Performing strategy—Analogical reasoning as strategic practice

ARTICLE IN PRESS Scand. J. Mgmt. (2008) 24, 133–144

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/scaman

Performing strategy—Analogical reasoning as strategic practice Matt Statlera,, Claus D. Jacobsb,1, Johan Roosc,2 a

International Center for Enterprise Preparedness (InterCEP), New York University, 113 University Place, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10003, USA b Institute of Management, University of St. Gallen, Dufourstr. 40a, CH 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland c Stockholm School of Economics (SSE), Sveavagen 65, SE 113 50 Stockholm, Sweden

KEYWORDS Analogical reasoning; Metaphors; Strategy; Practice

Abstract The concept of analogical reasoning refers to the successful transfer of structural similarities from a source to a target domain of knowledge. Organizational research focused exclusively on the cognitive aspects of analogical reasoning remains limited however, in its capacity to describe the function and effects of analogical reasoning within the organizational contexts where it occurs. This paper extends existing theory of analogical reasoning by drawing on the concept of practice as it has been developed by strategy-as-practice researchers. In particular, we suggest that in addition to cognition, analogical reasoning involves social structuration and embodied performance. By reframing analogical reasoning as a strategic practice, we provide the emerging field of strategy-as-practice research with a new analytical lens through which to view the microlevel activities associated with strategizing. The paper includes an empirical case to illustrate the suggested contribution to theory, and it closes with a discussion of implications for future strategy-as-practice theory and research. & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction Analogical reasoning has been defined as a cognitive operation involving the successful transfer of knowledge from a source domain to a target domain (Tsoukas, 1991, Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 212 992 9931;

fax: +1 212 995 4614. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Statler), [email protected] (C.D. Jacobs), [email protected] (J. Roos). 1 Tel.: +41 71 224 2381; fax: +41 71 224 2355. 2 Tel.: +46 70 272 7057. 0956-5221/$ - see front matter & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2007.11.006

1993). While organization theorists have recognized this operation as a central component of most organizational processes, they have focused exclusively on the cognitive aspects of these processes. This constraint limits the explanatory power of the theory to describe how analogical reasoning actually occurs in the context of organizational life. In this paper, we extend the concept of analogical reasoning by drawing on strategy-as-practice research (Jarzabkowski, Balogun, & Seidl, 2007) that has emerged around an interest in what, at a micro-level, people actually do when strategizing (Johnson, Melin, & Whittington, 2003). Specifically, the purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, to build on existing theory by introducing social structuration

ARTICLE IN PRESS 134 and embodied performance as additional aspects of analogical reasoning; and second, to contribute to the strategyas-practice literature a new lens through which to study and understand ‘‘the specific know-how’’ (Balogun, Jarzabkowski, & Seidl, 2007) required when organizational actors, or strategists for that matter, compare source and target domains of knowledge that are consequential for the organization (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). We show how this lens can work by presenting and discussing an empirical case in which the socially structured, embodied and performative dimensions of analogical reasoning are deliberately incorporated into a strategy process technique. We close by reflecting on the implications of an expanded theory of analogical reasoning for future strategy-as-practice theory and research.

2. Analogical reasoning in organizational studies Analogical reasoning has been considered by cognitive scientists as a vital feature of human cognition that involves applying knowledge from a relatively familiar domain (i.e., the source) to another less familiar domain (i.e., the target) (Gentner, Holyoak, & Kokinov, 2001; Holyoak & Thagard, 1997; Vosniadou & Ortony, 1989). According to this stream of research, the application of knowledge by analogy involves at least two distinct forms of relation between source and target. At one level, there is a superficial similarity that involves a recognized correspondence between the features of the objects in the source and target domains. At another level, there is a structural similarity that involves a semblance of the deep structures within the source and target domains. Because this higher-order similarity can exist irrespective of superficial similarities between the objects involved (Forbus, Gentner, & Law, 1995), structural similarities have been understood as the most essential characteristic of analogical reasoning (Gentner & Markman, 1997). Organizational scholars have addressed this issue primarily from a constructionist perspective, with the assumption that the language involved in analogical reasoning does not merely represent pre-existing objects, but instead plays a fundamentally constructive role in the constitution of social reality. They have argued that when people interact and communicate, they intersubjectively generate meaning (e.g. Alvesson & Karreman, 2000; Barry & Elmes, 1997; Ford & Ford, 1995; Gergen & Thatchenkery, 1996; Heracleous & Barrett, 2001; Jacobs & Heracleous, 2005), in part through the use of symbols and metaphors (e.g. Black, 1993; Cornelissen, 2005, 2006; Lakoff, 1990; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) that analogically refer from one domain of meaning or knowledge to another. Tsoukas (1993, 1991) has demonstrated in particular that organizations as social systems face the challenge of developing, comparing and making judgments about various perceptual and experiential schemata. In response to this challenge, people who engage in knowledge generation and sense-making processes in organizations employ analogical reasoning whenever they communicate using metaphors. Metaphors function by introducing an initial, superficial similarity at the object level between source and target that

M. Statler et al.

INSIGHT

Metaphor as initial trigger; Suggesting superficial similarities

ANALOGY

Exploring potential structural similarities implied in the metaphor

ISOMORPHISM

More systematic formulation of structural similarities

Fig. 1 Process model of analogical reasoning (based on Tsoukas, 1991, p. 575).

may then to be explored and ‘tested’ for potential structural similarities through a process of analogical reasoning in a deeper, more systematic manner (Tsoukas, 1993, p. 342). While from a literal, objectivist perspective, metaphoric language might appear to be ornamental, expendable or even distorting in conveying ‘‘the facts’’ (Pinder & Bourgeois, 1982), from a constructionist perspective metaphors can enable actors to re-frame their perceptions (Barrett & Cooperrider, 1990) in social practices of sensemaking. In this sense, the analogical similarity between source and target domain may not only be identified through the use of metaphor, but may additionally be created by it. Building from Tsoukas’ process model (1991)3 (cf. Fig. 1) we can understand analogical reasoning through metaphors from a constructionist perspective. First, an initial insight might be triggered by some metaphor that suggests a superficial similarity at the object level. Secondly, the implied similarity is intersubjectively explored for further structural similarities that lead to the establishment of an analogy. Through an oscillatory process of examining more thoroughly and systematically the plausibility of the suggested structural and relational similarities, a more fine-grained understanding is generated, and an isomorphism—i.e., a correspondence or identity between structural features of source and target—can be claimed (1991, p. 574ff). Throughout this process ‘‘higherorder semantic relations (i.e., relations between relations) are preserved at the expense of lower order relations or mere isolated properties’’ (1991, p. 574). Through such an iterative ‘drilling’ process, the sensemaking potential of a metaphor can be brought to bear in contexts such as strategy, organizational learning and organizational development processes.

