/ Journals / Foreign Economics & Management
Foreign Economics & Management
LiZengquan, Editor-in-Chief
ZhengChunrong, Vice Executive Editor-in-Chief
YinHuifang HeXiaogang LiuJianguo, Vice Editor-in-Chief
Editorial Board  |  Read more about this journal »
AboutAll IssuesAuthors GuidePeer ReviewSubscribeContact Us
Home  >  All Issues  >  2018  >  No.03  >  Article Details
Strategy as Practice: A Critical Review and a Conversation with “Zhi-xing-he-yi” Perspective
Xiao Jianqiang1, Sun Li2, Luo Xiaoyi3
Full Article  |  PDF Article(664.4 KB)
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 40, Issue 03, pp. 3 - 19 (2018)  DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2018.03.001
First published at:Mar 01, 2018
Summary
References
Summary

This paper offers a comprehensive and critical review of the " strategy as practice” （SAP） perspective in strategy field and makes a conversation between SAP and Chinese traditional " zhi-xing-he-yi” perspective. SAP perspective emerges under the " practice turn” in western contemporary social theories. Practice theorists adopt a holism view about the world rather than dualism, with a focus on the micro activities of people and the interconnection of these activities with macro social structure or bigger phenomenon. Rooted in practice theories, the SAP perspective emphasizes that strategy is something people do, different from traditional strategy research treating strategy as something organizations have.

Drawing partly from process as well as other-related approaches to strategy, SAP researchers start to form a distinctive academic school with many influential, theoretical, and empirical publications. Early SAP studies attempt to investigate how managers " do strategy” or the strategizing activities of strategy practitioners. The 3P framework （practice, praxis, and practitioner） completes the " practice turn” in strategy; practice refers to the various tools, norms, and procedures of strategy work, praxis refers to the activities involved in strategy-making, and practitioners are all those involved in, or seeking to influence strategy-making. The philosophical foundation of the SAP perspective is phenomenology and hermeneutics that care about the life-world. Building and dwelling are two epistemological worldviews for researching strategy as practice. SAP research has re-conceptualized the " structure-agency” relation, and has extended the boundary of strategy research with three fundamental principles, i.e. practice constrains and enables actions, understanding strategy-making is the primary goal of praxis studies, and we should pay attention to the multiple roles and identities of practitioners.

SAP school also has many conversations with other theoretical approaches of organization studies. SAP and institutional theory share identical theoretical foundations and can learn from each other for further development. Routine dynamics theory is compatible with SAP perspective and can contribute to SAP research as well. Identity theory suggests that identity and strategy are mutually constructed through practice, thus it is tightly connected with SAP. Narrative theory, which pays attention to the production, consumption, reading and understanding of texts or narratives, is a theoretical foundation of SAP.

Two challenges lay ahead of SAP research. One is practical relevance and the other is future direction. Seemingly paradoxical, the practice approach to strategy faces the practical relevance challenge that can be alleviated with the idea of conceptual relevance of practice research according to extant studies. Considerations about the future directions of SAP follow the practical relevance challenge and some scholars have made their suggestions. When comparing SAP with traditional " zhi-xing-he-yi” perspective, we find that they share most philosophical ideas. They both look at the world with a " relational” and process view. The difference between two perspectives is that " zhi-xing-he-yi” requires a higher moral standard of practice and encodes two directions of practice （inside-out and outside-in）.

SAP perspective contributes vital insights to the dialogue about indigenous management research within Chinese academic communities. The fast growing and distinctive management practice of Chinese companies, together with the economic and social transition, makes China now a great context for management and strategy researchers to build indigenous theories. Studies from the SAP perspective offer opportunities for studying the " doing” of indigenous practitioners, either individuals or organizations. As Peter Drucker said, " management is practice; its essence is not knowing but doing”. This paper introduces the SAP perspective, relates it to Chinese traditional philosophical wisdom about knowing and doing, and hopefully will help to facilitate a " practice turn” in indigenous management research.

