Benutzer:Gloria Pünchera/Artikelentwurf

aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen


Open Strategy is an approach to strategic management that involves greater inclusiveness and/or transparency in the processes and outcomes of strategy development and implementation. The term was first coined by Henry Chesbrough and Melissa Appleyard (2007), and then more substantially developed by Richard Whittington, Ludovic Cailluet, and Basak Yakis-Douglas (2011) describing the phenomenon of opening up strategy to a wider range of internal and external stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, partners, regulators, or the general public. [1][2] Open Strategy is motivated by the potential benefits of tapping into diverse sources of knowledge and ideas, enhancing legitimacy and commitment, and fostering innovation and learning. However, it also entails challenges and dilemmas, such as managing information overload, protecting intellectual property, balancing conflicting interests, and maintaining strategic coherence. The motivation for as well as challenges and results of Open Strategy initiatives are influenced by various contextual factors, such as the nature of the industry, the organizational culture, the regulatory environment, and the technological infrastructure. In general, the Open Strategy phenomenon is evident in various sectors and organizations including private companies like Barclays, Daimler-Benz, and Zurich Insurance Group, public entities such as the City of Vienna and the US Department of Defense, and community groups and cooperatives, including Wikimedia and Premium-Cola.

Driving Forces and Origin[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

While strategy-making was traditionally associated with secrecy and exclusivity, organizations are increasingly designing their strategy processes more inclusively and transparently. This trend towards more openness is primarily driven by societal, cultural, technological, and organizational forces.[2]

  • Societal shifts towards more openness are manifesting in increasing demands for transparency and accountability from various stakeholders such as regulators, investors, consumers, and activists. This demand is further amplified by generational change, as younger generations native to the digital realm demand greater levels of inclusion and transparency in matters that affect them. Additionally, the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ethical considerations in business practices have further emphasized the importance of transparent strategy processes.
  • Cultural forces of the postmodern era, characterized by a pervasive scepticism of established norms, are challenging conventional paradigms of strategy, advocating for a more inclusive approach. This cultural shift is complemented by the popularization of strategic expertise, in which strategic discussions and knowledge are no longer the sole domain of an elite group of leaders but are disseminated more broadly.
  • Technological advances further played an essential role in ushering in a new era of openness. New information technologies, including digital platforms and collaborative tools, have made it possible to broaden participation in strategy processes efficiently and ensure the fast and cost-effective dissemination of information via intra- and internet.
  • Organizational structures and dynamics have evolved in response to the changing global landscape. Transnational organizations have recalibrated their strategic practices to be more decentralized and transparent as they navigate the intricate web of financial capitalism, characterized by activist shareholders and hostile takeovers. In addition, with businesses built on digital platforms, emphasizing collaboration and community engagement, organizations are inherently gravitating towards more openness, emphasizing collective effort and joint value creation.

As general drivers of openness, these forces have fueled the adoption of openness in many different areas of organizational activity.[3] The growing trend of openness in strategizing aligns with a broader societal shift observed over recent decades.[4][5] Initially stemming from the realm of Open Source Software, the ethos of openness, underpinned by transparency and inclusion processes, has expanded across various fields.[6] These include Open Science, Open Innovation, Open Data, Open Government, and more recently, Open Strategy.[7][8][9][10][2]

In the field of business management, a shift toward more openness became primarily evident in 1995. The discourse began with the assertion that strategy is not created only by the people at the top of a company or its planning department.[11] This fundamental idea was further developed a year later with an emphasis on the democratization of strategy-making.[12] As the new millennium unfolded, several related concepts emerged. In 2003, Henry Chesbrough introduced the paradigm of Open Innovation, followed closely by James Surowiecki's concept of the Wisdom of the Crowd in 2004, and the democratization of innovation by Eric von Hippel in 2005.[8][13][14] After Gary Hamel's emphasis on the democracy of ideas in 2007, Jeff Howe introduced the idea of Crowdsourcing in 2008, further reinforcing this shift.[15][16] In 2011 this evolution resulted in the emergence of more open forms of strategy-making, advocating transparency and inclusion in the strategic management process.[2]

