facilitators (e.g. Mezias et al. 2001; Frisch and
Chandler 2006) to review and develop strategy or plan its implementation.
Though employed widely by organizations (Hodgkinson et al. 2006), they have
received little research attention. We have identified only four papers based on
empirical research on strategy workshops. Bowman (1995) draws on, but does
not make explicit, theories of cognitive psychology to explain problems of translating discussions in strategy workshops into organizational action. Bürgi et al.
(2005) build on three theoretical perspectives, physiology, learning and social
construction, to show the benefits of a ‘hands on’ approach to strategizing in
workshops. Hodgkinson and Wright (2002) offer conflict theory (Janis and
Mann 1977) as an explanation of defensive routines employed by participants in
a failed scenario-planning workshop, and MacIntosh et al. (forthcoming) tracked
several series of workshops to explain the extent to which their outcomes translate
successfully to organizational action. While these provide useful insights, there
DOI: 10.1177/0170840610376146
1590
Organization Studies 31(12)
remains no theoretical framework by which to explain the consequences of the
structural elements of such workshops. It is this challenge we seek to address.
Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2008) show how the structure of meetings influences
strategy debate and the strategy agenda. Consistent with Hendry and Seidl’s
(2003) conceptualization of episodes, they argue that strategy episodes are
bounded temporally — they have a beginning and an end — involve some
degree of removal from everyday organizational processes and can be characterized by a structure that influences conduct. These characteristics are also distinguishing properties of rituals (Van Gennep 1960 [1909]) and ritualization
(Bell 1992). Prior work has not, however, considered how the ritualized nature
of strategy episodes influences behaviour within, or the outcomes of those
episodes. This paper is therefore motivated both by the need for more research
on strategizing episodes in general and the need for theory to help advance our
understanding of strategy practice (Johnson et al. 2003, 2007; Jarzabkowski
et al. 2007) in such contexts.
Our argument begins with the premise that all strategy episodes are more or
less ritualized. The purpose and contribution of the paper is then twofold. First,
we show the relevance of theories of ritual and ritualization in explaining strategy workshops: in particular, how variations in characteristics of ritualization
affect the dynamics of such episodes. Second, we offer an explanation of how
the practices associated with ritualized strategy workshops influence whether or
not such workshops achieve their intended purpose. This extends research on
strategy practices by providing further insight into the structure of strategy
episodes (Hendry and Seidl 2003; Jarzabkowski and Seidl 2008) and offering
another explanation for why such episodes sometimes fail (Hodgkinson and
Wright 2002; Whittington 2006). Using the ritual lens to understand strategy
workshops also contributes to the broader strategy process literature, in particular by providing a new way to account for the inconsistencies in the empirical
literature about the effects of strategic planning (Miller and Cardinal 1994;
Ketokivi and Castaner 2004).
The paper is structured as follows. First, we provide a short overview of theories of ritual and ritualization. We then explain the methodology employed in the
study and describe four research sites and seven case studies of workshops that
form the empirical basis of the study. Drawing on the case data, we explain how
the characteristics of ritualization apply to workshops. Then, based on an analysis of variations in the ritual structure of workshops, we develop propositions outlining how the antecedents of ritual influence the behaviour of participants during
the workshop and how this may lead to outcomes related to strategy. We close by
highlighting how we see this analysis contributing to previous research on strategy
episodes and to the wider literature on strategic planning.
Ritual Theory and Strategy Workshops
The Relevance of Ritual Theory
Several scholars have suggested that strategy is ritualized. Strategic planning
has been described as a ‘calendar-driven ritual’ (Hamel 1996: 70) and ‘ritualistic’
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
1591
(Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Mintzberg 1994; Mintzberg and Lampel 1999).
Researchers have not, however, used ritual theory systematically to explain
strategy processes and practices. Instead, for most, ‘ritual’ implies a lack of significance: being ritualized is equated with having little impact or influence. We
contend, however, that research in anthropology and micro-sociology shows that
rituals are important in social structuring and in explaining behavioural dynamics. As such, they are relevant to and valuable in understanding strategy episodes
such as strategy workshops.
There are parallels between strategy workshops, the purpose of which is to
emphasize and focus on strategic issues by temporarily removing a select group
from their everyday work routines, and ritual as ‘a performance, planned or
improvised, that effects a transition from everyday life to an alternative context
within which the everyday is transformed’ (Alexander 1997:139). Indeed, many
everyday organizational activities such as meetings have ‘ritual significance’
and ‘ritualistic qualities’ (Schwartzman 1986: 250–251) in that they ‘do honour
to that which is socially valued’ (Collins 2004: 25). Since what is socially valued is context-specific, however, the form and nature of rituals differ. Some are
more formal and planned while others are more common and improvisational.
To put it another way, the extent of ritualization differs. We will show that strategy workshops are more or less ritualized episodes of organizational life, corresponding to what Bell (1992) refers to as episodes of ‘privileged differentiation’,
and that this ritualization has important consequences for those involved.
Ritual and Ritualization
Some anthropologists argue for less attention to be paid to ritual as a distinctive
type of event in favour of a concern with ritualization: how some social processes
are differentiated and privileged over others (Bell 1992: ix). The extent of such
ritualization can be explained in terms of some key characteristics; in particular,
removal, the use of liturgy and the involvement of ritual specialists.
Removal from the everyday may be in terms of geographic distance, symbolic
change, activity differentiation, cognitive contextualization and social informality (Bowie 2000: 163). It is usually accompanied by restricted access among designated participants, which heightens the symbolic significance of the episode’s
purpose. Removal may be accompanied by the symbolic homogenization of
social status that Goffman (1961) refers to as ‘levelling and stripping’. Liturgy is
the prescribed form of a ritual (Bowker 2003) that leads participants to think and
act in ways that are distinct from the everyday (Bell 1992; Humphrey and
Laidlaw 1994; Keane 1997). This may be formalized, as in the liturgy of a church
service, or customary as in informal social engagements that nonetheless prescribe behaviour. The involvement of ritual specialists is especially salient in
terms of their engagement with a liturgy and/or their role in legitimizing it.
Together, removal, liturgy and the role of specialists contribute to the extent
of ‘privileging’ (Bell 1992). This relates to Durkheim’s (1954 [1912]) concept of
the sacredness of ritual in two respects. First, participation in a strategy workshop is based on the principle of restricted access to a place or space deemed to
be different — and removed — from the more quotidian interactions of organizational life. Second, the person leading or facilitating a workshop may be
1592
Organization Studies 31(12)
deemed to have special understanding of the language and artefacts of strategy
that make up the liturgy. In the language of anthropology, then, to the extent that
there is restricted access to an event with distinct and special meaning, strategy
workshops may be akin to what Durkheim (1954 [1912]) means by ‘sacred’ and
Bell (1992) means by ‘privileged’. Workshops differ, however, in the extent to
which they are privileged. There may be workshops with low levels of removal,
liturgy and specialist involvement, where day-to-day concerns and organizational roles and structure persist. In Bell’s terms, these are less ‘privileged’ or, in
an organizational context, such workshops are more ‘grounded’.
The effects of removal and liturgy give rise to a state of liminality, where participants are distanced from their everyday experiences to engage with more
privileged activities, knowing they will return to their everyday world. As such,
they: ‘pass through a period and area of ambiguity, a sort of social limbo’
(Turner 1982: 24) which, of itself, provides a context in which behaviours are
likely to differ from the everyday. Turner emphasizes two behavioural patterns
that are seen in the liminal state: communitas and anti-structure.
Communitas is the group relatedness (Bowie 2000:16) sometimes associated
with descriptors such as ‘openness’, ‘potentiality’ and ‘cathartic experience’ (Bell
1992: 172). Collins (2004) refers to this as ‘emotional energy’, by which he means
a feeling of confidence, elation, enthusiasm and initiative in taking action. In the
context of a strategy workshop, communitas is the communal commitment of the
participants to its purpose, not just intellectually, but emotionally. However, communitas may be a temporary state restricted to the ritual itself (Bell 1992).
Anti-structure within the liminal state refers to a temporary suspension of participants’ normal social status. Within a state of anti-structure, some structures
do exist, such as the difference between a ritual specialist and people undergoing an initiation ritual. However, structural differences between the initiates
themselves are dissolved so that there is a levelling effect. In the context of a
strategy workshop, we see anti-structure operating when participants feel
enabled to participate without the constraints of normal organizational structure
and hierarchy. In some instances, this may go beyond levelling to a situation
where roles are reversed. Anti-structure, linked to communitas, can then significantly reduce normative organizational constraints, producing behavioural,
cognitive and emotional differences.
The influence of these antecedents and effects of liminality on social outcomes varies. For example, there are rituals where the purpose is to challenge or
change the order of things, as with rites of passage (Van Gennep 1960 [1909]).
Here the liturgy associated with the liminal state quite specifically relates to
change. There are, however, also rituals that emphasize tradition or continuity.
Here the emphasis is more likely to be on formalization that ‘produces a form of
authority, “tradition authority”, rooted in the appeal to the past’ (Bell 1992: 120).
These outcomes are consistent with the purposes of many strategy workshops,
including those intended to review and implement an existing strategy and those
where the purpose is to challenge and/or question the strategic status quo.
In sum, strategy workshops have been the focus of limited prior research and
little theorizing. Practices within strategy workshops remain largely unspecified.
We argue that theories of ritual and ritualization offer a means for developing
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
1593
such explanation. Given this, we use the ritual lens to facilitate the inductive
development of a practice theory of strategy episodes. The next section describes
the data collection and analysis methods employed.