3 We acknowledge that Tsoukas’ (1991) initial concern is with the role of metaphors for the generation of knowledge within the domain of organization theory. Yet, we suggest that this generic reasoning process will prove equally useful at a more practical level of knowledge generation in organizations.

ARTICLE IN PRESS Performing strategy—Analogical reasoning as strategic practice However compelling this conceptualization of analogical reasoning using metaphors may be, it does not fully address other crucial aspects of the ‘drilling’ activity that occurs in organizational contexts. Indeed, if we re-frame all discursive practices as situated symbolic action (Heracleous & Marshak, 2004); or, if our consideration of the generative potential of metaphors (Black, 1993; Morgan, 1997; Schon, 1993) serves as a means to the end of more thoroughly understanding organizational dynamics (Marshak, 1993; Morgan, 1980, 1983; Oswick & Grant, 1996), then we encounter two significant limitations of the existing research on analogical reasoning in organizations. First, the existing research has predominantly focused on discursive interactions to the neglect of other dimensions of human experience (e.g. Grant & Oswick, 1996; Oswick, Keenoy, & Grant, 2000). Second, the question of whether a particular analogical relationship between a source and target is actually ‘higher order’ or not is framed by existing research as a problem that can be solved by logical deduction from decontextualized, general principles to more context-specific applications. Although exclusively discursive and deductive approaches to analogical reasoning may have considerable explanatory value, we additionally see a need for an approach that leaves room for induction on the part of organizational actors and addresses nondiscursive aspects of human experience. In this regard, our assumption is that organizational actors are the ultimate experts not only when it comes to generating and using an experience-based, context-specific set of metaphors (Jacobs & Heracleous, 2006), but also when judging the higher- or lower-order value of the specific structural similarities that comprise it. Thus we suggest that the concept of analogical reasoning needs to be extended to include additional aspects of the contextual specificity of organizational processes. In search of a broader theoretical framework that can accommodate not only cognitive, but also social and material aspects of the organizational context where analogical reasoning occurs, we turn to the recent research on strategy-as-practice.

3. Strategy and the practice lens A ‘practice turn’ in contemporary social theory has been widely acknowledged (cf. Schatzki et al., 2001). Reckwitz’s (2002) attempted to define the object of study is particularly helpful—in general terms, ‘practice’ (in German, praxis) refers to the whole of human action, and at a more specific level, a ‘practice’ is ‘‘a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge’’ (p. 249). It is in reference to this expansive characterization of practice that we begin to consider analogical reasoning as something more than an exclusively cognitive operation. Organizational researchers have examined practice in the areas of technology (Dougherty, 1992, 2004; Orlikowski, 2000), learning (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998) and accounting (Hopwood & Miller, 1994). In particular, strategy

135 researchers struggling to address the relationship between micro-level activities and macro-level firm performance have gravited toward the concept of practice (e.g. Balogun, Huff, & Johnson, 2003; Hendry & Seidl, 2003; Heracleous, 2004; Jarzabkowski, 2004; Johnson et al., 2003; Regne´r, 2003; Whittington, 2003). The impetus driving this emergent stream of strategy-as-practice research is to understand ‘‘how skilled and knowledgeable strategic actors constitute and reconstitute a system of shared strategic practice’’ (Wilson & Jarzabkowski, 2004, p. 15). This impetus has arisen out of dissatisfaction with the traditional overreliance in strategic management research on economics as a frame of reference that remains detached from what practitioners are doing when they are strategizing (Whittington, 2003). Strategy scholars have therefore tried to avoid researcher detachment by focusing on the specific, situated ‘‘micro processes’’ (cf. Johnson et al., 2003; Jarzabkowski, 2004)—or, again following Reckwitz (2002), ‘‘practices’’—undertaken by managers in firms, and by investigating how these practices influence strategy outcomes. Within this literature stream, structurationalist approaches in general and Bourdieu’s concept of practice (1990) in particular have been introduced (Jarzabkowski, 2004, 2005; Whittington, 2006) to provide a theoretical framework that includes other dimensions of experience alongside cognition in a more integrated conceptualization of how people act and make sense of their world. Bourdieu’s conceptualization casts practice as a dialectical interplay between people and their environment, between human dispositions and material circumstances. This conceptualization (cf. also Everett, 2002; Lounsbury & Ventresca, 2003; Mutch, 2003) involves at least two specific elements that can extend and enrich our consideration of analogical reasoning: the social structuration of cognitions and embodied performance. Firstly, Bourdieu maintains that practice involves a reciprocal structuring relationship between people and the world they live in. On this view, patterns of human action—practices—are shaped by the interplay between the material dimensions of the environment and the significance that people attribute to them. This conceptualization of meaningful human action differs from social constructionism insofar as meaning and knowledge develop not only in and through language and discourse, but also in a dialectical interplay with the material and physical dimensions of the world. Bourdieu’s notion also differs from Simon’s notion of bounded rationality insofar as cognition is not so much bounded by biological or ontological factors that exist purely independently of it, but by material, social factors such as power and flows of economic, cultural and institutional capital that are, in turn, structured by cognition. We can refer to this reciprocal structured/ structuring relationship as the ‘socially structured’ aspect of practice. As a corrollary, Bourdieu maintains that the social structuration of practice is directly intertwined with the body and embodied experience, claiming ‘‘the phenomenologists’ ‘body-for-others’ is doubly a social product: it derives its distinctive properties from its social conditions of production’’ (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 207). In this manner, Bourdieu explicitly calls for critical consideration of how