Keywords
strategy as practice; zhi-xing-he-yi; organization theory; management philosophy; indigenous management
[1] Bourdieu P. Outline of a Theory of Practice[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
[2] Bourdieu P. The Logic of Practice[M]. Cambridge: Polity, 1990
[3] Chen C H. On the combination of management research and practices[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2017, 14(8):1123-1127.
[4] Chen C H, Liu Z. Water-form organizations: A new organizational concept[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2017, 39(7):3-14.
[5] Chia R, Holt R. Strategy as practical coping: A Heideggerian perspective[J]. Organization Studies, 2006, 27(5):635-55.
[6] Chia R, MacKay B. Post-processual challenges for the emerging strategy-as-practice perspective: Discovering strategy in the logic of practice[J]. Human Relations, 2007, 60(1):217-42.
[7] Chia R, Rasche A. Epistemological alternatives for researching strategy as practice: Building and dewelling worldview. In: Golsorkhi D, Rouleau L, Seidl D, Vaara E, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice(2ed)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
[8] Dong P. The practical substance of Wang Yang-ming's philosophy—Focused on the thesis of syncretism of knowledge and action[J]. Journal of Yantai University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), 2013, 26(1):14-20.
[9] Feldman MS. Theory of routine dynamics and connections to strategy as practice. In: Golsorkhi D, Rouleau L, Seidl D, Vaara E, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice(2ed)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
[10] Feldman MS, Orlikowski WJ. Theorizing practice and practicing theory[J]. Organization Science, 2011, 22(5):1240-53.
[11] Fenton C, Langley A. Strategy as practice and the narrative turn[J]. Organization Studies. 2011, 32(9):1171-96.
[12] Jarzabkowski P. Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use[J]. Organization Studies, 2004, 25(4):529-60.
[13] Jarzabkowski P. Shaping strategy as a structuration process[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2008, 51(4):621-50.
[14] Jarzabkowski P, Kaplan S, Seidl D, Whittington R. On the risk of studying practices in isolation: Linking what, who, and how in strategy research[J]. Strategic Organization. 2016, 14(3):248-59.
[15] Jarzabkowski P, Seidl D. The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy[J]. Organization Studies, 2008, 29(11):1391-426.
[16] Jarzabkowski P, Spee AP. Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions for the field[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2009, 11(1):69-95.
[17] Jarzabkowski P, Wolf C. An activity theory approach to strategy as practice. In: Golsorkhi D, Rouleau L, Seidl D, Vaara E, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice(2ed)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
[18] Johnson G, Langley A, Melin L, Whittington R. Introducing the strategy as practice perspective. In: Johnson G, Langley A, Melin L, Whittington R, editors. Strategy as Practice: Research Directions and Resources[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[19] Johnson G, Melin L, Whittington R. Micro strategy and strategizing: Towards an activity-based view[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2003, 40:3-22.
[20] Kaplan S. Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making[J]. Organization Science, 2011, 22(2):320-46.
[21] Langley A. The ongoing challenge of developing cumulative knowledge about strategy as practice. In: Golsorkhi D, Rouleau L, Seidl D, Vaara E, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice(2ed) [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
[22] Lawrence TB, Suddaby R. Institutions and institutional work. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Nord WR, editors. Handbook of Organization Studies[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006.
[23] Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, Leca B. Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[24] Navis C, Glynn MA. Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(3):479-99.
[25] Oliver D. Identity work as strategy as practice. In: Golsorkhi D, Rouleau L, Seidl D, Vaara E, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice(2ed)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