Methodology
Case Selection
All the workshops we studied were sponsored by the chief executives of the
organizations and concerned with strategic issues. In terms of ritualization, they
all had two characteristics in common: they were held within delineated time
and space and they involved a select group of individuals. However, there were
also variations in characteristics of ritualization across the workshops in terms
of a) the extent and nature of removal from the everyday; b) the extent of use
and the nature of formal liturgy or prescribed way of doing things (including the
use of strategy tools and concepts); and c) the extent and use of specialists such
as workshop facilitators and/or strategy experts. Such variations permitted us to
examine the influence of these antecedents on the behavioural dynamics within
the workshop episode.
Table 1 provides a summary of workshop participants, duration and venues,
together with our data sources, explained in the next section below. The casefirms represent a range of industries and sizes. We interviewed the participants
in two workshops of a mid-sized hotel group (‘Hotelco’), where the purpose was
to reconsider the management structure of the firm. We observed a series of
three strategy workshops in a defence services business (‘Defenceco’) over nine
months, as managers considered its strategic direction in a context of industry
restructuring. We also observed a workshop in an oil services business (‘Oilco’),
the purpose of which was to review ongoing strategies and in a non-governmental organization (‘Charity’) that was intended to change the strategy.
Data Collection
Data were gathered initially from retrospective group interviews of workshop
participants from one organization (Hotelco) and then from direct observations of
workshops in the three other organizations. This two-stage process helped us
develop our understanding of the relevance of ritual theory to the study. Although
we understood the basic characteristics of ritualization, we did not know how
these would manifest in workshop settings or how they would affect behaviours.
In order to take maximum advantage of the rare opportunities to observe strategy
workshops, therefore, we used the analysis of the group interview data to refine
our conceptual lens: we were then able to confirm, disconfirm and further
develop our understanding on the basis of the observation of actual workshops.
Data for the two Hotelco workshops were collected in the form of 60–90 minute
tape-recorded group interviews in which participants explained the circumstances
leading up to the workshops and what happened within them. The interview
questions were not structured around ritual theory because we wished to avoid
1594
Organization Studies 31(12)
Table 1.
Overview of the
Case-firms
Organization
Workshop(s)
Participants
Data collection
Hotelco
A small hotel group which
had experienced rapid growth
following recent acquisitions
and was hence revisiting its
strategy
Hotelco 1:
1.5 days
Luxury hotel
Four directors and
facilitator
Interviews
– The four directors
– Facilitator
Hotelco 2:
1.5 days
Own hotel
Four directors, seven
managers and
facilitator
Interviews
– The four directors
– Facilitator
– 4 of 7 managers
Defenceco
Defenceco 1:
CEO, four directors
The defence services business 1 day
and facilitator
division of a multinational
Downtown hotel
company which was facing a
turbulent environment
Interview
(pre-workshop)
– Director
Observation by research
team
Defenceco 2:
CEO and four
1 day
directors
Downtown hotel
Observation by research
team
Defenceco 3:
CEO and four
1 day
directors
Downtown hotel
Observation by research
team
Interviews (postworkshops)
– CEO
– Director
Oilco
Oilco:
The logistics division of a
1.5 days
multinational company that
In-house facility
had recently been restructured
through the merger of two
country-divisions
Business head, eight
managers and
facilitator
Charity
Charity:
A large charity with a mission 1 day
of alleviating poverty
Head office
Chief executive, four Observation by research
directors and board of team
trustees
Interviews (postworkshop)
– Chief executive
– Faciilitator
– 2 participants
Observation by research
team
Interviews (postworkshop)
– Business head
– Facilitator
– 2 participants
leading interviewees to providing data ordered in terms of these constructs.
Instead, we used simple, open-ended questions to prompt participant descriptions,
such as ‘What was the purpose of the workshop?’ and ‘What happened in the
workshop?’ with follow-up questions when necessary. Interviews were conducted
by members of the research team with the group of participants taking part in each
workshop, corresponding to focus group interviews (Morgan 1997). The research
team separately interviewed the consultant who facilitated both workshops.
The workshops we observed were typically full-day events and, in each case,
there were two researchers present as observers. Since we had learned from the
initial interviews that we needed detailed data to capture the dynamics of workshop behaviour, we combined notes taken during and after our observations with
tape recordings of the workshops. We also interviewed participants where events
were unclear to us from the workshop itself, e.g. in terms of background context
or the rationale behind the design of the workshop.
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
1595
We determined the espoused purpose of each workshop based on what the
sponsor conveyed in writing (e.g. in a briefing or agenda) and/or orally at the
workshop. We assessed the participants’ perceived purpose of each workshop
based upon (1) participants’ visible behaviours in the workshop, (2) participants’
discussion during the event and (3), in the absence of clarity on the basis of 1
and 2, interviews with participants. As Table 2 shows, some of the workshops
were concerned with reviewing or improving the existing strategic direction,
while others were about questioning or changing it. In addition, participants perceived some workshops to have achieved their purpose (within the workshop)
and others not to have done so. These differences in purpose and achievement
allowed us to consider explanations for why the workshops were seen to be more
or less successful.
We assessed the outcome (i.e. whether or not the purpose was achieved) of
each workshop using similar criteria: (1) manifestation of the purpose within the
workshop (e.g. participants preparing slides to articulate the strategy they had
agreed); (2) visible evidence of behaviours in line with the stated purpose (e.g.
brainstorming in a workshop oriented towards changing strategy); and (3) what
was communicated to us in post-event interviews.
Data Analysis
Our approach to the analysis of data applied principles of induction but built
upon existing (ritual) theory. It corresponded to what Orton (1997) describes as
iterative theory-building or what anthropologists refer to as an ‘iterativeinductive’ approach (e.g. O’Reilly 2005) in that we ‘cycle(d) back and forth
between theory and data’ (Orton 1997: 419). More specifically, we began with a
phenomenon of interest: strategy workshops. In discussing authors’ past experience of such episodes and informed by our initial interviews, we concluded that
ritual theory was usefully relevant. We therefore informed ourselves more fully
of ritual theory and added an anthropologist with a special interest in it to the
team. We then observed the other workshops and, in between episodes of observation, sought to make sense of the data. In so doing, we found other elements
of ritual theory that helped us further interpret the data.
The same analytical protocol was followed in analysing both the interview
and observational data. One researcher undertook a formal coding of the interviews, tape recordings and notes a) to establish the extent to which participants’
accounts of events corresponded to what could be expected on the basis of ritual theory (e.g. whether communitas and anti-structure were represented in the
data) and b) to identify questions arising from data analysis that required further
theoretical explanation. This initial coding was followed by independent coding
by two other members of the research team. These analyses were compared with
the initial coding to determine the extent to which there was agreement.
Variations in the results of the coding were examined by the research team to
clarify the interpretation of the data and inform further discussion of how ritualization influenced workshop behaviour. This system of coding provides the basis
of the findings presented in this paper.
1596
Organization Studies 31(12)
Explaining the Behavioural Dynamics and Outcomes
of Strategy Workshops
In this section we analyse data from all seven workshops in Table 1 to demonstrate how the characteristics of ritual and ritualization may influence a) the
behavioural dynamics within strategy workshops and b) the outcomes of workshops in terms of the extent to which their purposes were met. In so doing, we
seek to develop ritual theory as a lens to explain strategy workshops. Since it is
not possible in the space of a paper to provide detailed accounts of all the workshops, we rely on the summaries in Tables 2–6 to supplement our explanation of
supporting evidence for our arguments in the text.
Table 2.
Variations in the
Purposes of Strategy
Workshops
Espoused purpose (change
vs continuity)
Clarity of purpose to
participants
Outcome
(success vs. failure)
Hotelco 1
Change
Need to take stock of ‘what
we are’ and ‘where we are
going’ given rapid
expansion. The purpose was
a) to reflect on core values
and how to keep them alive;
and b) to rethink
management structure in
terms of devolving power to
the next tier.
High
Participants engaged
energetically in a discussion
of values. The espoused
restructuring purpose also
perceived by participants: one
observed: ‘We thought we
were ... handing everything
over to these people.’
Successful
CEO: ‘I will agree it
was very successful.
We found our values,
we understood our
values. We
understood what
structures we needed
going forward within
reason.’
Hotelco 2
Change
Purpose espoused by CEO:
to introduce changes in
management structure.
However, between Hotelco1
and Hotelco2 the directors
backtracked on their
commitments to devolve
power. So espoused purpose
unclear.
Low
Purpose initially perceived by
wider participants: to
introduce changes in
management structure
resulting in devolution of
power. One participant said
she felt ‘honoured’ to be
included in the workshop.
Unsuccessful
CEO: ‘This was a
complete and utter
bloody disaster …
We ended up with
some people
sidelined and it was
the biggest disaster
we have ever
achieved.’
Workshop
Defenceco 1 Change
To generate ideas on
changes to current strategy
in order to protect, grow
and diversify the business in
response to call to
contribute to corporate-level
plan.
Explicitly distinguished
from monthly operational
meetings. The CEO stated
in introductory comments:
‘Operational stuff has crept
in at monthly meetings; this
is about strategy.’
However once the workshop
commenced, the participants
‘were showing themselves to be
scattered on crucial decisions’
in the words of the facilitator.
High
Espoused purpose perceived
by participants (though one
participant felt that the
strategy ought not to be
changed).