ARTICLE IN PRESS 136 certain forms of human action that appear to exist independently of any kind material interest are in fact intricately entangled in them.4 The relevant point for our considerations here is that such embodied practices—including the development of theoretical knowledge—cannot be captured by propositional logic, or represented fully in discourse or language. Practices give no account of themselves, and to the extent that they acquire meaning as such, this meaning is constituted by their rhythm, tempo and directionality (1990, p. 81). Such embodied practices are therefore literally encoded in gestures, postures, ways of walking, etc., and they ‘‘tend to take place below the level of consciousness, expression and the reflexive distance which those presuppose’’ (ibid, 73). In this sense, practices are ‘performed’ by embodied actors rather than ‘constructed’ as meaning (or, cognitive content) in discourse. We refer to this aspect of practice here in terms of ‘embodied performance’. In accordance with Jarzabkowski et al. (2007), ‘strategy’ refers broadly to any activity that is consequential at a particular level of analysis, be it the team, the division, or the firm. Specifically following Bourdieu, we can see that all such practices are socially structured (i.e., shaped by material factors including flows of economic and cultural capital) as well as embodied (i.e., where meaning cannot be fully captured and represented propositionally, but instead is performed). Thus, we can re-frame analogical reasoning as a particular form of strategy practice that occurs whenever people build knowledge by comparing a source domain with a target domain. Although existing analogical reasoning research had focused exclusively on the cognitive aspect of such knowledge development activities, by reframing it as a practice we can bring into focus other, noncognitive aspects of the same activities. We thereby extend the concept’s capacity to provide a plausible explanation of what people are doing when, for example, they sit around conference tables in airport hotels and use flipcharts, spreadsheets, presentation slides and other traditional media to discuss the relationship between last year’s strategic plans and their changing business circumstances. In the following section, we examine this expanded concept in greater detail. We also explore four prototypical strategy process techniques within which the strategic practice of analogical reasoning can occur.

4. Analogical reasoning as a strategic practice Bourdieu’s concept of practice, as it has been developed in reference to strategy, provides a new lens through which to view existing research focused on analogical reasoning. Analogical reasoning can be viewed in the context of strategizing in organizations as a specific practice that occurs whenever people compare a source domain of knowledge with a target domain of knowledge. But whereas previous analogical reasoning research had exclusively addressed the cognition, we are now positioned in reference 4

Most relevant here is the essay ‘‘Is a Disinterested Act Possible?’’, in which Bourdieu interrogates art, philosophy and religion and insists that each of these social institutions involve the active preservation of very specific interests.

M. Statler et al. to the strategy-as-practice literature additionally to consider the social structuration and embodied performance involved at a micro-level. By considering these aspects of practice as part of analogical reasoning, we can extend the existing research beyond its exclusive focus on cognition and discourse. We can also begin to address other ways beyond logical deduction in which people determine relationships between target and source domains, and thereby, develop knowledge. Specifically, the socially structured aspect of practice indicates that the intersubjective creation of meaning associated by previous researchers with analogical reasoning processes involves not only discursive elements, but also material and physical elements pertaining to the environment and organizational context within which a given process unfolds. In this sense, the isomorphisms between source domains and target domains that are established through processes of analogical reasoning appear to be shaped not only by pure, logical deduction, but also by power dynamics and institutional forces that, even though they may be deeply engrained in organizational practice, remain subject to dynamic change. Similarly, when people use metaphors, these figures of speech do not simply correspond to an external reality, or not—instead, they involve the reciprocal structuration of individual dispositions and economic, social and institutional environments. Moreover, the structuration that takes place whenever people reason analogically cannot be fully captured by language, or represented in propositional form. Instead, as people make connections from a target domain to a source domain, they engage in embodied performances that involve gestures, postures, and other bodily movements. An expanded, practice-oriented concept of analogical reasoning makes it possible for strategy researchers to focus not only on the discursive content of what people who make strategy say, but also, at an ethological (or ethnographic) level, on the behavior of individuals and groups as well as the physical spaces, material contexts and economic forces that are reciprocally structured by those behaviors. Viewed through this lens, the strategic practice of analogical reasoning might occur anytime people compare target and source domains in a manner that is consequential for the organization (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). The practice may be quite common, even mundane, occurring whenever people perform competitive analyses or benchmarking studies (i.e., comparing the firm with other market players), whenever people engage in scenario development (i.e., comparing past history and present reality with hypothetical future realities), or even anytime performance success is measured (i.e., comparing the numbers to the forecasts). But however prevalent analogical reasoning may be, it has not yet been addressed by strategy-as-practice researchers. Four adjacent streams of research that investigate specific process interventions of strategizing provide clear indications of how social structuration and embodied performance can be deliberately incorporated into strategy process techniques. We consider these activities as prototypical forms of analogical reasoning as a strategic practice because they make these non-cognitive aspects literally more visible and tangible. These four specific process techniques additionally demonstrate the extent to which

