Elementos tangibles

A cross-section of SAP research is illustrated within subsection 2.3.4. These are based on several social theories and frameworks that are used within SAP scholarship. What SAP ultimately does is afford greater attention to people and their actions. It focuses on the micro activities of people (beyond those of senior managers alone). It then accounts for these elements with larger social

- 35 -

structures. While doing this, it also is orientated towards the employment and creation of theories that explain the intersection of practitioners and their activity, given one’s socially situated context. SAP therefore directly addresses context while also focusing on the practices and praxis of practitioners within these contexts.

2.3.3.1 SAP and context

Context is reflected in Jarzabkowski et al. (2007)’s definition of SAP “as a situated, socially accomplished activity, while strategizing comprises of those actions, interactions and negotiations of multiple actors and the situated practices that then draw upon in accomplishing that activity” (p. 6). The authors here draw upon the earlier work of Jarzabkowski (2005) to develop this definition, with it arguably being the definitively employed

characterisation. Beyond SAP’s definition, two additional elements have been critical to the SAP scholarship being undertaken. The first of these is the interpretive framework for strategy practice (practitioners, practices, and praxis), while the second is the levels of analysis from which to view the ‘doing of strategy’. The former is a framework from which to understand how strategic activity takes place, while the latter is a categorisation of where one may find such strategic activities taking place - between whom.

2.3.3.2 Practices, praxis and practitioners

Regarding the first of the two critical elements mentioned above, the interpretive frameworks of SAP are accompanied by three terms that are synonymous with the field. These are practices, praxis and practitioners. These three areas present an intersection in which a significant amount of SAP

- 36 -

attention is directed. With Whittington (2006) proposing these three elements as an integrative framework, these discrete and interconnected concepts have since become central to SAP at different analytical levels (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009). Figure 2.1 shows the interconnection of these three elements in which practices, praxis and practices intersect with each other to provide opportunity for scholarly investigation.

Figure 2.1: A conceptual framework for analysing strategy-as-

practice

Taken from Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009)

Strategising is an activity that entails the doing of strategy, and it occurs through the actions of people (Hambrick, 2004; Jarzabkowski, 2004). People (practitioners) utilise tangible and intangible resources (categorised as practices) in the undertaking of their daily activities (praxis). Marin et al. (2016) articulate the interconnection of these three elements:

Practices refer to “routinized types of behaviour” (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 249) that actors use while they are strategizing. Explanations of praxis cover “the concrete, unfolding activity as it takes place” (Suddaby et al., 2013, p. 332). Practitioners of strategy are the internal and

external actors that interpret change and enact strategy through praxis (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009).

- 37 -

Practices

It is important to note that practices viewed through SAP go beyond how they are predominantly conceived in HRM scholarship. HR practices have largely been seen as practices put in place by top management as a means to achieve an end goal (Pérez, 2012). Such a position, however, inherently creates a divide between intended design and unintended outcomes of these practices, whereas practices that do not conform to the intended design are either made immaterial, or more detrimentally, are regarded as negatively impacting the value of such HRM practices (Pérez, 2012).

Within SAP however, practices also incorporate the tools and resources that extend beyond tangible elements or intended outcomes. While desired

elements are included, so too are social and symbolic resources (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009). These are derived from both theory and practice, and represent the “everyday lexicon and activity of strategy” (p. 283), that include for example: SWOT analysis, technology tools, spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations (Jarzabkowski & Whittington, 2008b). The work of strategy therefore incorporates material tools as well intangible resources, such as discursive, cognitive and behavioural practices that are inclusive of what organisational actors do to create outcomes (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011) - with the focus on activity.

Praxis

As the resources discussed above are employed in the doing of strategic work, they are utilised in the socially situated day-to-day activities of praxis. Every day, actions occur in the doing of strategic work. Meetings occur, forms are

- 38 -

filled in, and presentations delivered (Jarzabkowski & Whittington, 2008a). The doing of these actions constitutes praxis.