Successful
CEO: ‘I wanted to
know whether there
was sufficient broad
commonality of
purpose and I think
what it told me was
Clarity of purpose was evident that the pressure for
from the active and
transformation was
freewheeling brainstorming
consistent across the
activities which involved
team.’
discussion and noting of a set
of wide-ranging business
ideas.
(Continued)
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
Table 2.
(Continued)
Clarity of purpose to
participants
Outcome
(success vs. failure)
High
Espoused purpose perceived
by participants as indicated by
observable behaviours such as
developing a set of slides that
summarized the confirmed
strategy.
Successful
CEO: ‘So we kind of
answered the “what
is it we’re here to
do?” … the
conclusion we came
to was our core
business is
engineering service
related. There is no
point in trying to find
alternative business
sectors because
actually the barriers to
entry are either high or
we lack the skill sets.’
Defenceco 3 Continuity
To revisit and confirm the
recently agreed strategy The
CEO asked: ‘Does our
strategy still hold?’ in the
context of likely industry
consolidation through
mergers and acquisitions of
key players.
Low
Participants seemed to be
confused on the focus of the
meeting and were unsure
what purpose this event
served.
Unsuccessful
Director: ‘We would
have been better off
staying in the office.’
Oilco
Continuity
CEO’s purpose: to confirm
strategy and agree
performance targets for the
four sub-divisions in the
context of recent
restructuring that had
expanded its size and remit.
(The CEO also knew he
might be moving jobs and,
in this context, saw the
workshop as an important
strategy review. But this
was not known to
participants.)
Mixed
Purpose perceived by
participants: to agree
performance targets. They
were unaware of the CEO’s
broader strategic agenda.
Change
This workshop built on a
previous strategy-building
exercise (referred to as
‘Focus for Change’).
The CEO’s espoused
purpose: to revisit one
element of existing strategy.
Hitherto the Charity had
carried out most activities
alone. The primary purpose
here was to consider
engaging with partner
NGOs in other parts of the
world.
High
Espoused purpose perceived
by participants.
Workshop
Espoused purpose (change
vs continuity)
1597
Defenceco 2 Continuity
To consolidate strategy in
light of industry
restructuring and potential
takeover.
The CEO stated he was
‘seeking to coalesce around
“here’s what we’re actually
going to do rather than
here’s what we might do”’.
Charity
One participant commented:
‘We were going through the
motions.’
Successful
CEO: ‘This went
pretty much to plan.’
While one participant
commented that the workshop
was consistent with the
agenda, another said this
could have been done in halfa-day, suggesting he was
unaware of the CEO’s broader
agenda.
Clarity of purpose appeared
aided by the extensive
paperwork including minutes
of previous meetings and
detailed agenda for the
workshop.
Successful
Chairman: ‘This
exercise shows we
need to build on but
expand our core
competences.’
1598
Organization Studies 31(12)
The Characteristics of Ritualized Strategy Workshops
Characteristics of ritualization were found in the workshops we observed,
though the form they took varied between workshops. As with other forms of ritual, strategy workshops have a purpose, which may be more or less explicit and
clear to participants. As Table 2 shows, the purposes differed. The espoused purpose for both Hotelco workshops was to rethink and change the management
structure of the business, though in the second workshop this purpose became
confused and unclear to participants. The first of the Defenceco workshops was
also about considering changes to the existing strategy, with a view to fostering
growth in revenue sources. The Charity workshop also addressed change,
namely the prospect of engaging with partner organizations. By contrast, the
Oilco workshop and the other two Defenceco workshops were concerned with
reviewing or consolidating existing strategy. It became clear, however, that perceived clarity of purpose among participants differed. The purpose was clear to
participants in Hotelco 1, Defenceco 1 and 2 and the Charity workshops. The
purpose of the third Defenceco workshop was unclear to participants. The purpose of the second Hotelco workshop became confused as its events unfolded —
some participants thinking it was about radical restructuring and others about
confirming an amended status quo. The CEO of Oilco was clear that his purpose
was to review and assess the progress of strategy given pending top-management
changes. The participants were, however, not aware of these changes so, for
them, it was more of an operational review. Moreover, the extent to which the
behaviour of workshop participants was directed to the achievement of an
explicit purpose varied and is a matter we discuss below.
While removal is a defining characteristic of ritualization, as Tables 3 and 4
show, the nature and extent of removal may vary considerably. Table 3 depicts
the change workshops. The first Hotelco workshop was an example of significantly ‘privileged’ removal, both geographically and also psychologically, further emphasized by its restricted access to just the four directors and a facilitator.
The first Defenceco workshop was held in a city-centre hotel, justified in terms
of ‘getting away from the office’, to reduce interruptions and distractions and get
participants to highlight and focus on important issues. While the Charity workshop was held in its offices, this was not an everyday location for 15 of the 20
participants who were attending from overseas or were non-executive trustees.
The second Hotelco workshop took place in one of the group’s own hotels, so
there was much less removal than in the first.
Table 4 depicts the continuity workshops. As with the first workshop, Defenceco
2 and 3 were held in a city-centre hotel. The Oilco workshop was carried out in
training facilities owned by the company local to its offices and frequently used
by managers who attended the workshop. Removal was, therefore, relatively
low, both geographically and psychologically.
As seen in Tables 3 and 4, in all but one workshop (Defenceco 3), there was
an ordering of activities corresponding to a liturgy. This could involve the use
of formal strategy models, as in two of the change workshops (Defenceco 1 and
the Charity workshop) and in one of the continuity workshops (Defenceco 2).
Liturgy can also involve the way a workshop is conducted, such as the sequencing
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
Table 3.
Variation in the
Ritual
Characteristics
of Change
Workshops
1599
Legitimacy of Liturgy
and Specialists
Workshop/outcome Removal
Liturgy and Specialists
Hotelco 1
Successful
Very high
A luxurious hotel venue in
rural south of England
later considered very
memorable.
Geographically, but
especially psychologically,
distant from company
offices in industrial
Scotland. Seen as
necessary to focus on
strategy. As one director
said, ‘We didn’t want to
have it in one of our
hotels ... We could wander
out and look out at the
Thames, it was
inspirational ... I think it
freed up the mind.’
High
A consultant, as
facilitator, led a
discussion of
employees’ perceptions
of core values, based on
a report of his
interviews with staff,
which highlighted
perceptions of Hotelco’s
‘aims’ and ‘vision’.
Then he facilitated a
discussion on
restructuring. Ground
rules were agreed to
ensure everyone’s
participation.
High
Process seen as
valuable and
legitimate. The
CEO:‘I think what he
[the facilitator] did ...
was make us focus on
the things we needed
to discuss rather than
just what the weather
was like.’
Defenceco 1
Successful
Moderate
In a city-centre hotel
approx. 40 miles from
offices. The CEO: ‘The
fact that this is held
off-site, the fact we’re
wearing casual clothes,
we are trying to create an
environment where we
break the routine patterns
of thought that people
have when they’re in the
workplace wearing suits
and sitting around a
meeting room. They
would have taken a far
more structured view
and … it would have
constrained the answer at
the outset.’
High
Led by CEO who had
asked participants to
draw up views on how
they would run the
business in his
[hypothetical] absence.
Each director presented
his/her action plan.
High
Participants were
comfortable with
strategy ‘language’,
with which they were
familiar from an
in-company
management
development course.
Mixed
Held at the head office in
London. For executives
this was minimal removal
from the office
environment. But for the
15 trustee participants it
was outside the everyday,
particularly for three from
Canada, Kenya and the
Philippines.
High
The workshop
facilitated by a trustee
with extensive
management
consultancy experience,
including running
workshops. He used the
value chain to
encourage discussion of
which activities should
be carried out in-house
and which might be
outsourced or
undertaken in
partnership.
Charity
Successful
A consultant then
provided a recap of
concepts on competitive
strategy and prompted a
discussion of strategic
competences from
which strategic options
arose.
High
Participants appeared
at ease and
recognized the
facilitator’s
experience and
knowledge of the
value chain – the
legitimacy of which
the facilitator sought
to establish by
extolling the virtues
of its creator, viz.
Michael Porter.
(Continued)
1600
Organization Studies 31(12)
Table 3.
(Continued)
Workshop/outcome Removal
Liturgy and Specialists
Hotelco 2
Unsuccessful
High
The intention was that
the seven direct reports
were to be exposed to
the same documents
that the directors had
seen at the first meeting
and to reflect on the
findings.
Apart from discussion
of the documents and a
proposed new structure,
the facilitator used an
exercise where each
participant had to
identify their role in the
centre of a ‘sunflower’
in relation to other key
roles (the ‘petals’) and
compare with the
others’ role perceptions.
Table 4.
Variation in the
Ritual
Characteristics of
Continuity
Workshops
Low
In company’s own hotel,
so limited physical
distance and less
psychological distance
from regular workplace.
One of the seven direct
reports commented, ‘We
spend a day a week there
(laughter). It was like
home from home.’ The
facilitator: ‘It was like
being in someone’s
company office.’
Legitimacy of Liturgy
and Specialists
Low
Facilitator seen as
trying to impose
solutions even when
things went awry. The
facilitator admitted
that, at this stage, ‘I
wasn’t sure what I
was doing.’ As the
event progressed, it
was not seen as
legitimate. A
participant said that
‘I felt the rug had
been pulled from
under my feet.’
Workshop/outcome Removal
Liturgy and Specialists
Legitimacy of Liturgy
and Specialists
Defenceco 2
Successful
Moderate
In the same city-centre
hotel as above.