ARTICLE IN PRESS Performing strategy—Analogical reasoning as strategic practice analogical reasoning can be strategically consequential for people in an organization (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). The activity of cognitive or strategic mapping, previously identified by a number of researchers (e.g. Bougon, 1992; Brown, 1992; Calori, Johnson, & Sarnin, 1994; Clarke & Mackaness, 2001; Eden, 1992; Hodgkinson & Johnson, 1994), can be re-conceptualized as a technique that fosters analogical reasoning. Huff and Jenkins (2002) recently analyzed a complex map as a visual representation of a domain with its most relevant entities and relationships that involves images of being ‘‘within’’ and encourages mentally moving among entities. Mapping—according to Huff—makes ‘‘the issue at hand more transitory and plastic’’ (Huff & Jenkins, 2002, p. 8). For our purposes, this reference to the plasticity of strategic issues is a metaphor that can be read literally, and the use of three-dimensional maps can be identified as a form of analogical reasoning that involves an attempt to establish and test strategically important structural similarities between map (source) and territory (target). Similarly, in their work on cognitive sculpting, Doyle and Sims (2002) experiment with using three-dimensional objects in strategy-making processes. The physical objects and their spatial relatedness are used metaphorically by organizational actors to signify relationships that have more generic significance for the business (e.g., schemas such as up/down orientation, container and link or connection). Doyle and Sims (2002, p. 71) argue that ‘‘[i]f metaphor is underpinned by an abstracted understanding of objects and our bodily relationship with them, then it may make sense to use objects explicitly to facilitate the use of metaphor and analogy.’’ They also claim that cognitive sculpting has impacts upon social self-presentation insofar as the process takes attention away from the speaker and focuses on the sculpture, a shift of focus that allows meanings to be explored that would not normally be sanctioned in organizational contexts. The desired outcome of cognitive sculpting process, not unlike a strategic mapping process, is a shared metaphoric language that can be productively drawn upon by a group in subsequent strategic conversations. We can therefore identify cognitive sculpting as another, specific analogical reasoning technique that explicitly relies on the physicality of objects in the process of strategic knowledge development. Barry (1994) has drawn on depth psychology and art therapy to develop the concept of analogically mediated inquiry. In this process, an object or model created by a client team (‘the analog’), is used by a process consultant and the client team in a collaborative process of interpretation and sense making. From a psychoanalytical point of view, this process surfaces conscious as well as unconscious aspects that organizational actors have projected onto the analog. According to Barry (1994, p. 39), analogically mediated inquiry lends itself to problem identification and analysis, since as ‘‘analogs allow manipulation of otherwise elusive mental images, safe testing of alternative solutions, and promote creativity through introducing structural juxtaposition of disparate lines of thought.’’ Barry (1994) also identifies different forms of defensiveness as factors that constrain analogically mediated inquiry, and he emphasizes the importance of psychological and emotional safety for achieving the desired level of participation.

137 From a practice perspective, these emotional and interpersonal dimensions are intertwined directly with the material dimensions of the media, as well as the context in which the process unfolds. In this sense, analogically mediated inquiry appears as yet another specific technique of analogical reasoning that explicitly integrates noncognitive and non-discursive elements into an organizational process. Finally, Buergi and Roos (2003) describe how threedimensional media can be used in a strategic process of serious play to construct image rich, metaphorical landscapes. They support Oswick, Keenoy, and Grant (2002) suggestion to consider similarities and differences between various media in an effort to identify specific media that hold relatively greater potential for creative sensemaking. Drawing on Worren, Moore, and Elliott (2002) and Gardner (1993), they emphasize the relevance of narrative and visual knowledge to complement propositional knowledge. They call for ‘‘a multimodal approach in which superimposing or layering different modes of experience ultimately enriches the overall knowledge that people have of complex situations’’ (2003, p. 72). Serious play can also be described in reference to a concept of analogical reasoning that includes socially structured and embodied aspects of practice. Like cognitive sculpting, analogically mediated inquiry, and strategic mapping, serious play appears as a specific analogical reasoning technique that deliberately integrates non-cognitive and non-discursive elements of human experience, in the interest of developing new knowledge and new forms of interaction between people. To reiterate: these four techniques (i.e., cognitive mapping, analogically mediated inquiry, cognitive sculpting, and serious play) have not previously been understood in terms of analogical reasoning. They exemplify the embodied aspect of practice as we discussed it above to the extent that they involve three-dimensional objects, spatial relations and physically engaged processes of construction and interaction. Furthermore, they exemplify the performative aspect of practice to the extent that the objects and movements involved provide experience and carry significance for which language alone remains inadequate. Finally, they all exemplify the social structuration through practice to the extent that the embodied performances of the organizational actors are reciprocally shaped by the social, economic and material forces at play in the organizational context. Thus, we consider these process techniques prototypical and indicative for the extended concept of analogical reasoning as a strategic practice. In sum, the recent practice turn in strategy research has provided us with a solid theoretical context within which to identify certain non-cognitive aspects of analogical reasoning. From a strategy-as-practice perspective, we suggest that analogical reasoning involves social structuration and embodied performance, and that these aspects appear crucial to understanding the specific know-how relevant to strategizing. To illustrate how this expanded concept of analogical reasoning can be used by researchers to develop plausible explanations of what strategy practitioners are doing when they strategize, we now present an empirical case that involves the concept and practice of serious play (Buergi & Roos, 2003; Roos et al., 2004).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 138

5. The case of packInc. 5.1. Method We consider the following empirical case as an illustration of our extended concept of analogical reasoning as a strategic practice. Following the typology outlined by Butler (1997), the impetus for using this case is to reinforce the concept that we have developed above, and our discussion of the case will build from, and expand upon that concept. The case sample selected is intended to be representative of how strategy is made at senior levels in corporations. We should note that because the case illustration involves a strategic conversation in which a three-dimensional medium is introduced, it deliberately exaggerates the social structuration and embodied performance for emphasis. By making these non-cognitive aspects of practice more explicit, the case also illustrates by contrast how although they are always involved when analogical reasoning processes unfold in organizations, they are rarely dealt with directly by practitioners or researchers. Finally, in reflection on our own research practices, the case illustration serves as an analog, and our discussion of it will be a process of analogical reasoning that involves an iterative drilling process to discover structural similarities between the case, the concept it illustrates, and the various streams of research for which it may be relevant.