In the evolving landscape of organizational strategy, the Open Strategy phenomenon is hereby significantly influenced by the other movements towards more openness, especially Open Innovation, which underscores the value of leveraging both external and internal sources of knowledge and ideas on an operational level.[8] By expanding the principles of Open Innovation to a strategic level, organizations blur the conventional boundaries that traditionally separated strategic planning from other organizational processes, enabling them to adapt to the complex, dynamic, and interconnected business environments of the modern era.[1][2][17][18][19] Open Strategy hereby also draws inspiration from and is often interlinked with other more open practices like crowdsourcing, democratizing innovation, and collective intelligence. Crowdsourcing, for instance, involves issuing challenges to large and diverse groups to generate novel solutions, which aligns with Open Strategy's aim of engaging diverse stakeholder input. Similarly, the principle of collective intelligence, where aggregated knowledge from a diverse group fosters better decision-making and innovation, underscores the close relation with the other more open approaches.

In tracing the evolution of openness from a practice perspective, Whittington (2019) delineates three major phases of strategy-making practices, each associated with distinct time periods: the rise of strategic planning in the 1960s and early 1970s, the shift to strategic management from the late 1970s, and the emergence of Open Strategy during the 1990s and early 21st century.[19] Each phase represents a movement towards increased openness, with strategic planning initiating a dialogue among managerial elites, strategic management expanding this dialogue to include middle managers and employees for effective strategy implementation, and open strategy further extending the inclusivity and transparency to a broader range of stakeholders, even during the initial stages of strategy formation.

Dimensions and Dynamics[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Julia Hautz, David Seidl, and Richard Whittington (2017, p. 298-299) define Open Strategy “as a dynamic bundle of practices promoting greater strategic transparency and/or inclusion among internal and external actors. The balance and extent of openness adapt to evolving contingencies from within and outside organizational boundaries.”[20] Open Strategy can consequently be understood along two key dimensions: inclusion and/or transparency, both addressing internal and external stakeholders, going beyond managerial elites .[20][17][2]

The “inclusion” dimension encompasses the involvement of various actors in the strategic discourse and thus the strategy-making process, seeking to broaden the range of voices and perspectives in strategy development and implementation. Inclusion concerns external and internal consultation in order to exchange “information, views and proposals intended to shape the continued evolution of an organization’s strategy” (p. 536).[2] It thereby extends the traditional paradigm in which strategy was the exclusive domain of the top management, breaking down the monolithic structure of traditional strategy-making. The sub-dimensions of inclusion are manifested in the range and diversity of constituencies involved, the range of topics considered, the degree and form of involvement (including decision-making), and the openness regarding procedures of participation.[17]

  • Inclusion in Open Strategy primarily centers around the number or range and diversity of stakeholders invited into the strategic discourse. Whittington et al. (2011) initially focused on the numerical aspect of inclusion, however, subsequent works have deepened the understanding of this dimension by emphasizing the importance of a diverse set of stakeholders that are to be included, ensuring to also recognize minority views when discussing strategic issues.[2][21][3] The range of actors that might be included in an Open Strategy process could span across different hierarchical levels and functions of the organization and even include a multitude of external stakeholders, ultimately the entire general public.
  • The range of topics considered in Open Strategy underscores the breadth of strategic issues open for discussion. This enables a comprehensive exploration of strategic facets, ensuring that all relevant issues, even those that might be considered peripheral or non-traditional, are given due consideration.[17]
  • The degree of involvement describes the depth or extent to which stakeholders are engaged in the strategy-making process, ranging from basic consultations to deep, collaborative engagements. The form of involvement pertains to the various ways stakeholders participate, be it through formal or informal formats. While Open Strategy emphasizes active participation in strategic deliberations, it does not always transfer decision rights to stakeholders.[17][2] Open Strategy is typically less than a ‘democratic’ strategy.[12][22] Even though stakeholders contribute their perspectives, the final decision-making authority might still rest with traditional strategy actors.[21]
  • The openness regarding procedures of participation emphazises the accessibility of the processes guiding the stakeholders’ participation in strategy-making. It refers to the decision whether structures and rules are set by the management or remain open for discussion among the participants.[23][21] Ensuring flexible procedures for participation in Open Strategy might foster equal opportunities for all stakeholders to participate and contribute to the strategy-making process. [21]