High
Led by CEO. His opening
presentation highlighted a
Porter strategy framework
because of the ‘constant
need to get people to
delineate between
operational effectiveness
and strategy’. Participants
then created, together,
PowerPoint slides
articulating the strategy to
feed into a presentation
by the CEO to the
corporate parent.
High
Participants stuck to
the liturgy; adhered to
it willingly and saw it
as legitimate. The
CEO built on the
management
development expertise
acquired by the top
management team and
in particular
highlighted Michael
Porter as a ‘guru’ who
was to be taken
seriously.
Oilco
Successful
Very low
At in-house conference
facility near its offices
with wireless access to
the corporate intranet.
Many participants
arrived late, during the
workshop checked email
on laptops and kept
mobiles on (one
participant answered his
cell phone in the middle
of his presentation!).
Thus relatively little
physical or psychological
removal evident.
High
External facilitator used a
process framework,
presenting an issue on a
brown paper board as a
continuum, inviting
participants to affix a
Post-it at a point on the
continuum. To illustrate,
he wrote: ‘We are the best
logistics team in the oil
and gas business’ with
‘kidding’ at one end and
‘no doubt’ at the other.
He then brokered
discussion to arrive at a
consensual view.
High
Participants familiar
and comfortable with
the liturgy; so seen as
legitimate. One
participant noted the
commonality of this
approach in that
company across the
world.
(Continued)
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
Table 4.
(Continued)
Workshop/outcome Removal
Liturgy and Specialists
1601
Legitimacy of Liturgy
and Specialists
Little strategy language
used. Discussion entailed
technical or companyspecific jargon (e.g.
references to corporate
projects using internal
code-names) which
facilitated exchange of
views.
Defenceco 3
Unsuccessful
Moderate to low
In a different, but not
dissimilar, downtown
hotel which appeared to
be chosen for
convenience and
functionality rather than
any special ambience.
Low
Although again led by
CEO, there was no clear
liturgical device. The
CEO articulated his
agenda as a discussion of
‘are we getting this
right?’ and ‘should we
have another plan?’ But
the ensuing discussion
was unfocused.
Low
One participant
commented later that
the discussion was
‘going nowhere’
of activities, agenda-setting and process frameworks like those employed in the
Hotelco and Oilco workshops.
Additionally, in all but one workshop, there was either a consultant or
specialist facilitator whose role helped legitimize the liturgy being followed. As
seen in Table 3, both Hotelco workshops used an external facilitator. At the first,
he organized the discussion around the core values of Hotelco on the basis of a
report of interviews with staff. At the second, in addition to presenting this
report, he employed a device referred to as the ‘sunflower’, where participants
compared their perceptions of their role with those of their colleagues. The CEO
of Defenceco led their three workshops. In workshop 1, his intent was a freewheeling discussion of strategic ideas. This involved notionally positioning participants as taking over in his absence. Later, in the same workshop, he also
involved a consultant to facilitate a competence analysis and prompt discussions
around this, which galvanized ideas about diversification. However, following
the workshop, participants deemed that such ideas of diversification were not
realistic. One of the trustees, a former management consultant, led the Charity
workshop. He used Porter’s (1985) value chain analysis, previously agreed with
the workshop sponsor and leader, as a basis for participants to think through the
merits and demerits of partnering with other organizations.
As shown in Table 4, in Defenceco’s second workshop, which was prompted by
external forces of potential industry consolidation, the CEO employed a framework for identifying business strategy by Porter (1996) to legitimize the need for
greater clarity on the components of existing strategy. A consultant was used to
facilitate the sessions in the Oilco workshop, using a process framework to order
discussion and capture participants’ views. The framework used was on the basis
of prior agreement with the CEO and participants’ familiarity with it. The only
workshop without a clear liturgical device was the third Defenceco workshop.
1602
Organization Studies 31(12)
Insofar as specialists were used by Defenceco, Oilco and the Charity, their
role was orchestrated by the CEOs who utilized them to legitimize a liturgy useful to the workshop purpose. Moreover, the outputs resulting from the discussions were in line with that intended. In the two Hotelco workshops, the role of
the specialist facilitator differed. He was commissioned by one of the junior
directors, not the CEO. While the liturgy he employed in the first workshop was
accepted by the participants, it ran into problems in the second workshop. It became
clear that there was a mismatch between what the wider participants (and the
facilitator) thought was the workshop purpose — radical restructuring — and
the more conservative agenda of the CEO. The consequence was that the facilitator’s role was diminished as the CEO reasserted a leadership position. Further,
it became apparent that the liturgy, closely identified with the facilitator, was not
accepted by the workshop participants.
As pointed out earlier, removal, liturgy and specialists lead to privileging of
rituals: the antithesis of such privileging we have termed groundedness. Either
by design or not, workshops may be more or less privileged or grounded. For
example, the intention for the first Hotelco workshop was that it should be
highly privileged. The second was decidedly grounded, not only by low removal
but also because formal hierarchy was asserted and because it became immersed
in the politics, status concerns and operational issues of everyday organizational
life. Other workshops were intended to be grounded. For example, liturgical
devices were deliberately chosen for the second Defenceco workshop and the
Oilco workshop to focus participants on the activities and capabilities underpinning current strategy. The Charity workshop was structured such that operational
issues were discussed after strategic issues, but they were on the same agenda.
Moreover, there were symbols of groundedness. The Charity’s mission statement concerned with ending world poverty was on all PowerPoint slides, and
meeting rooms were all named after developing countries in which they were
engaged operationally.
It is necessary to qualify and so refine our explanation of the influence of the
above characteristics in terms of the perceived legitimacy of events by participants. Legitimacy is ‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of
an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within some socially constructed
system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions’ (Suchman 1995: 574). At the
most basic level, for example, in discussions with both sponsors of and participants in strategy workshops, we found that the practice of getting a group of
managers to focus on issues deemed to be especially significant to the future of
the organization was seen to be an appropriate way of developing strategy.
However, in some instances, a specific workshop, activities within a workshop,
or people associated with it were not seen as legitimate, as evidenced by the
questioning or criticisms raised about them. The perceived legitimacy of both
liturgical devices and specialists therefore varied.
As seen in Table 3, relating to the change workshops, in the first Defenceco
workshop, the consultant presenting the competency framework legitimized the
importance of the discussion to follow. This was also the case for the valuechain approach used at the Charity workshop. However, the Hotelco workshops
highlight the delicate but significant role of ritual specialists in legitimizing the
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
1603
liturgy. In the first Hotelco workshop, legitimacy seemed to be of a high order.
This diminished in the second, however, where the facilitator lost the support of
the CEO at the outset and therefore lost credibility with the other directors and
participants; and where it also became clear to the wider group of participants
that the purpose of the meeting was not what they expected.
With regard to the continuity workshops, as shown in Table 4, in the second
Defenceco workshop, the CEO presented Porter’s framework to confer legitimacy on the proceedings. The participants in the Oilco workshop were familiar
with and readily accepted the approach taken by the consultant, who had worked
with the organization before. The third Defenceco workshop was noticeable for
the absence of liturgy or specialists and took the form of a general discussion,
but had a low apparent buy-in to that process by participants. Overall, when
liturgies were perceived to be legitimate, there was energetic commitment to the
process, most notably in the first of the Hotelco workshops, the Charity workshop and the first two Defenceco workshops.
Having described our data through the ritual lens, in the next section we turn
to the task of theory development. The goal is to develop a set of theoretical
inferences marking relationships between characteristics of ritual and participants’ behaviour.
The Behavioural Dynamics of Strategy Workshops
Removal, liturgy and specialists, when seen as legitimate by workshop participants, may create a liminal state: a context in which behaviours are likely to be
different from those in the workplace. Tables 5 and 6 depict relevant behavioural
dynamics for change and continuity workshops, respectively. The sharpest shift
to liminality was Hotelco 1. Here a small group of directors, normally governed
by an idiosyncratic and autocratic management regime centred on the founder
and CEO, behaved quite differently in the workshop. They suspended normal
hierarchy, shared their views (the CEO ‘was more one of the four; he was sitting
there listening’) and questioned past norms (‘I think it freed up the mind ... It
was a great experience’). As also evident from Table 5, participants in other
change workshops (e.g. Defenceco 1 and the Charity) also engaged in behaviours that were quite different from those in their workplace. This was also true
of one continuity workshop, Defenceco 2 (Table 6). In this liminal state, we also
observed communitas and, in some cases, anti-structure, though the extent of
these dynamics varied.
Collins (2004) regards the emotional energy and commitment of participants
within a group, or communitas, as the measure of success in a ritual. We see such
emotional commitment, not as an outcome, but as a key behavioural dynamic
within a strategy workshop that influences other outcomes and, in particular,
whether or not the purpose of the workshop is achieved. As Table 5 shows, communitas was clearly present in the first Hotelco workshop, but markedly absent
in the second, where the rift between the consultant and the directors and eventually the other participants came to dominate. The Charity workshop participants saw the value-chain framework as relevant to the purpose of the debate,
and their energetic discussions of whether to partner or not culminated in a view
1604
Organization Studies 31(12)
Table 5.
Variation in the
Behavioural
Dynamics of
Change Workshops
Workshop/outcome CEO behaviour
Communitas
Antistructure
Hotelco 1
Successful
The CEO signalled
endorsement of the liturgy
by complying with it – that
is, he refrained from
dominating the
proceedings.
One director noted:
‘Matters were discussed
more fully … I could have
the time to think things
through and make a
comment rather than try to
work at someone else’s
pace.’
High
Participants were engaged
and energized: ‘Everyone
was engrossed’; ‘I
remember feeling upbeat’
and ‘Those two days
were probably the most
memorable of my time
with the company.’