5.2. Case illustration A large player in the consumer packaging industry with a 10% share of the global market, PackInc’s5 selling proposition was to supply a system for the processing, packaging, and distribution of consumer goods. In the late 1990s though, the firm’s leadership had picked up signals that in some small markets other firms had replaced their own after-sales service function at client sites. PackInc’s service business employed many highly qualified and experienced technical experts who travelled worldwide to resolve problems with PackInc equipment as they emerged in client organizations. Although the service business was at that time a cost center within PackInc, strong voices in the firm were continually arguing for turning it into a profit center. One group of executives considered the challenge strategically irrelevant, not worthy of executive attention. In contrast, another group of executives emphasized the strategic relevance of after sales service for their customer relationships since technical support people by definition have very strong relationships deep inside customer organizations, and thus influence on repurchasing and purchasing decisions. In 2001, the CEO invited three fellow executives to participate in a strategic conversation exploring the status of this ambiguous issue in more detail. These executives were responsible for all market companies, for worldwide production-oriented activities and for corporate human resources, respectively. The facilitated conversation consisted of two parts, whereby the first part was designed to extract and share the four executive’s perceptions of the 5

The name as well as other details of this firm’s identity have been changed to preserve anonymity.

M. Statler et al. business and their understanding of how to deal with strategic issues in general. The second part aimed at identifying and articulating the nature of the after-sales support threats in particular. When asked about their experience of the business, the executives described their business as stable to the extent they did not have any long-term plans. They were also convinced that they had the capacity to pick up relevant signals from the organization, and they claimed that they learned a lot from interfacing with customers worldwide. The four executives also stressed the ease with which they could read and predict future developments. They seemed confident in the reliability of their experience-based gut feel in this respect. They took comfort in the fact that this gut feel tended to coincide with the recommendations of strategy consultants. Furthermore, they claimed that their gut feel seemed to allow for what they perceived as flexibility in the executive team and the company as a whole. Notwithstanding this espoused congruence, the after sales support issue generated different assessments from the various executive team members. Since the after sales issue functionally did not fall into the production or the marketing responsibilities, neither of those executives considered it much of a relevant issue. Their participation in the conversation was primarily motivated by the CEO’s invitation, not necessarily by a genuine interest in the issue. The CEO himself was compelled enough by the different opinions bubbling up in the firm to convene the exercise, but he, like the human resources executive, had no pre-conceived notion about whether it should become a strategic focus or not. In the second part of the conversation, toy construction materials were introduced as a medium in which to represent the content of their strategic conversation. The four participants engaged in a facilitated strategy process, through which they collectively built a physical model of PackInc as an organization. In successive exercises, they also used the three-dimensional medium to build models that represented their industry as well as the competition in their after-sales service business. The four executives collectively constructed PackInc as a fortress in black and white, based on a solid platform. This castle was full of chests full of gold and heavily guarded with cannons pointing in all directions. A palm tree on top indicated PackInc’s attractiveness to investors. The fortress had three ways in, of which two represented ‘‘windows of information’’ to the outside world. The third was connected to a single, large and solid monochromatic bridge that linked them with their direct customers. Parallel to this bridge, they were connected to customers via a flexible and thin ‘‘line of communications,’’ through which information was informally ‘‘pumped’’ in both directions. The physical model of PackInc’s generic customer employed many colors and was placed on four pillars. The archetypal customer was full of person figures, representing various facets of their product range and businesses. Physically, the customers were elevated above PackInc. They also included the customer’s customers, the retailers using PackInc’s packages. These were equally represented by a multi-colored construction. Participants then built connections that were colorful and flexible representing a

ARTICLE IN PRESS Performing strategy—Analogical reasoning as strategic practice much more flexible customer relationship than the monochromatic, solid bridge of PackInc. When constructing and playing out these models, the conversation revolved around the sources of PackInc’s competitive advantages, and thus, the firm’s core competencies. Knowing the official line on this issue, one participant challenged the state of the art. This participant had placed a sarcophagus brick in a larger solid box built of bricks that had been placed within the center of the fortress. Suddenly, he pulled out the larger box from within the fortress, slowly opened it, pulled out the sarcophagus, blew off the imagined dust, and opened it saying: ‘‘This is our core competency.’’ When the other participants looked inside, they saw that the box was empty. Turning their attention towards competition for aftersales services, they built a pirate’s nest that included a number of pirate person figures, armed with swords and guns, literally entering the competitive landscape. Skeletons were put around the model to represent the hostility of the pirate’s nest. Similar in size to the PackInc model, the pirate’s nest was placed on the opposite side of the table. No direct connections sprung from the pirate’s nest, but it had flexible connection points prepared (Picture 1). Exploring the after-sales activity in this overall landscape, the group noticed that the technical experts were primarily focused on quality assurance and concerned with equipment support. In their view, ‘customer relationship’ referred primarily to the relationship between the firm and its direct customers. They saw how the single link between PackInc and its customers was represented as a rigid, monochromatic bridge with no after sales features. Participants also realized that after-sales employees were considered low in status and salary, and that the after-sales function was primarily discussed as a cost that, while necessary, did not generate added value nor revenue. When reflecting on these insights, one participant went to the flipchart and sketched out how the after sales support might impact the business (Picture 2). By exploring this sketch, participants became more interested in the strategic relevance of the after-sales service function. In a provocative, yet conclusive turn, the CEO asked the group: ‘‘Are we just like the dance band on the Titanic, trying to keep spirits high after the ship has hit the iceberg?’’ In response to that provocation, participants

Picture 1 Models of PackInc.

139

Picture 2 Schematic sketch of physical metaphors.

began to discuss the previously contentious strategic option to consider an alliance through which their after-sales service business could be supplied independently of their standard customer-facing operations. In conclusion, participants agreed to explore new frames to deal with this now acknowledged competitive domain as well as to better understand after-sales service and its implications for customer relationship development and retention. How was this process of analogical reasoning consequential for the organization? As a first result of such collective commitment, the CEO reported two weeks later that he had started to discuss the option of an alliance with one of the major after-sales service suppliers.