The “transparency” dimension encompasses the availability and accessibility of strategic information to a diverse set of audiences. According to Hautz and colleagues (2017), transparency in Open Strategy is “the internal or external visibility of information about an organization’s strategy” (p. 299).[20] It signifies the shift from traditionally guarded strategic processes to more open and accessible ones, ensuring that stakeholders, both internal and external, are well-informed about strategic directions and decisions. The greater the number of audiences privy to such information, the more transparent the strategy processes. The sub-dimensions of transparency are manifested in the range and diversity of audiences, the range of topics disclosed, and the openness of transparency procedures.[17]

  • Transparency in Open Strategy primarily addresses the range and diversity of the audiences and centers on the multiplicity and variety of stakeholders who have access to strategic information. An organization's dedication to transparency becomes apparent through its proactive efforts to disseminate strategic insights to a wide array of stakeholders, spanning different hierarchical levels, functions, and even external actors.
  • The range of topics disclosed in Open Strategy emphasizes the amount of strategic information made available. This not only includes traditional strategic elements like goals, objectives, and initiatives but also the rationale behind decisions, potential risks, and the expected impacts of those decisions. By being transparent about a wide array of topics, organizations can ensure that stakeholders have a holistic understanding of the strategic direction. An organization might exhibit high transparency by revealing a small part of its strategy to a wide audience or by disclosing all strategic information to a limited audience. Over time, strategic information can be selectively revealed across different audiences depending on the contextual needs of the strategy process.
  • The openness of transparency procedures refers, similarly to the respective inclusion sub-dimension, to the clarity and accessibility of the processes through which strategic information is shared. It is not just about making information available but ensuring that it is presented in a manner that is understandable and actionable for the addressees. This involves clear communication channels, regular updates, and feedback mechanisms to ensure that the shared information is relevant and valuable to the recipients.

Both transparency and inclusion are dimensions that exist on a continuum in the realm of Open Strategy. Firms may calibrate their level of openness, meaning they might opt for varying degrees of transparency while maintaining a different level of inclusion, or vice versa. Therefore, companies might not embrace both dimensions simultaneously. They can navigate these continuums in either direction, leading to a dynamic and multifaceted approach to Open Strategy. This perspective is reinforced by Whittington and colleagues (2011), who posited that the concepts of openness and closure in strategy-making are not binary but constitute a continuum.[2] Strategies can manifest with different intensities of transparency and inclusion, offering a nuanced approach to strategy formulation and execution.

Dynamics of Open Strategy[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

  1. A traditionally closed strategic management process can evolve in its openness by either enhancing its inclusiveness, its transparency, or both, transitioning towards a fully open strategy.
  2. Processes that are already partially inclusive or transparent can further augment their openness, culminating in a fully open strategy.
  3. Conversely, a partly open strategy process can retract, becoming more closed by either diminishing its inclusiveness or its transparency.
  4. A fully open strategy process might also reduce its degree of openness, partly or completely reducing its inclusiveness or transparency.

Dynamics leading to increased openness[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

In the context of Open Strategy, several dynamics are driving organizations towards an increased state of openness, characterized by practices of transparency and inclusion. Some organizations are choosing to be more transparent about their strategic decisions, without necessarily broadening the circle of stakeholders included in the decision-making process. Conversely, organizations such as Siemens have actively sought to involve their employees in strategy formation, allowing them to offer ideas and suggestions.[24] In some cases, organizations are increasing both transparency and inclusion, ensuring that they are gaining additional insights while also disseminating a greater amount of strategic information. However, it is important to recognize that an increase in one dimension does not necessitate a corresponding increase in the other.[2]

Dynamics leading to reduced openness[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