High
The directors felt
that their
discussions had
been more focused
and honest, with
them questioning
each other. One
observed: ‘There was
more consensus ... it
was a more level
playing field.’
Defenceco 1
Successful
The CEO’s design of the
liturgy – getting the other
directors to put themselves
in his shoes – highlighted
their potential contribution
and downplayed his own
authority.
High
Participants, with one
exception, energized in
considering a range of
potential options.
Excitement about
unexplored possibilities:
e.g. could capabilities in
managing complex
operations be applied in
other industry contexts?
The CEO: ‘An
acknowledgement from
everyone that there
needed to be somewhere
else that we could employ
our skills, and [discussion
of] where might that be.’
High
Status quo
challenged through
‘blue skies’ ideas
(e.g. diversifying
from managing
defence services to
managing healthcare
facilities).
High
A common goal for
‘eradicating world
poverty’ appeared to
foster solidarity and a
shared vision. The
strategy workshop
proceeded smoothly and
in line with the day’s
agenda. The issue of
partnering was discussed
and debated vigorously in
breakout groups, but with
no evidence of animosity.
Moderate:
‘Cautious
anti-structure’.
CEO kept a low
profile but the
Chairman of the
Board was very
much in control,
particularly in
debriefing following
breakout
discussions. When
one group reported
back some tentative
concerns with a
partnering
approach, he
brokered a
consensus which
was in favour of
going down the
partnering route.
Charity
Successful
CEO took a back seat but
had agreed beforehand
with the Chairman that he
(the Chairman) would run
things and drive
consensus-building.
With the exception
of one participant
who asked for ‘more
of the same’, the
others often
prefaced comments
with expressions
such as ‘Being
controversial, could
I suggest…?’
1605
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
Table 5.
(Continued)
Table 6.
Variation in the
Behavioural
Dynamics of
Continuity
Workshops
Workshop/outcome CEO behaviour
Communitas
Antistructure
Hotelco 2
Unsuccessful
Low
Although initially
engaged and general
agreement on aims and
vision (‘we were in
harmony’), there was a
breakdown in
communication between
directors and the next tier.
Resulted in directors and
their reports meeting in
separate rooms with
facilitator trying to
mediate. Eventually a
proposal from the directors
for an operational board
was seen to favour three
of the seven direct
reports. Communitas
markedly absent. One
director acknowledged:
‘We left these people
feeling really deflated.’
Low
Although some
efforts made by the
next tier to assert
themselves, the
status quo was
reinforced as a
degree of cordial
relations were
resumed only
towards the end of
the workshop, once
people started
talking about
operational matters
(i.e. getting back to
the everyday).
Workshop/outcome CEO behaviour
Communitas
Antistructure
Defenceco 2
Successful
The CEO asserted his
position on key strategic
issues and sought
commitment by
emphasizing
‘convergence’ around a
shared view of strategy.
High
Participants, without
exception, focused on
and united in the goal to
avoid unfavourable
takeover outcome.
Noticeable focus and
immediacy to their
discussions. Shared
concerns about a
potentially grave situation
promoted solidarity and
joint commitment to the
CEO’s approach.
Low
CEO asserted his
position
unambiguously and
sought buy-in. Thus
status quo
reinforced: i.e. focus
on consolidation,
not change. More
discussion about
what the business
truly was and less
blue skies ideas:
‘Our core business
is engineering
service related.’
Oilco
Successful
CEO adopted a low profile
but had arranged with the
specialist a liturgy to
ensure participants
retained their
organizational roles during
the workshop.
Moderate/low
Consensus readily
formed; participants
listened to other
viewpoints and adjusted
their own. However,
preoccupation with
mobile phones, checking
emails on laptops and
discussion of operational
matters curtailed
emotional engagement.
Low
Focus on building
consensus; no
dissenting voices.
Discussions around
performance targets
tightly aligned with
Oilco’s strategy.
Although labelled
‘strategic’, most
discussion was
operational and
grounded in the
everyday.
The directors and
especially the CEO
resumed dominance. The
facilitator said that he had
been ‘undermined’ because
the CEO did not comply
with the liturgy (e.g. the
CEO’s presentation offered
less autonomy to the next
tier than the facilitator
thought had been agreed).
(Continued)
1606
Organization Studies 31(12)
Table 6.
(Continued)
Workshop/outcome CEO behaviour
Communitas
Antistructure
Defenceco 3
Unsuccessful
Low
Mid-way participants
appeared confused as to
what they were doing; not
energized or engaged
with each other. Although
an open debate, it was
unfocused.
Low
Participants more in
their functional
roles. Status quo not
challenged despite
questions posed by
the CEO. The group
gravitated quickly
towards actionpoints relating to
current strategy
albeit with little
clarity by the end.
As one participant
put it: ‘Do we just
have to hold our
nerve?’
Unlike other two
workshops, the CEO did
not have a clear liturgy.
Reliance on general
questions: ‘Is our strategy
still valid?’ and ‘Should
we give thought to a Plan
B?’ Also an absence of
morale-boosting messages,
as before.
that this option ought to be pursued. High levels of communitas were also
evident in the first Defenceco workshop. All but one of the participants engaged
enthusiastically with both the liturgical devices employed. The exception was
one manager who regarded these as means of encouraging debate about unrealistic strategic options. Moreover, the competence analysis in this workshop led
to a feeling among participants that they could ‘take on the world’. This was not
just a matter of removal (which was not especially high anyway) but of the perceived legitimacy of the liturgy in relation to the purpose of the event.
Table 6 shows that the second Defenceco workshop, which employed Porter’s
framework to refocus participants on the current strategy, despite being a quite
different orientation to the first, again galvanized enthusiastic commitment.
Oilco workshop participants engaged with the process led by the facilitator,
though with less enthusiasm than was evident in other workshops. The exception was the third Defenceco workshop, with no apparent liturgy and an unclear
purpose. Here the emotional commitment of participants flagged and there was
overall disappointment with the event: ‘We would have been better off staying
in the office.’
Collins (2004) argues that communitas arises because the symbolic nature of
ritual focuses attention on the purpose and associated liturgy and, as such, creates ‘its own feeling of intersubjectivity, its own shared emotion’ (2004:37). For
Collins, this mutuality of focus and shared emotion is self-reinforcing, so
encouraging greater bonding of those present and their commitment to the activities within a ritual and its purpose. This reinforcing cycle between purpose, use
of a liturgy and the sense of solidarity seemed to be at work in the first Hotelco
workshop, during the competence analysis in the first Defenceco workshop and
in the breakout groups in the Charity (see Table 5). In the second Defenceco
workshop (Table 6), which took place in the context of a potential takeover of
the business, the emotional bonding of participants was particularly evident.
Here the CEO structured the discussion, not only to require participants to identify
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
1607
the components of the strategy, but also to commit themselves to that strategy
whatever the outcome of the potential takeover. In effect, he was ‘putting them
on the line’.
The data in Tables 5 and 6 show that communitas is not necessarily associated
with the extent of removal. There were workshops where communitas was evident where removal was high (Hotelco 1), moderate (Defenceco 1 and 2), low
(Oilco) and mixed (Charity). The common characteristic in all the workshops
where communitas was high was the high perceived legitimacy of the liturgy in
relation to a clear and commonly understood purpose. In the absence of these
factors (Hotelco 2, Defenceco 3 and Oilco), communitas was of a lower order.
We conclude that, providing it is seen as legitimate by participants in terms of
the workshop purpose, the liturgy itself creates a kind of psychological removal
in that the language and script followed are distinctly different from everyday
organizational experience and concerned with issues not typically addressed.
Proposition 1: The extent of communitas within a ritualized strategy episode
increases when participants perceive the liturgy to be a legitimate means to
achieve the workshop purpose.
Anti-structure refers to a freeing of participants from structural norms as distinct
from remaining within such structural norms. As liminal settings, strategy workshops may generate the propensity for just such relaxing of social structures.
However, our data suggest that the extent to which this occurs depends on the
actions of those in a position of authority (in our cases the CEO) to signal the
suspension of participants’ structural roles in the day-to-day work environment.
Where this happened, it did so by means of the CEO endorsing the liturgy and
specialist as enablers of such anti-structure (see Tables 5 and 6).
Anti-structure was of a high order in the first Hotelco workshop, where the
CEO willingly subjugated his normal dominance to the liturgy adopted by the
specialist. It was, however, markedly absent in the second workshop, where
the CEO’s hierarchical command and control style reasserted itself, so diminishing the role of both liturgy and specialist. In the first Defenceco workshop,
the CEO deliberately structured the event to diminish his own authority within
the workshop and positioned participants as notionally in that role as opposed to
their own; in effect, he was seeking to promote anti-structure. He then built on
this by asking the specialist to orchestrate a competence analysis that encouraged ‘blue skies’ thinking. The opposite was the case in the second workshop,
where he made clear his position on key strategic issues and asked participants
to commit to that, not only as members of the top team, but also as heads of management functions. In the Charity workshop, the CEO kept a low profile, saying
little, while the participants had a free exchange of views, prompted by the facilitator’s use of the value-chain framework. However, the Chairman of the Board
of Trustees (with the prior agreement of the CEO) took charge of the plenary discussion to ensure that a consensus was reached to modify the strategy. In the
Oilco workshop, however, while the CEO also adopted a low profile, everyone
was expected to stay within their organizational roles and report on activities
relating to the strategy of the organization from their perspective.