While these may seem very mundane, these actions are socially situated, meaning, that while the actions are indeed micro activities, they are accompanied with significant meaning. As praxis is undertaken, it is embedded with organisational culture and sub-cultures. Certainly macro explanations can shape praxis (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007), such as larger picture elements of organisational objectives, but they are also driven by the agency of actors, and the way these actors interpret their social reality. As praxis is a socially situated activity undertaken by people, practitioners accordingly make up the third element of the SAP conceptual framework triad.

In respect to the differences between practices and praxis, earlier criticisms of SAP have called for better definitions (e.g. Carter, Clegg, & Kornberger, 2008). Particularly, it has been acknowledged that it is difficult to isolate an individual practice from the broader connection of practices occurring within an organisation (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009). Thus, a key position to emerge from such critiques has been to articulate that practices are the resources that practitioners draw upon, while praxis focuses on the activities occurring as strategic work is undertaken. Put another way by Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009), “practices [are] the social, symbolic and material tools through which strategy work is done, [while praxis entails] the flow of activity in which strategy is accomplished” (p. 70).

- 39 -

Practitioners

Practitioners are those people involved in the doing of strategic work that bring within them all the idiosyncrasies of being human (Björkman et al., 2014). Accordingly, accepting that human beings come with human attributes, means practitioners come not only with situated and personal knowledge and skills, but with agency (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). As already articulated in my introduction, practitioners framed from an SAP position are conceived more broadly than in SHRM. In a review of the work undertaken within SAP, Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009) employ the words of Jarzabkowski and

Whittington (2008a) as a representative definition:

Strategy’s practitioners are defined widely, to include both those directly involved in making strategy – most prominently managers and consultants – and those with indirect influence – the policy-makers, the media, the gurus and the business schools who shape legitimate praxis and practices(p. 101).

2.3.3.3 SAP and levels of analysis

Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009) further add to the above definition by

observing that empirical studies allude to aggregate groups of practitioners in addition to individuals. Indeed, the convention of SAP scholarship now is the inclusion of both. This was derived from their review of levels of analysis being undertaken in SAP, and represents the second critical element - noted earlier – within SAP. This is a typology of practitioner and level of praxis. Figure 2.2 illustrates the levels of analysis undertaken. It demonstrates vertically the level of analysis while horizontally it illustrates the actor categories being investigated.

- 40 -

SAP is attentive to both organisational aggregate and individual actors, as well as extra-organisational aggregate actors. It views these actors undertaking praxis at the micro, meso and macro levels of analysis. Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009) offer an extensive overview of research directed towards these areas with some exemplars of such categories. I have drawn from their work to highlight such positions and suitable examples of the work occurring within these areas of analysis.

The micro-level of analysis at the individual level (intersection A) would be concerned with individual actions proximal to their experiences (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009). Given as an example, is the work of Mantere (2005, 2008), who shows how individuals interpret strategy, their role towards it, and accordingly the praxis that comes about as a result of this interpretation. This work also investigated the praxis of individual actors who did not have a formal strategic role. The meso level (intersections B, E, H) is concerned with the organisational and sub organisational level. Studies here, for example, have been interested in understanding how the actions of individuals influence firm strategy (Rouleau, 2005). This also includes how individuals shape the actions of sub-organisational groups, such as business units, and the strategic implication of such (e.g. Marin et al., 2016; Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007). Macro-praxis (intersection C, F, I) is focused towards the interaction of

individual actions influencing or being influenced by larger macro forces, such as institutions, markets and industries (Vaara, Kleymann, & Seristö, 2004).

- 41 -

Figure 2.2: Typology of practitioner and practice

Level of Praxis Macro C F I Meso B E H Micro A D G Individual actor within organisation Aggregate actor within organisation Extra organisational aggregate actor Type of Practitioner Adapted from Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009)