While there is a discernible trend toward greater openness, there are also dynamics that can lead organizations to reduce their level of openness .[21] Some organizations, faced with challenges associated with increased openness, may revert to more traditional, closed strategic practices. For example, start-ups that initially embraced a more inclusive approach might find it more efficient to revert to a primary focus on transparency over time.[25] The decision and degree of openness are influenced by a myriad of internal and external factors, including the competitive landscape, organizational structures, and the skills of the individuals involved. As organizations navigate the intricacies of an open strategy, they must remain agile, constantly re-evaluating and recalibrating their approach in light of evolving circumstances.[26]

Practices[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Drawing from the Strategy as Practice (SAP) tradition, which foregrounds the activities and interactions in strategic management, Open Strategy extends this focus into a more inclusive and transparent realm.[27] Depending on the degree of inclusion and transparency, Open Strategy can manifest in various forms and practices, such as online platforms, crowdsourcing, wikis, blogs, social media, town hall meetings, workshops, surveys, or open contests.[20] These practices can be applied at all different stages of the strategic management process, such as the analysis, idea generation, formulation, implementation, evaluation, and refinement phase.

Inclusion Practices in Open Strategy[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

  • Traditional Methods:
    • Physical workshops and roundtables (e.g., Shell's engagement in Peru in the 1990s).[28]
  • Modern Methods:
    • Online platforms (e.g., IBM's 2006 Innovation Jam, Siemens' crowdsourcing for sustainability strategy).[29][24]
    • Digital collaboration tools like Mural combined with video conferencing software.
    • Internal strategy jams and inter-organizational strategy workshops.

Transparency Practices in Open Strategy[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

  • Traditional Methods:
    • Visual communication tools like PowerPoint presentations, and flipcharts.[30]
    • Media releases especially during mergers and acquisitions.[31]
  • Modern Methods:
    • CEO strategy blogging (on the organization’s website or intranet).
    • CEO webinars for continuous communication and interaction with audiences.[25]

Opportunities and Challenge[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

The following overview provides a summary of the most relevant opportunities and challenges associated with increased inclusion and transparency, reflecting on the motivations that drive organizations towards Open Strategy and the potential hurdles encountered in this endeavor.[17]

Opportunities of Open Strategy[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Inclusion[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
  • Sourcing of new ideas: A broader set of stakeholders contributes to a rich pool of ideas, leveraging the collective intelligence of internal and external actors.[32][33]
  • Pluralism of perspectives: Different stakeholders bring unique perspectives that challenge the dominant logic and potentially lead to innovative solutions.[29][28]
  • Commitment (sense of ownership): Engaging middle managers and other stakeholders in strategy formulation may lead to better understanding and implementation of strategies.[34][22]
  • Legitimacy: Open Strategy can foster collective legitimization of strategic decisions across different levels of the organization and external stakeholders.[25][35]
  • Identification of strategic talents: Uncovering and engaging individuals with strategic insight from within and outside the organization.[19]
Transparency[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
  • Simplifying coordination/collaboration: Transparency facilitates shared understanding and eases coordination among various stakeholders.[36]
  • Trust building: Clear and open communication of strategies can foster trust among stakeholders.[17]
  • Compliance with regulation: Transparency in strategic processes can aid in adhering to regulatory requirements and standards.[37]
  • Legitimacy: Enhanced transparency can also contribute to legitimacy by garnering stakeholder confidence and investment.[36]
  • Information advantage: Transparency provides a pathway to broader access to information crucial for strategic decisions.[32][33]

Dilemmas of Open Strategy[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

The dilemmas of Open Strategy introduced by Hautz et al. (2017) describe the challenges faced by organizations when adopting a more inclusive and transparent approach to their strategic planning.[20] Central to these dilemmas is the trade-off between the benefits of wider stakeholder engagement and the operational, informational, and relational challenges that come with it:

  • Dilemma of process: While inclusiveness harnesses diverse expertise and perspectives and thus a wider source of knowledge, this might compromise speed, flexibility, and control over the strategy-making process as it complicates decision-making due to extended discussions and yield potential misalignments. This might lead to a greater strain on organizational resources.
  • Dilemma of commitment: Involving more participants in strategy development can strengthen organizational commitment, yet the practical difficulties in managing such inclusiveness may foster frustration and disengagement if expectations about the impact of one’s contributions remain unmet.
  • Dilemma of disclosure: While Open Strategy may foster legitimacy and collaboration, it risks exposing sensitive information to competitors, may inadvertently engender trust, and foster misunderstanding due to information overload or misinterpretation.
  • Dilemma of empowerment: Offering individuals a voice in strategic matters might also burden them with additional responsibilities and pressures.
  • Dilemma of escalation: Realizing the benefits of openness in specific areas of strategy might give rise to potential pressure on organizations to progressively widen the scope of openness in strategy. While this might be beneficial in for strategy development it may also set unmanageable expectations and allegations of insincerity in cases where full openness isn't feasible or desired.

Additional Challenges of Openness[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Inclusion[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
  • Overload of opinions: The influx of diverse opinions can lead to decision paralysis and may divert focus from core strategic issues.[38][33]
  • Conflict of interests: The inclusion of the wrong or a non-diverse set of stakeholders can lead to strategic outcomes that might not be in the best interest of the organization. Especially managing conflicting interests among participants may pose challenges.
  • Stakeholder commitment: Ensuring active and meaningful participation of stakeholders can be demanding and may not always be met with enthusiasm.[22][39][40]
  • Overemphasis on consensus: An overemphasis on consensus may inhibit bold strategic ideas and moves.
Transparency[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
  • Increasing efforts for communication: The more open communication of strategic information may result in increased efforts and resource engagement, as sensitive information must be disguised or content be tailored specifically to different addressees.

Perspectives[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

The exploration of Open Strategy has been enriched through various theoretical lenses, each highlighting distinctive facets of this domain. David Seidl and colleagues (2019) have broadly categorized the theoretical perspectives on Open Strategy into six distinct groups:[17]

Practice theories suggest that Open Strategy is an eclectic bundle of practices aimed at fostering transparency and inclusivity in strategic deliberations. Prominent theories within this domain, such as Giddens’s structuration theory and Schatzki’s theory of practice bundles, provide avenues for exploring the diverse practices of Open Strategy and their implications.

Communication-based approaches emphasize the pivotal role of discourse in facilitating broader participation in strategy formulation and implementation. Theories like discourse theory and dialogue theory have been utilized to explore how different forms of communication can either enable or hinder wider engagement in strategic processes.

Sensemaking theories underscore the importance of cultivating shared understandings among diverse stakeholders, particularly when dealing with complex strategic issues. Key theories like Karl Weick’s sensemaking approach and the theory of negotiated order offer insights into how Open Strategy can enhance collective sensemaking.

Stakeholder-related approaches view Open Strategy as a novel platform for engaging a variety of stakeholders. Through theories like stakeholder theory and collaborative decision-making, researchers examine how Open Strategy fosters joint decision-making and stakeholder engagement.

Institutional approaches link Open Strategy to wider societal expectations and institutionalized norms, aligning it with other openness phenomena like Open Government and Open Science. World society theory and the sociology of professions are some of the institutional theories that provide a framework for analyzing the societal drivers and the institutional work necessary for the enactment of Open Strategy.

Information/knowledge-based approaches treat Open Strategy as a mechanism for facilitating the exchange of knowledge and information among organizational members. Theories like the knowledge-based theory of the firm and network theory elucidate the epistemic and design dimensions of Open Strategy, highlighting how different arrangements influence the flow of strategy-relevant information.

Most Relevant Literature (in chronological order[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

  1. Chesbrough, H., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open Innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166416
  2. Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00762.x
  3. Full special issue edited by Whittington, R., Hautz, J., & Seidl, D. (2017). Open Strategy: Transparency and Inclusion in Strategy Processes. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 297-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.12.001
  4. Seidl, D., Von Krogh, G., & Whittington, R. (2019). Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347921
  5. Whittington, R. (2019). Opening Strategy - Professional Strategists and Practice Change, 1960 to Today. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198738893.001.0001
  6. Stadler, C., Hautz, J., Matzler, K., & Friedrich von den Eichen, S. M. (2021). Open strategy: Mastering Disruption from Outside the C-Suite. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13719.001.0001
  7. Full special issue edited by Dobusch, L., von Krogh, G., Splitter, V., Walgenbach, P., & Whittington, R. (2022). Open Organizing in an Open Society? Conditions, Consequences and Contradictions of Openness as an Organizing Principle. Organization Studies, 44(1), 1-169.