6. Discussion Our discussion of this case illustration retraces the steps we followed above, beginning with existing concept of analogical reasoning and then re-framing it as a strategic practice. Tsoukas’ (1991) generic process of analogical reasoning focuses our attention on the four main metaphors constructed by the PackInc strategy team. The team built their own organization in the form of a fortress, their competitor as a pirate’s next, their customer relationship as a fixed bridge, and their core competencies as a sarcophagus. Each of these initial metaphors involves a relationship between a source domain and a target domain. In each case, the source domain is the organization, or at least, the team members’ own understanding of it; the target domain in each case is the three-dimensional construction. The metaphorical relationship involved an initial, superficial similarity—and in view of that similarity, the team members

ARTICLE IN PRESS 140

M. Statler et al.

engaged in reflective conversation about the nature of that similarity, asking each other: Is it true? Does it make sense? What are the implications of this apparent similarity for our business? Through this iterative, drilling process, the team members were able to identify additional, structural similarities between the models and the organization. The organization, like the fortress, was wealthy, heavily guarded and inflexible. The competitors, like the pirate’s nest, were diverse, aggressive, hostile and flexible. PackInc’s customer relationships, like the fixed bridge, were unidirectional, with a single, inflexible point of contact at each end. And PackInc’s core competency, like the sarcophagus, appeared to the executives’ dismay to lack content. Reflecting further on these isomorphic, structural similarities, the strategy team was able to develop a new understanding of their organization, specifically, a shared understanding of the strategic relevance of the after-sales business. Acknowledging the after-sales debate as a relevant issue, they had to accept that their competition was more flexible in its capacity to provide after-sales service. The team additionally found their current customer relationships to be insufficient to compete for that service business, and they entertained, and eventually acted on the suggestion to form a strategic alliance with a competitor. Fig. 2 represents this process of analogical reasoning. In addition to the cognitive operation of transferring structural similarities from a target to a source domain, the case makes other aspects of analogical reasoning as it takes place in organizational contexts literally visible and tangible. The metaphors that triggered the reasoning process were not only discursively expressed, but physically constructed in three dimensions. That physical construction process involved a series of team dynamics, collaborations and interactions. The significance of the three-dimensional models was further represented on a flip chart, and the conclusions drawn from that representation were enacted in the form of an initiative to form a strategic alliance with a competitor. If we re-frame the concept of analogical

INSIGHT Initial metaphor

Organization as fortress

ANALOGY Structural similarities

Wealthy, heavily guarded, but inflexible

ISOMORPHISM Systematic, integrative conclusion

reasoning as a practice, we can shed additional light on these other aspects of the process. With respect to the socially structured aspects of practice, it is interesting to note that prior to the facilitated conversation, the executives expressed trust in the external expertise of consultants to verify their own gut feelings about the business. Those consultants provided justification for the executives’ feeling that the after-sales service was a non issue. This relationship between the executives and the consultants can be described in terms of a power dynamic, where the expertise attributed to the consultant structured, and was reciprocally structured by the strategic decisionmaking activities undertaken within the organization. Following the analogically mediated process however, the executives came to believe that after-sales service was a meaningful issue in spite of the fact that no consultant had brought it up. In this sense, the analogical reasoning process re-shaped the existing power dynamic, enabling the executives to talk about the issue, acknowledge its relevance, and explore the idea of forming an alliance to address the issue—whereas previously the topic had been a blind spot, if not a taboo. Indeed the radical nature of the suggestion to consider an alliance indicates that the process of analogical reasoning had not only involved socially structured aspects of practice, but furthermore transformed some of the executives’ existing practical constraints. The case additionally illustrates the embodied performance associated with practice. During the first part of the conversation, the performative, embodied dimension of their experience seemed unremarkable, obscured in plain sight by tradition or habit: people at work sitting in chairs at a boardroom table, gesturing and speaking in a familiar way, leaning back to stretch or place their hands behind their heads in a reflective posture, etc. During the second part of the conversation, the embodied performance became more pronounced, even exaggerated, due to the introduction of a three-dimensional medium not commonly associated with business communication, much less with strategy. While the executives who participated in that conversation certainly

Competitor as pirate nest

Core competencies as content of empty sarcophagus

Customer relationships as fixed bridge

Diverse, aggressive, progressive, hostile, flexible

Lack of content

Single, inflexible point of contact

• Acknowledging after-sales service as a strategic issue • Identifying the current customer relationship practice as insufficient • Accepting that competition ismore flexible than PackInc. on this • Suggesting to form an alliance with a competitor on after-sales Fig. 2 The practice of analogical reasoning in PackInc.

ARTICLE IN PRESS Performing strategy—Analogical reasoning as strategic practice tried to make discursive sense of the metaphors they constructed in the alternative medium, they additionally adopted different physical postures than before. Pushing the chairs back away from the table, they walked around, leaning in, using their hands to construct, deconstruct and reconstruct models, or pointing to specific elements of those models, describing them and laughing or frowning at their appearance and significance. The after-sales issue was not seen as strategically important when they were discussing it around the first table, but then it became a real issue for them once they constructed it. Moreover, when the medium changed, the executives changed the way they talked about their competition and their customers. Whereas previously they had discussed these two groups in relatively abstract terms of market analyses, accounts of purchasing behavior, and key accounts, when they engaged in the performative practice of analogical reasoning, they discussed them in terms of metaphorical characteristics (see Fig. 2) that were by contrast quite concrete, sitting tangibly on the table in front of them. It is hard not to think that these shifts may have been due in part to the different social structuration and embodied performance involved in the second part of the conversation. However, additional empirical research would be required in order to distinguish the impacts associated with various processual and contextual factors and determine, for example, whether it was the medium or the mode of playful activity that made the difference. At this point, we can however point out that that an expanded conceptualization of analogical reasoning is required in order to address such factors adequately. In this sense, the case additionally illustrates how the explanatory capacity of existing theory can be extended if analogical reasoning is understood as a strategic practice. Of course, the embodied and socially structured aspects of analogical reasoning practices may often appear mundane, irrelevant, or unremarkable—as in the case of a traditional strategy process involving spreadsheets, slide presentations, and abundant coffee. As we have seen, the embodied and socially structured aspects of practice may also be deliberately emphasized or exaggerated—for example, through the use of three-dimensional media in a facilitated process—in the interest of making the issue at hand more plastic (Huff & Jenkins, 2002), exploring options that would not normally be sanctioned (Doyle & Sims, 2002), promoting creativity (Barry, 1994), or enriching knowledge of complex situations (Buergi & Roos, 2003). Conceptualized as a strategic practice, analogical reasoning can be used as an explanatory framework not only for cognitive mapping, cognitive sculpting, analogically mediated inquiry and serious play, but also for any dialectical interplay between organizational actors and various elements of their environment.