1608
Organization Studies 31(12)
Proposition 2: Anti-structure in a workshop increases when the CEO signals
relaxation of hierarchical and structural norms and endorses the legitimacy
of the liturgy and specialist.
Explaining the Outcomes of Strategy Workshops
Here we seek to explain three different outcomes of the workshops in terms of
theories of ritualization. We define outcomes as whether the purpose of the
workshop was achieved within the workshop itself. Specifically, if the purpose
of the workshop was about reconsidering or reformulating strategy (change),
was that intent achieved within the workshop? If the purpose was reviewing or
consolidating strategy (continuity), was that intent achieved within the workshop? Or, was the purpose not achieved, i.e. was there failure to achieve change
or continuity?
First, compare the change workshops. As summarized in Table 7, the first
workshops for Hotelco and Defenceco had a clear purpose; the extent of
removal helped create liminal conditions within which there was a liturgy suited
to purpose that fostered the emotional energy characteristic of communitas.
Combined with the levelling achieved by Hotelco’s workshop facilitator (supported by the CEO) and anti-structure encouraged by Defenceco’s CEO, these
conditions led to a challenging of the status quo. The Charity workshop was held
in its head office, the strategy discussion preceded a more operational agenda
and anti-structure was less evident. However, the clarity of purpose, perceived
legitimacy of the event itself and of the liturgy encouraged communitas and a
questioning of strategy.
In the case of the failed workshop for change (Hotelco 2), the purpose, though
nominally about significant change, became confused, removal was low, hierarchy and organizational roles were reasserted and the workshop became concerned with operational issues. The specialist facilitator attempted to stick to a
process liturgy not perceived to be legitimate and that eventually came to be
Table 7
Summary of
Case-Study Findings
Workshop
Espoused
purpose
Clarity
of
purpose Removal
Liturgy
and
AntiSpecialists Communitas structure Outcome
Hotelco 1
Change
High
Very high
High
High
High
Successful
Defenceco 1 Change
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Successful
Charity
Change
High
Mixed
High
High
Moderate Successful
Hotelco 2
Change
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Unsuccessful
Defenceco 2 Continuity High
Moderate
High
High
Low
Successful
Oilco
Very low
High
Moderate/
low
Low
Successful
Low
Low
Unsuccessful
Continuity Mixed
Defenceco 3 Continuity Low
Moderate to Low
low
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
1609
disregarded, with a resulting lack of cognitive engagement and a good deal of
emotional negativity. So:
Proposition 3: For change workshops, success is dependent on clarity of purpose
to participants and a liturgy perceived as legitimate; thus creating antistructure and communitas within the group that, in turn, lead to questioning
and challenging.
Note that removal and the role of the specialist do not appear to be essential to
the success of a workshop but, given clarity of purpose, a legitimate liturgy and
reduction of hierarchy, they can provide additional reinforcement and further
increase the likelihood of success.
Our data further suggest that there may be a special benefit of the privileged
ritualization of strategy workshops when the purpose is change. Anti-structure,
accompanied by a liturgy encouraging questioning of the status quo, may stimulate what some have called ‘constructive confrontation’ (Burgelman 1991;
Tjsvold 2007) or ‘cognitive conflict’ (Amason 1996), without triggering negative affect within the group. The liturgies employed in the first Hotelco and
Defenceco workshops galvanized questioning of the status quo and produced
divergent views among participants. Nonetheless, feelings of communitas preserved, even enhanced, group solidarity in the face of such conflicting opinions
that otherwise might have led to more affective conflict. Where communitas and
anti-structure were not present in combination, this did not occur: a similar
liturgy was employed in the second Hotelco workshop as in the first one but, in
the absence of communitas, the workshop dissolved into affective confrontation.
The combination of anti-structure and communitas therefore produces a unique
set of circumstances — a group ready to debate and challenge, but one who will
do so without generating an overhead of affective conflict (Amason 1996).
If we consider workshops for continuity, as summarized in Table 7, the successful Oilco workshop and second Defenceco workshop both had a clear purpose and a liturgy suited to the purpose of reviewing strategy. Further, in both, the
extent of anti-structure was less than in the change workshops. In the Oilco workshop, this was because the liturgy employed was familiar, groundedness was
high — issues discussed were largely to do with operational activities underpinning strategy — and removal was low. In the case of the second Defenceco workshop, the CEO reasserted his hierarchical, if facilitative, role and focused on more
operational issues than in the first workshop. Further, both Oilco and the second
Defenceco workshops referred to past successes and were relatively formalized
discussions with participants remaining largely in their operational roles. These
corresponded to rituals where ‘“tradition authority”, rooted in an appeal to the
past’ (Bell 1992; 120) is emphasized. The purpose of the third Defenceco workshop, in contrast, was ambiguous and there was no clear liturgy, with the consequence that participants felt they had wasted their time. Thus:
Proposition 4: For continuity workshops, success is dependent on the clarity
of purpose, a liturgy perceived as legitimate, a more grounded agenda and the
CEO (or workshop leader) encouraging greater structure in terms of hierarchy and formalized behaviour.
1610
Organization Studies 31(12)
The Management of Strategy Workshops
The systematic variation we have described in connections between ritual and
workshop outcomes raises the question as to whether managers do or can structure such workshops to achieve strategic purposes. For workshops with the purpose of change, the behavioural states encouraged by liminal conditions seem to
align with what the sponsors of workshops often seek to create — the potential
for liberating participants to question the status quo and envisage change, coupled with a heightened emotional commitment and solidarity around such
debate. The means of achieving this through ritualization seem manageable:
employing an appropriate liturgy, using a specialist to legitimize the process,
privileging the event by removal from the everyday and limiting participation to
a select group. Similarly, the factors influencing the success of workshops for
continuity — a liturgy suited to purpose, greater groundedness and structure —
seem manageable.
We see evidence of the deliberate management of strategy workshops. In the
first Hotelco and Defenceco workshops, there was deliberate structuring of
the events to get freewheeling ideas for change on the table. In the second
Defenceco workshop, there was deliberate structuring, orchestrated by the CEO,
which succeeded in getting commitment to continuity of strategy. In Oilco, the
CEO chose the facilitator precisely because he knew that the same process
liturgy would be employed that had been successful in previous strategy review
workshops. The value chain was employed by the Charity workshop facilitator
specifically to provide a rationale for a discussion of partnering.
Deliberate management of workshop design does, then, occur in terms of the
manipulation of the nature of removal, the use of liturgy and specialists as levers
of influence. Moreover, as we have shown, variations in these features seem to
influence outcomes. There is no suggestion here, however, that designers of
strategy workshops explicitly take into account their ritual characteristics. It is
therefore possible that they end up with workshop designs that are not suited for
purpose, for example, by promoting anti-structure and reversal and therefore
encouraging challenge and questioning when the purpose is review and continuity. This is an issue we return to in the discussion that follows.
Discussion
We have demonstrated the relevance of ritual theory in explaining the behavioural dynamics and achievement of purpose of strategy workshops. Here we
discuss our explanation in the context of previous research relating to strategy
workshops and also to the wider strategic management literature, in particular,
research on strategic planning. Our argument is that rituals are significant in
organizations, not least in the structuring of episodes within strategy processes,
such as strategy workshops, and that understanding such episodes as ritualized
episodes illuminates the findings of prior research.
Hendry and Seidl (2003) contend that strategy episodes are a useful unit of
analysis by which to understand both strategy processes and the practice of strategy.
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
1611
Episodes are important because they may act to suspend everyday organizational
structures and thus facilitate strategic debate. Building on this, Jarzabkowski and
Seidl (2008) provide empirical insights into the structures of strategy episodes.
We extend these arguments by proposing that understanding such episodes in
terms of theories of ritual and ritualization provides further insight and raises
further implications, not least because of the structuring effects of ritualization itself.
We have shown how the success or failure of a workshop is likely to depend
on the alignment or misalignment of various ritual elements. This provides a different explanation, for example, to Hodgkinson and Wright’s (2002) ‘failed
strategy episode’. Their explanation of failure suggested that the challenging
nature of their liturgy — scenario planning — gave rise to defensive routines of
participants and the CEO. Whittington (2006) argued, however, that the workshop’s failure could be explained in terms of misalignment with the ongoing
practice and praxis of strategizing in the firm. Our findings suggest that, within
the workshop itself, even the most sophisticated liturgy employed by a skilled
specialist has to be seen as part of an interwoven set of factors associated with a
ritualized context. There may have been an over-reliance on the power of scenario planning. For a change workshop — which theirs was — at least as important would be the achievement of communitas and anti-structure, both dependent
on the perceived legitimacy of the liturgy and the facilitators themselves, not
least by the workshop sponsor, the CEO.
A further limitation on whether workshops achieve their intended outcomes
does, however, relate to the potential power of the liturgy. We have shown that an
appropriate liturgy, seen as legitimate, can promote participants’ emotional and
intellectual engagement. Bürgi et al. (2005) show how this might be so by utilizing a ‘hands on’ crafting approach in a strategy workshop. However, there is a
danger of liturgy-centred rituals where ‘the question most insistently asked [is] …
“Have we got it right?’’’ (Humphrey and Laidlaw; 1994: 11), as distinct from ‘has
it worked?’ It should not, then, be assumed that strategy workshops employing
liturgies galvanizing energetic commitment necessarily achieve outcomes beyond
the ritualized action within the workshop. We saw as much in the first Hotelco
and Defenceco workshops, both of which were liturgy-centred. The effect was to
remove participants psychologically from everyday work realities. Participants
reflected after both events that the liturgy had rather taken over and that the outcomes were unrealistic. So, ritual theory raises the question of the extent to which
attention to a liturgy should necessarily be seen as having instrumental intent.