References[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

  1. ↑ a b Henry W. Chesbrough, Melissa M. Appleyard: Open Innovation and Strategy. In: California Management Review. Band 50, Nr. 1, Oktober 2007, ISSN 0008-1256, S. 57–76, doi:10.2307/41166416 (sagepub.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  2. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Richard Whittington, Ludovic Cailluet, Basak Yakis‐Douglas: Opening Strategy: Evolution of a Precarious Profession. In: British Journal of Management. Band 22, Nr. 3, September 2011, ISSN 1045-3172, S. 531–544, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00762.x (wiley.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  3. ↑ a b Violetta Splitter, Leonhard Dobusch, Georg von Krogh, Richard Whittington, Peter Walgenbach: Openness as Organizing Principle: Introduction to the Special Issue. In: Organization Studies. Band 44, Nr. 1, Januar 2023, ISSN 0170-8406, S. 7–27, doi:10.1177/01708406221145595, PMID 36618017, PMC 9814024 (freier Volltext) – (sagepub.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  4. ↑ Nathaniel Tkacz: From open source to open government: A critique of open politics. Hrsg.: Ephemera: Theory and politics in organization. Band 12, Nr. 4, 2012, S. 386–405.
  5. ↑ Manuel Castells: Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Hrsg.: John Wiley & Sons. 2015.
  6. ↑ Louis Raymond: Determinants of web site implementation in small businesses. Hrsg.: Internet Research. Band 11, Nr. 5, 2001, S. 411–424, doi:10.1108/10662240110410363 (doi.org/10.1108/10662240110410363).
  7. ↑ Paul A. David: Common agency contracting and the emergence of “open science” institutions. Hrsg.: The american economic review. Band 88, Nr. 2, 1998, S. 15–21, JSTOR:116885.
  8. ↑ a b c Henry William Chesbrough: Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Hrsg.: California Management Review. Band 50, Nr. 1, 2003, S. 57–76.
  9. ↑ Jennifer C. Molloy: The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Data Means Better Science. In: PLOS Biology. Band 9, Nr. 12, 12. Juni 2011, ISSN 1545-7885, S. e1001195, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195, PMID 22162946, PMC 3232214 (freier Volltext) – (plos.org [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  10. ↑ Marijn Janssen, Yannis Charalabidis, Anneke Zuiderwijk: Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government. In: Information Systems Management. Band 29, Nr. 4, September 2012, ISSN 1058-0530, S. 258–268, doi:10.1080/10580530.2012.716740 (tandfonline.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  11. ↑ Coimbatore Krishnarao Prahalad: New view of strategy: An interview with C.K. Prahalad. In: European Management Journal. Band 13, Nr. 2, 1. Juni 1995, ISSN 0263-2373, S. 131–138, doi:10.1016/0263-2373(95)00001-2 (sciencedirect.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  12. ↑ a b Gary Hamel: Strategy for the Revolution. In: Harvard Business Review (Hrsg.): Journal of Palestine Studies. Band 2, Nr. 4, 1996, ISSN 0377-919X, S. 165–167, doi:10.2307/2535654 (tandfonline.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  13. ↑ James Surowiecki: The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. Hrsg.: Doubleday. New York, NY 2004, ISBN 0-385-72170-6.
  14. ↑ Eric von Hippel: Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-262-28563-6, doi:10.7551/mitpress/2333.001.0001 (mit.edu [abgerufen am 24. Oktober 2023]).
  15. ↑ Gary Hamel: The Future of Management. In: Human Resource Management International Digest. Band 16, Nr. 6, 2007, ISSN 0967-0734, doi:10.1108/hrmid.2008.04416fae.001 (10.1108/hrmid.2008.04416fae.001 [abgerufen am 24. Oktober 2023]).
  16. ↑ Jeff Howe: Crowdsourcing: How the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. Hrsg.: Random House. 2008.