[26] Orlikowski WJ. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations[J]. Organization Science, 2000, 11(4):404-28.
[27] Orlikowski WJ. Practice in research: Phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In: Golsorkhi D, Rouleau L, Seidl D, Vaara E, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice(2ed)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
[28] Sandberg J, Dall'Alba G. Returning to practice anew: A life-world perspective[J]. Organization Studies, 2009, 30(12): 1349-1368.
[29] Sandberg J, Tsoukas H. Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(2):338-60.
[30] Schatzki TR, Knorr-Cetina K, von Savigny E, editors. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory[M]. London: Routledge, 2001.
[31] Seidl D. General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: A systemic-discursive perspective[J]. Organization Studies, 2007, 28(2):197-218.
[32] Seidl D, Whittington R. Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies[J]. Organization Studies, 2014, 35(10):1407-21.
[33] Smets M, Aristidou A, Whittington R. Towards a practice-driven institutionalism. In: Greenwood R, Oliver C, Lawrence TB, Meyer RE, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2017.
[34] Smets M, Morris T, Greenwood R. From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2012, 55(4):877-904.
[35] Splitter V, Seidl D. Practical relevance of practice -based research on strategy. In: Golsorkhi D, Rouleau L, Seidl D, Vaara E, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice(2ed)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
[36] Suddaby R, Seidl D, Lê JK. Strategy-as-practice meets neoinstitutional theory[J]. Strategic Organization, 2013, 11(3):329-44.
[37] Sun S L, Li P. Good theory, bad management[J]. CEIBS Business Review, 2014, 9:34-39.
[38] Tsui AS, Ren B, Lü L. A Collection of Papers on Management Theory Building[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2016.
[39] Tsoukas H. Making strategy: Meta-theoretical insights from Heideggerian phenomenology. In: Golsorkhi D, Rouleau L, Seidl D, Vaara E, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice(2ed)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
[40] Vaara E, Whittington R. Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously[J]. Academy of Management Annals, 2012, 6(1):285-336.
[41] Whittington R. Strategy as practice[J]. Long Range Planning, 1996, 29(5):731-5.
[42] Whittington R. Completing the practice turn in strategy research[J]. Organization Studies, 2006, 27(5):613-34.
[43] Whittington R. Strategy practice and strategy process: Family differences and the sociological eye[J]. Organization Studies, 2007, 28(10):1575-86.
Cite this article
Xiao Jianqiang, Sun Li, Luo Xiaoyi. Strategy as Practice: A Critical Review and a Conversation with “Zhi-xing-he-yi” Perspective[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2018, 40(3): 3-19. 
Export Citations as: For   
Previous: The Research-Teaching “Oneness” of Competitive Dynamics：Toward an Ambicultural Integration
Next: How does the Internet Short Video Business Model Realize Value Creation? A Comparative Case Study of Douyin and Kuaishou
ISSUE COVER
2018, Issue 03
RELATED ARTICLES
Generativity: A Review of a Foundational Concept in Digital Innovation
Zou Bo, Li Shuhua, Sun Li, et al
Entrepreneurship: A Comparative Institution-History Perspective
Sun Li, Zhu Rong, Zhang Yuli
“Live Long and Prosper”: A Dialogue with the Performance-Orientation Paradox
Luo Xiaoyi, Sun Sunny Li
Ruimin Zhang’s Water Management Philosophy and Its Theoretical System
Hu Guodong, Li Miao
Water-form Organizations: A New Organizational Concept
Chen Chunhua, Liu Zhen
Business Group, Income Tax Reform and Corporate Real Earnings Management
Hu Zhiying, Sun Li
A Conceptual Framework of “Wu”-based Innovation at the Team Level: A Case Study on Indigenous Innovation in the Context of Aerospace Projects
Wang Xin, Li Ping
A Literature Review of Social Behavior of Corporate Executives from the Perspectives of Socially Situated/Constituted Agencies
Zhou Jian, Yu Yaodong, Luo Xiaoyi
The Application of Water Metaphor in Management Theory with Chinese Characteristics
Luo Yadong, Fu Zhengping
Journals  |   Articles  |   Submission  |   Subscribe  |   Contact us
Copyright 2024 © Department of Academic Journals, SUFE    No. 321 Guoding Rd, Shanghai, China    P.O: 200433