It is also clear that a good deal of the management of workshops is accomplished before or after the ritualized episode — ‘backstage’ in Goffman’s (1959)
terms. Both the Oilco and Charity CEOs took a low-profile role during the workshops but made sure the facilitator was carefully chosen and briefed before the
workshops. The participants in the first Hotelco workshop, who so enthusiastically championed change within the event, changed their minds after it and
entered the second workshop with no clear purpose. The Defenceco CEO acted
to ‘calm things down’ after the first workshop.
So, if so much is managed backstage, why is the ritual of the workshop itself
needed? Why should the directors of Hotelco go away to a distant luxury hotel to
follow the agenda of an external facilitator? They could have discussed the
1612
Organization Studies 31(12)
consultant’s report in the office. If, after the first workshop, the CEO and managers
of Defenceco determined that greater focus was needed, why did they need the
second workshop at all? We offer two reasons for this. The first is that a collective
engagement with a liturgy producing communitas has value above and beyond the
resolution of substantive strategic issues. Confirmation and emotional commitment to a strategy is important and a workshop provides the setting for achieving
this. The second relates to liminality. Other researchers who have addressed liminality in a management context have not considered how it operates within strategy episodes, nor have they considered the ritualistic nature of these episodes.
Rather, they have focused either on liminal people such as temporary workers or
management consultants (Tempest and Starkey 2004; Ibarra 2004; Czarnawska
and Mazza 2003) or on how the process of management consulting can be seen as
a liminal experience (Sturdy et al. 2006). These authors recognize that liminality
can be a creative state because of the freedom from normative structures, but that
it is also potentially a state of anxiety, as people have temporarily lost the power
that comes with their structural position. Here we have shown that, within a ritualized episode, the benefits of creativity might, indeed, be realized but that the
characteristics of ritual such as liturgy and the facilitation of a specialist may provide a structure for participants within the episode that encourages group cohesiveness and emotional engagement, so diminishing such anxiety.
There is also the question as to the likelihood of the outcomes of strategy workshops translating into realized outcomes for the organization. Our evidence suggests that such translation is problematic. In the first workshops for both Hotelco
and Defenceco, participants engaged energetically in originating quite different
structures and strategies for their businesses yet, in both cases, these commitments were limited to the workshops; they did not translate into organizational
outcomes. Consistent with ritual theory, in both these workshops, we see that the
communitas resulting from ritualization may lead to ludic behaviour where
‘people play with the elements of the familiar and defamiliarize them’ (Turner
1982: 27). Such situations may, however, be ‘more in contrast than in active
opposition to social structure ... a way of being detached from social structure —
and hence potentially of periodically evaluating its performance’ (Turner 1982:
50–51). On the surface, a reversal of social norms during a state of liminality can
be seen as a challenge to the status quo. However, as Gluckman (1965) shows,
apparent ‘reversals’ of established social norms may actually serve to highlight
their significance. For example, ironically, a king washing the feet of the poor
has the effect of emphasizing the importance of the king (Turner 1969). So structure and anti-structure may reinforce each other over time. Ritualization may,
then, encourage questioning in change-oriented strategy workshops, but such
questioning may be transitory and, after the ritual, it may lead to a heightened
appreciation for the status quo rather than a commitment to change it (Gluckman
1954, 1956). On reflection, the participants in the first Hotelco workshop admitted that the process had ‘run away with them’; that it ‘took over’.
Although our data do not permit us to examine outcomes outside the workshop setting with any authority, we speculate that, in addition to the danger suggested by Humphrey and Laidlaw (1994) that liturgy-centred rituals may focus
on ‘getting it right’ rather than on outcomes, there may be two other explanations
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
1613
for why such outcomes may not carry over into everyday reality. First, the very
difference and ‘privileging’ of a strategy workshop that may heighten liminal
conditions also distances that discussion from the realities of participants’ regular work environment. Such ritualized settings can create ‘a little temporary cult,
a shared reality ... with its own rules ... keeping the mundane surrounding world
outside’ (Collins 1988: 47). This, in turn, may mean that it is problematic to integrate the outcomes (if any) within the workshop into operational realities.
Second, the emotional commitment arising out of ritualization may be transitory.
In ritualized settings, people may express genuine and emotionally charged
beliefs, but those beliefs may be specific to that context: ‘this does not mean that
they act on these beliefs, or that they [have] a sincere feeling about them in other
everyday interactions’ (Collins 2004: 44).
These observations square with the findings of MacIntosh et al. (forthcoming)
from their study of the extent to which the outcomes within strategy workshops
translate successfully to organizational action. They suggest that one-off workshops do not tend to produce changes in organizations’ strategies: rather that
such changes are more likely where there are a series of workshops integrated
with the wider strategy-development processes in organizations. Bringing
together the findings from both studies suggests that the ritual privileging of
workshops may have the benefits of galvanizing questioning and challenge but
runs the risk of their outcomes not translating to organizational outcomes.
However, a series of such workshops may allow sufficient grounding of such
questioning to effect such a translation.
Finally, what do our findings say about strategy workshops within the wider
strategy process literature? One implication concerns the link between strategy
processes and organizational performance (Rajagopalan et al. 1993). Strategy
workshops are typically part of strategic planning processes (Hodgkinson et al.
2006) which are likely to be episodic (Hendry and Seidl 2003) and have ritualized characteristics. We have shown how the misalignment of ritualized characteristics within such workshops may mean that their purposes are not achieved
and that, if they are achieved, their outcomes may not translate into realized
strategy and, thus, have little influence on organizational performance. There
may already be evidence of this. Miller and Cardinal (1994) found correlations
ranging from –0.31 to 0.75 for the relationship between strategic planning and
revenue growth and –0.21 to 0.71 for the relationship between planning and
profitability. Our argument suggests that at least part of this variance may be due
to the potential misalignments we have suggested within the ritualized characteristics of strategy episodes, which may have an influence on whether the
intended outcomes of strategic planning episodes are achieved and hence
whether the strategic planning process influences organizational performance.
More generally, variation in the ritualized practice of deliberate strategy making may be an unrecognized factor in explaining inconsistencies in strategy
process research. These observations resonate with the conclusions from Grant’s
(2003) study of strategic planning in large multinationals. He shows that the
influence of strategic planning on firms’ strategies derives less from analytical
sophistication and more from its ability to increase coordination among managers.
Similarly, Ketokivi and Castaner (2004) found that formal strategic planning
1614
Organization Studies 31(12)
reduces position bias, helps to shift managers’ attention away from sub-goals and
serves to increase the level of integration within the organization. Our arguments
suggest that both the increased coordination and enhanced integration observed
in these studies may be attributable to, or at least enhanced by, the anti-structure
and communitas that can develop in ritualized strategic planning episodes.
Conclusion and Future Research
Our aim has been to demonstrate the power of theories of ritual and ritualization
to provide a theoretical perspective and a useful set of concepts for understanding the dynamics and outcomes of strategy workshops. We also suggest that our
theoretical perspective is likely to be of value, more generally, in understanding
and explaining the wider episodic nature of strategy development. There has been
over a century of systematic study of ritual phenomena in anthropology, yielding
a vast body of ethnography and associated theorizing. We acknowledge that,
here, we have only drawn on a relatively narrow set of such concepts. We also
acknowledge that our findings and propositions must be qualified; they are inductive products of case-based research that is inevitably limited in terms of generalizability. Our hope, however, is that this study might, nonetheless, encourage
management scholars to draw on such empirical and theoretical resources in
future research on the practices and processes of strategic development.
For instance, although we have tried to identify the salient characteristics of strategy workshops, future research should strive to better understand the significance
of such characteristics; not least, whether the propositions we advance are supported more widely than in our study. Further, to what extent is the ritualized nature
of strategy workshops a matter of design? What role do strategy tools and concepts
play liturgically? There are indications that their use is limited (Hodgkinson et al.
2006). Which ones are employed and why? Does their use influence workshop outcomes? We have shown that the emotional engagement of participants (communitas)
is important. We therefore need to know just how this occurs and more about its
effects. When workshop participants are engaged cognitively and emotionally with
the liturgy, how contextually specific and limited to the ritualized setting are the
outcomes of such activities? What is the relative importance of ‘backstage’ activity
(Goffman 1967)— activity outside the ritual itself — to the dynamics of workshops
and to the realization in organizational action of the outcomes of such workshops?
Is it inevitable that outcomes within the workshop will dissipate in the light of
everyday reality? Are there ritualistic elements such as rites of incorporation (Van
Gennep 1960 [1909]) that may enhance the endurance of new ways of thinking and
behaving? What are these and how can research help to identify them? How might
variation in key design parameters, such as removal and liturgy, increase the durability of the changes produced in the ritualized setting?
Finally, we concur with those who argue that, if we are to advance our understanding of strategic management, we need to better explain the links between
what people do as they strategize, the influences on that behaviour and the outcomes
of their strategizing activities (Johnson et al. 2003, 2007; Jarzabskowski et al.
2007). It has been our intent to show that theories of ritual and ritualization may
be helpful and illuminating in this regard.
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
Note
References
1615
We thank the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council for funding for this research through the UK Advanced Institute of Management
Research (AIM). We are also grateful to senior editor Ann Langley and three anonymous reviewers
for their insightful and helpful feedback during the review process.
Alexander, Bobby C.