  17. ↑ a b c d e f g h i David Seidl, Georg von Krogh, Richard Whittington: Defining Open Strategy: Dimensions, Practices, Impacts, and Perspectives. In: Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2019, ISBN 978-1-108-42486-8, S. 9–26, doi:10.1017/9781108347921.002 (cambridge.org [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  18. ↑ Georg von Krogh, Nina Geilinger: Open Innovation and Open Strategy: Epistemic and Design Dimensions. In: Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2019, ISBN 978-1-108-42486-8, S. 41–58, doi:10.1017/9781108347921.004 (cambridge.org [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  19. ↑ a b c Richard Whittington: Opening Strategy - Professional Strategists and Practice Change, 1960 to Today. Oxford University Press, 2019, abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023.
  20. ↑ a b c d e Julia Hautz, David Seidl, Richard Whittington: Open Strategy: Dimensions, Dilemmas, Dynamics. In: Long Range Planning (= Open Strategy: Transparency and Inclusion in Strategy Processes). Band 50, Nr. 3, 1. Juni 2017, ISSN 0024-6301, S. 298–309, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2016.12.001 (sciencedirect.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  21. ↑ a b c d e Laura Dobusch, Leonhard Dobusch, Gordon Müller-Seitz: Closing for the Benefit of Openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. In: Organization Studies. Band 40, Nr. 3, März 2019, ISSN 0170-8406, S. 343–370, doi:10.1177/0170840617736930 (sagepub.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  22. ↑ a b c Daniel Stieger, Kurt Matzler, Sayan Chatterjee, Florian Ladstaetter-Fussenegger: Democratizing Strategy: How Crowdsourcing Can Be Used for Strategy Dialogues. In: California Management Review. Band 54, Nr. 4, Juli 2012, ISSN 0008-1256, S. 44–68, doi:10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.44 (sagepub.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  23. ↑ Leonhard Dobusch, Jakob Kapeller: Open strategy-making with crowds and communities: Comparing Wikimedia and Creative Commons. In: Long Range Planning. Band 51, Nr. 4, 1. August 2018, ISSN 0024-6301, S. 561–579, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2017.08.005 (sciencedirect.com [abgerufen am 24. Oktober 2023]).
  24. ↑ a b Katja Hutter, Bright Adu Nketia, Johann Füller: Falling Short with Participation — Different Effects of Ideation, Commenting, and Evaluating Behavior on Open Strategizing. In: Long Range Planning (= Open Strategy: Transparency and Inclusion in Strategy Processes). Band 50, Nr. 3, 1. Juni 2017, ISSN 0024-6301, S. 355–370, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2016.08.005 (sciencedirect.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  25. ↑ a b c Thomas Gegenhuber, Leonhard Dobusch: Making an Impression Through Openness: How Open Strategy-Making Practices Change in the Evolution of New Ventures. In: Long Range Planning (= Open Strategy: Transparency and Inclusion in Strategy Processes). Band 50, Nr. 3, 1. Juni 2017, ISSN 0024-6301, S. 337–354, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2016.09.001 (sciencedirect.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  26. ↑ Yves Doz, Mikko Kosonen: The Dynamics of Strategic Agility: Nokia's Rollercoaster Experience. In: California Management Review. Band 50, Nr. 3, April 2008, ISSN 0008-1256, S. 95–118, doi:10.2307/41166447 (sagepub.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  27. ↑ Richard Whittington: Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research. In: Organization Studies. Band 27, Nr. 5, Mai 2006, ISSN 0170-8406, S. 613–634, doi:10.1177/0170840606064101 (sagepub.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  28. ↑ a b Ruth Schmitt: Dealing with Wicked Issues: Open Strategizing and the Camisea Case. In: Journal of Business Ethics. Band 96, Nr. 1, 1. August 2010, ISSN 1573-0697, S. 11–19, doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0938-2 (doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0938-2 [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  29. ↑ a b Osvald M. Bjelland, Robert Chapman Wood: An inside view of IBM's «Innovation Jam». , 50(1), 32. Hrsg.: MIT Sloan management review. Band 50, Nr. 1, 2008, S. 32–40.