7. Implications The two-fold purpose of this paper has been: to build on existing theory by introducing social structuration and embodied performance as additional aspects of analogical reasoning; and to contribute to the strategy-as-practice

141 literature a new lens through which to study and understand ‘‘the specific know-how’’ (Balogun et al., 2007) required when organizational actors such as strategists compare source and target domains of knowledge. We considered four prototypical and indicative techniques in which those additional aspects are deliberately incorporated into a strategy process. We then presented an empirical case to illustrate how the conceptual lens can be used by strategyas-practice researchers to generate plausible explanations of activities that are consequential for the organization (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). Process techniques such as serious play or cognitive mapping provide instances of analogical reasoning in which the patterns of social structuration and embodied performance associated with ‘normal’ forms of strategy practice are deliberately altered in order to enhance a particular process in some way. These prototypical examples additionally illustrate by contrast how such aspects of practice may be commonly involved in more traditional forms of strategic activity, even if their specific functions and effects remain underappreciated. In this way, the revised concept helps render previously unidentified elements of strategy practice visible and tangible for future research. We suggest our study has several implications for theory and research. In terms of theory, our study contributes to the field of strategy-as-practice by providing an additional analytical lens to understand micro-level strategizing processes. In particular, our concept of analogical reasoning as strategic practice sheds light on the underresearched relationship between practices and practitioners (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). Analogical reasoning provides in this respect an analytic framework that can accommodate the material, embodied and performative aspects involved in strategic practices such as strategy meetings, management retreats and strategy workshops (Hendry & Seidl, 2003; Hodgkinson, Johnson, Whittington, & Schwarz, 2006). Within such workshops, a wide range of different process techniques, including a variety of two- or three-dimensional objects as well as other more familiar materials such as white boards, power point slides are commonly employed. In this respect, gesture and posture are equally relevant aspects that deserve our attention as well as the habit of relocating strategy meetings in ‘extra-ordinary’ locations. And beyond the material dimensions of the organizational context, our expanded concept of analogical reasoning might additionally inform research that seeks to incorporate emotional and motivational aspects (Huy, 2002; Jarzabkowski et al., 2007; Mantere, 2005) that might be relevant to the choice of and effectiveness of such process techniques. Anecdotal evidence suggests that such forms of analogical reasoning lead to an increased level of intellectual and emotional involvement of participants—a phenomenon that might be investigated through some form of multi-firm, multi-case comparative research. The extended concept of analogical reasoning also has implications for strategy-as-practice research methods in response to recent calls for more innovative methods and methodologies in strategy-as-practice research (Balogun et al., 2003; Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). In terms of the level of analysis, it focuses attention on the micro-level relationship that is established by practitioners between a source domain and a target domain of knowledge. However,

ARTICLE IN PRESS 142 because the concept does not remain restricted to discourse and logical deduction, it can help researchers to address the material, social and embodied dimensions involved with knowledge creation. In addition, future research might usefully deploy one or more of the process techniques identified above as an intervention through which to gather empirical data. Since these techniques render the social structuration and embodied performance explicit, they may provide innovative methods to compare how knowledge is created in different contexts. These process techniques provide researchers with rich data that cannot only be examined at the conversational or discursive level but also at the level of materials, postures and gestures (Heath & Hindmarsh, 2002; Rose, 2006). Whether the materials are introduced deliberately by a facilitator, or whether they may exist as de facto components of the organizational environment, this form of research would focus on their deployment and function by drawing on anthropological or ethnomethodological approaches to strategy. Furthermore, analogical reasoning draws attention not only to the potential benefits of participatory research interventions using three-dimensional materials and process techniques, but also to the importance of maintaining reflexivity at the level of the research method (Alvesson & Skoeldberg, 2000). In this regard, we are drawn as strategy researchers to pursue what Bourdieu calls ‘participant objectivation.’ This radically self-reflexive epistemology calls on social researchers to reflect not only on the ‘object’ of social scientific knowledge, but additionally on the ‘subject’ of that same knowledge, including the material conditions of our own involvement with, and engagement in strategic practices of analogical reasoning in organizational contexts. The deliberate introduction of any ‘unconventional’ materials in such processes comes with both certain advantages as well as trade-offs. While the participants may be partly constrained by the nature of materials available, they are also enabled by these same materials in externalizing and debating their views. Methodologically speaking the constraints relating to pre-configured meanings inherent in the materials can be considered limitations, but on the other hand participants are able to ascribe local meaning to their constructions through drawing from and combining these pre-configured meanings into broader metaphors and storylines, and therefore emergent, creative sensemaking is encouraged. Equally at the methodological level, we suggest that analogical reasoning involves multiple hermeneutic layers. First, when analogical reasoning is facilitated (as in our serious play case illustration as well as in cases involving cognitive mapping, cognitive sculpting and analogically mediated inquiry), there is a double hermeneutic, as the facilitators interpret participants’ own interpretations. This additional level of interpretation is rendered more complex when the facilitator is also a researcher. The distinct roles of facilitator and researcher, often played by the same individuals, may become more prevalent at different points in time, and the interpretations may be guided by distinctively different motivations. Traditionally, the facilitator’s role and motivation would be to orchestrate and help participants interpreting the process of mapping source to target domain in terms of their potential for critical

M. Statler et al. exploration of strategic issues. By contrast, the researcher’s traditional role and motivation is to engage in a systematic, a posteriori analysis that should ideally privilege participants’ own interpretations and avoid ‘tampering’ with the data. However, we suggest that future research focused on analogical reasoning should strive to overcome the intellectual bias that ‘‘entices the researcher to see the world as spectacle, as a set of significations to be interpreted rather than as concrete problems to be solved practically’’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; cited in Everett, 2002). We believe this future direction is in line with the impetus driving strategy-as-practice research to focus on more micro-level variables (cf. Johnson et al., 2003)—but we believe that it provides additional motivation to problematize the micro-level variables that pertain to the strategy researcher who enters an organizational context in hopes of generating new knowledge. Finally, we recognize that the theoretical contribution made in this paper remains limited by a lack of empirical data. Indeed, if we accept the notion that when people use analogies to reason, for example, about the relationship between their organization and its competitors, these analogies do not function independently of the media in and through which they are communicated. Anecdotally, the medium may not be the entire message, but it can and does shape the message—and yet, so little is known by strategy researchers about such phenomena. Thus additional empirical research should test the limits of our theory by focusing on the non-cognitive aspects of analogical reasoning practices to determine whether they truly do have consequences for the firm.

References Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 136–158. Alvesson, M., & Skoeldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage. Balogun, J., Huff, A. S., & Johnson, P. (2003). Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 197–224. Balogun, J., Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing activity and practice. In V. Ambrosini, & M. Jenkins (Eds.), Advanced strategic management. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Barrett, F. J., & Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Generative metaphor intervention: A new behavioral approach for working with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, 219–239. Barry, D. (1994). Making the invisible visible: Using analogically based methods to surface unconscious organizational processes. Organization Development Journal, 12(4), 37–47. Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review, 22, 429–452. Black, M. (1993). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 19–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bougon, M. G. (1992). Congregate cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 369–389. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). Invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

ARTICLE IN PRESS Performing strategy—Analogical reasoning as strategic practice Brown, S. M. (1992). Cognitive mapping and repertory grids for qualitative survey research. Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 287–307. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. Buergi, P., & Roos, J. (2003). Images of strategy. European Management Journal, 21(1), 69–78. Butler, R. (1997). Stories and experiments in social inquiry. Organization, 18/6, 927–948. Calori, R., Johnson, G., & Sarnin, P. (1994). CEOs’ cognitive maps and the scope of the organization. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 437–457. Clarke, I., & Mackaness, W. (2001). Management ‘Intuition’: An interpretative account of structure and content of decision schemas using cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 38(2), 147–182. Cornelissen, J. (2006). Making sense of theory construction: Metaphor and disciplined imagination. Organization Studies, 27, 1579–1597. Cornelissen, J. P. (2005). Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 751–764. Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202. Dougherty, D. (2004). Organizing practices in services: Capturing practice-based knowledge for innovation. Strategic Organization, 2(1), 35–64. Doyle, J. R., & Sims, D. (2002). Enabling strategic metaphor in conversation: A technique of cognitive sculpting for explicating knowledge. In A. S. Huff, & M. Jenkins (Eds.), Mapping strategic knowledge. London: Sage. Eden, C. (1992). On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 261–265. Everett, J. (2002). Organizational research and the Praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 56–80. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19(2), 141–205. Ford, J., & Ford, L. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–570. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: BasicBooks. Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. N. (2001). The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56. Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T. J. (1996). Organization science as social construction: Postmodern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 356–377. Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (Eds.). (1996). Metaphor and Organizations. London: Sage. Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analysing interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 99–121). London: Sage. Hendry, J., & Seidl, D. (2003). The structure and significance of strategic episodes: Social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 175–197. Heracleous, L. (2004). Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse. In D. Grant, N. Phillips, C. Hardy, L. Putnam, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 175–192). Beverly Hills: Sage. Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755–778.

143 Heracleous, L., & Marshak, R. (2004). Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action. Human Relations, 57, 1285–1312. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Johnson, G. (1994). Exploring the mental models of competitive strategists: The case for a processual approach. Journal of Management Studies, 31(4), 525–551. Hodgkinson, G., Johnson, G., Whittington, R., & Schwarz, M. (2006). The role of strategy workshops in strategy development processes: Formality, communication coordination and inclusion. Long Range Planning, 39(5), 479–496. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35–44. Huff, A. S., & Jenkins, M. (2002). Mapping strategic knowledge. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Huy, Q. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–69. Jacobs, C. D., & Heracleous, L. (2005). Answers for questions to come: Reflective dialogue as an enabler of strategic innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(4), 338–352. Jacobs, C., & Heracleous, L. (2006). Constructing shared understanding—The role of embodied metaphors in organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(2), 207–226. Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529–560. Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. London: Sage. Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), 5–27. Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction. Micro strategy and strategizing: Towards an activity based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 3–22. Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational theory. Organization, 10(3), 457–480. Marshak, R. (1993). Managing the metaphors of change. Organizational Dynamics, 22(1), 44–56. Mantere, S. (2005). Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity. Strategic Organization, 3(2), 157–184. Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphor and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 660–671. Morgan, G. (1983). More on metaphor: Why we cannot control tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 601–607. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mutch, A. (2003). Communities of practice and habitus: A critique. Organization Studies, 24(3), 383–401. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428. Oswick, C., & Grant, D. (Eds.). (1996). Organisation development: Metaphorical explorations. London: Pitman. Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2000). Discourse, organizations and organizing: Concepts, objects and subjects. Human Relations, 53, 1115–1124. Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 294–303.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 144 Pinder, C. C., & Bourgeois, V. W. (1982). Controlling tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 641–652. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. Regne ´r, P. (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive strategy making. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 57–82. Roos, J., Victor, B., & Statler, M. (2004). Playing seriously with strategy. Long Range Planning, 37(6), 549–568. Rose, G. (2006). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual methods. London: Sage. Schatzki, T., Knorr Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge: London and New York. Schon, D. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problemsetting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

M. Statler et al. Tsoukas, H. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 566–585. Tsoukas, H. (1993). Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation in organization theory. Organization Studies, 14(3), 323–436. Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Whittington, R. (2003). The work of strategizing and organizing: For a practice perspective. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 117–125. Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634. Wilson, D. C., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Thinking and acting strategically: New challenges for interrogating strategy. European Management Review, 1(1), 14–20. Worren, N., Moore, K., & Elliott, R. (2002). When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity. Human Relations, 55, 1227–1250.