1997 ‘Ritual and current studies of ritual:
Overview’ in Anthropology of
religion: A handbook. S. D. Glazier
(ed.), 139–160. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Amason, Allen. C.
1996 ‘Distinguishing the effects of
functional and dysfunctional conflict
on strategic decision making:
Resolving a paradox for top
management teams’. Academy of
Management Journal 39/1: 123–148.
Durkheim, Emile
1954 The elementary forms of the religious
life, trans. J. W. Swain. New York:
Free Press. Original work published
1912.
Frisch, Bob, and Logan Chandler
2006 ‘Off-sites that work’. Harvard
Business Review 84/6: 117–126.
Gluckman, Max
1954 Rituals of rebellion in south-east
Africa. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Bell, Catherine
1992 Ritual theory, ritual practice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gluckman, Max
1956 Custom and conflict in Africa.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Bowie, Fiona
2000 The anthropology of religion: An
introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gluckman, Max
1965 Politics, law and ritual in tribal
society. Chicago: Aldine.
Bowker, John
2003 The Oxford dictionary of world
religions. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Goffman, Erving
1959 The presentation of self in everyday
life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Anchor.
Bowman, Cliff
1995 ‘Strategy workshops and top team
commitment to strategic change’.
Journal of Managerial Psychology
10/8: 4–12.
Goffman, Erving
1961 Asylums. Essays on the social
situation of mental patients and other
inmates. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Anchor.
Burgelman, Robert A.
1991 ‘Intraorganizational ecology of
strategy making and organizational
adaptation: Theory and field
research’. Organization Science
2/3: 239–262.
Goffman, Erving
1967 Interaction ritual. New York:
Doubleday.
Bürgi, Peter, Claus Jacobs, and Johan Roos
2005 ‘From metaphor to practice in the
crafting of strategy’. Journal of
Management Inquiry 14/1: 78–94.
Collins, Randall
1988 ‘Theoretical continuities in Goffman’s
work’ in Erving Goffman: Exploring
the interaction order. P. Drew and
A. Wootton (eds). Oxford: Polity Press.
Collins, Randall
2004 Interaction ritual chains. New York:
Princeton University Press.
Czarnawska, Barbara, and Carmelo Mazza
2003 ‘Consulting as a liminal space’.
Human Relations 56/3: 267–290.
Hamel, Gary
1996 ‘Strategy as revolution’. Harvard
Business Review 74/4: 69–82.
Hamel, Gary, and C. K. Prahalad
1994 Competing for the future. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hendry, John, and David Seidl
2003 ‘The structure and significance of
strategic episodes: Social systems
theory and routine practices of
strategic change’. Journal of
Management Studies
40/1: 175–196.
Hodgkinson, Gerard, and George Wright
2002 ‘Confronting strategic inertia in a top
management team: Learning from
failure’. Organization Studies
23: 949–978.
1616
Organization Studies 31(12)
Hodgkinson, Gerard, Richard Whittington,
Gerry Johnson, and Mirella Schwarz
2006 ‘The role of strategy workshops in
strategy development processes:
Formality, communication, coordination and inclusion’. Long
Range Planning 39: 479–496.
Humphrey, Caroline, and James Laidlaw
1994 The archetypal actions of ritual: A
theory of ritual illustrated by the Jain
rite of worship. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Ibarra, Herminia
2004 ‘Becoming yourself: Identity,
networks and the dynamics of role
transition’. INSEAD Working Paper
Series, No. 2004/21/OB.
Janis, Irving, and Leon Mann
1977 Decision making: A psychological
analysis of conflict, choice and
commitment. New York: Free Press.
Mezias, James, Peter Grinyer, and William D.
Guth
2001 ‘Changing collective cognition: A
process model for strategic change’.
Long Range Planning 34/1: 71–95.
Miller, C. Chet, and Laura B. Cardinal
1994 ‘Strategic planning and firm
performance: A synthesis of more
than two decades of research’.
Academy of Management Journal
37/6: 1649–1665.
Mintzberg, Henry
1994 The rise and fall of strategic
planning. London: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, Henry, and Joseph Lampel
1999 ‘Reflecting on the strategy process’.
MIT Sloan Management Review 40/3:
21–30.
Morgan, David. L.
1997 Focus groups as qualitative research.
London: Sage.
Jarzabkowski, Paula, and David Seidl
2008 ‘The role of meetings in the social
practice of strategy’. Organization
Studies 29: 1391–1426.
O’Reilly, Karen
2005 Ethnographic methods. London:
Routledge.
Jarzabskowski, Paula, Julia Balogun, and
David Seidl
2007 ‘Strategizing: The challenges of a
practice perspective’. Human
Relations 60: 5–27.
Orton, James D.
1997 ‘From inductive to iterative grounded
theory: Zipping the gap between
process theory and process data’.
Scandinavian Journal of Management
13: 419–438.
Johnson, Gerry, Leif Melin, and Richard
Whittington
2003 ‘Micro-strategy and strategising’.
Journal of Management Studies
40: 3–20.
Porter, Michael
1985 Comptetitive advantage: Creating and
sustaining superior performance.
New York: Free Press.
Johnson, Gerry, Ann Langley, Leif. Melin,
and Richard Whittington
2007 Strategy as practice: Research
directions and resources. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Keane, Webb
1997 ‘Religious language’. Annual Review
of Anthropology 26: 47–71.
Ketokivi, Mikko, and Xavier Castaner
2004 ‘Strategic planning as an integrative
device’. Administrative Science
Quarterly 49: 337–365.
MacIntosh Robert, Donald MacLean, and
David Seidl
‘Unpacking the effectivity paradox of
strategy workshops: Do strategy
workshops produce strategic change?’
The Cambridge handbook of strategy
as practice. Forthcoming.
Porter. Michael
1996 ‘What is strategy?’ Harvard Business
Review, November/December: 61–78.
Rajagopalan, Nandini, Abdul M. A. Rasheed,
and Deepak K. Datta
1993 ‘Strategic decision processes: Critical
review and future directions’. Journal
of Management 19: 349–384.
Schwartzman, Helen B.
1986 ‘The meeting as a neglected social
form in organizational studies’.
Research on Organizational Behavior
8: 233–258.
Sturdy, Andrew, Mirella Schwarz, and Andre
Spicer
2006 ‘Guess who’s coming to dinner?
Structure and uses of liminality in
strategic management consultancy’.
Human Relations 59: 929–960.
Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops
1617
Suchman. Mark
1995 ‘Managing legitimacy; Strategic and
institutional approaches’. Academy of
Management Review 20: 571–610.
Turner, Victor
1982 From ritual to theater: The human
seriousness of play. New York: PAJ
Publications.
Tempest, Susan, and Kenneth Starkey
2004 ‘The effects of liminality on individual
and organizational learning’.
Organization Studies 25: 507–527.
Van Gennep, Arnold
1960 The rites of passage, trans.
M. B. Vizedom and G. B. Caffee.
Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. Original work published
1909.
Trosvold, D.
2007 ‘The conflict-positive organization: It
depends upon us’. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 29: 19–28.
Turner, Victor
1969 The ritual process: Structure and
anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine.
Whittington, Richard
2006 ‘Completing the practice turn in
strategy research’. Organization
Studies 27: 613–634.
Gerry Johnson
Gerry Johnson is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Management at Lancaster University
Management School and Senior Fellow of the UK Advanced Institute of Management
Research (AIM). He received a BA in Anthropology from University College London and
his PhD from Aston University. His research, primarily concerned with strategy development and change, has been published in the Academy of Management Review, Academy
of Management Journal, Journal of Management Studies, Strategic Management
Journal, Organization Studies and British Journal of Management. He serves on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal
and Journal of Management Studies.
Address: University of Lancaster Management School, Lancaster University,
Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Shameen
Prashantham
Shameen Prashantham is a Senior Lecturer in International Business and Strategy at the
University of Glasgow and a Fellow of the UK Advanced Institute of Management
Research (AIM). His research focuses on the internationalization of entrepreneurial firms
and strategy making. He has published in California Management Review, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice and Journal of Management Studies, among others. He earned a
PhD from Strathclyde Business School; his doctoral research won the award for most
original research from the Academy of International Business and he was a finalist for the
Barry Richman Award for best dissertation at the Academy of Management
Address: University of Glasgow, Business School, Centre for Internationalization and
Enterprise Research, Gilbert Scott Building,
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Steven W. Floyd
Steven W. Floyd is the Frank S. Kaulback, Jr. Professor of Commerce at the McIntire
School of Commerce, University of Virginia. His research on strategy process has been
published in two co-authored books and in journals such as Academy of Management
Review, Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Journal
of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Organization Studies, Journal of
International Business Studies, Journal of Organization Behaviour, Academy of
Management Executive and Long Range Planning among others. He is an International
Visiting Fellow of the UK Advanced Institute of Management Research and serves as an
Associate Editor of Strategic Management Journal.
Address: McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
22904, USA
Email: [email protected]
1618
Organization Studies 31(12)
Nicole Bourque
Nicole Bourque is a Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology at the University of
Glasgow, and an Associate of the UK Advanced Institute of Management Research
(AIM). She holds a BA in Anthropology from the University of New Brunswick, Canada,
and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. Her research focuses on religion, ritual and
religious change, including syncretism and conversion. She has carried out field work in
Ecuador, Bolivia and the UK. She sits on the editorial board of the Bulletin of Latin
American Studies and has published in Ethnography.
Address: University of Glasgow School of Social and Political Sciences, Adam Smith
Building, Bute Gardens Glasgow G12 8RT, UK.
Email: [email protected]