  30. ↑ Martin J. Eppler, Ken W. Platts: Visual Strategizing: The Systematic Use of Visualization in the Strategic-Planning Process. In: Long Range Planning. Band 42, Nr. 1, 1. Februar 2009, ISSN 0024-6301, S. 42–74, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2008.11.005 (sciencedirect.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  31. ↑ Basak Yakis-Douglas, Duncan Angwin, Kwangwon Ahn, Maureen Meadows: Opening M&A Strategy to Investors: Predictors and Outcomes of Transparency during Organisational Transition. In: Long Range Planning. Band 50, Nr. 3, Juni 2017, S. 411–422, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.007 (elsevier.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  32. ↑ a b Alireza Amrollahi, Bruce Rowlands: Collaborative open strategic planning: a method and case study. In: Information Technology & People. Band 30, Nr. 4, 1. Januar 2017, ISSN 0959-3845, S. 832–852, doi:10.1108/ITP-12-2015-0310 (doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2015-0310 [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  33. ↑ a b c Arvind Malhotra, Ann Majchrzak, Rebecca M. Niemiec: Using Public Crowds for Open Strategy Formulation: Mitigating the Risks of Knowledge Gaps. In: Long Range Planning (= Open Strategy: Transparency and Inclusion in Strategy Processes). Band 50, Nr. 3, 1. Juni 2017, ISSN 0024-6301, S. 397–410, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.004 (sciencedirect.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  34. ↑ David Denyer, Emma Parry, Paul Flowers: “Social”, “Open” and “Participative”? Exploring Personal Experiences and Organisational Effects of Enterprise2.0 Use. In: Long Range Planning (= Social Software: Strategy, Technology, and Community). Band 44, Nr. 5, 1. Oktober 2011, ISSN 0024-6301, S. 375–396, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2011.09.007 (sciencedirect.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  35. ↑ Saku Mantere, Eero Vaara: On the Problem of Participation in Strategy: A Critical Discursive Perspective. In: Organization Science. Band 19, Nr. 2, April 2008, ISSN 1047-7039, S. 341–358, doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0296 (informs.org [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  36. ↑ a b Richard Whittington, Basak Yakis-Douglas, Kwangwon Ahn: Cheap talk? Strategy presentations as a form of chief executive officer impression management: Cheap Talk? CEO Strategy Presentations. In: Strategic Management Journal. Band 37, Nr. 12, Dezember 2016, S. 2413–2424, doi:10.1002/smj.2482 (wiley.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  37. ↑ Bilgehan Uzunca, J. P. Coen Rigtering, Pinar Ozcan: Sharing and Shaping: A Cross-Country Comparison of How Sharing Economy Firms Shape Their Institutional Environment to Gain Legitimacy. In: Academy of Management Discoveries. Band 4, Nr. 3, September 2018, ISSN 2168-1007, S. 248–272, doi:10.5465/amd.2016.0153 (aom.org [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  38. ↑ Cynthia Hardy, Thomas B. Lawrence, Nelson Phillips: Swimming with sharks: creating strategic change through multi-sector collaboration. In: International Journal of Strategic Change Management. Band 1, Nr. 1/2, 2006, ISSN 1740-2859, S. 96–112, doi:10.1504/IJSCM.2006.011105 (inderscience.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  39. ↑ David Seidl, Felix Werle: Inter‐organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic meta‐problems: Requisite variety and dynamics of participation. In: Strategic Management Journal. Band 39, Nr. 3, März 2018, ISSN 0143-2095, S. 830–858, doi:10.1002/smj.2723 (wiley.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).
  40. ↑ Tsedal B. Neeley, Paul M. Leonardi: Enacting knowledge strategy through social media: P assable trust and the paradox of nonwork interactions. In: Strategic Management Journal. Band 39, Nr. 3, März 2018, ISSN 0143-2095, S. 922–946, doi:10.1002/smj.2739 (wiley.com [abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2023]).

Kategorie:Open Strategy

Abgerufen von „https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Gloria_Pünchera/Artikelentwurf&oldid=238488112“