Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames

A B S T R AC T Pluralistic organizations characterized by multiple objectives, diffuse power and knowledge-based work processes present a complex challenge both for strategy theorists and for strategy practitioners because the very nature of strategy as usually understood (an explicit and unified direction for the organization) appears to contradict the natural dynamics of these organizations. Yet pluralism is to some extent always present in organizations and perhaps increasingly so. This article explores the usefulness of three alternate and complementary theoretical frames for understanding and influencing strategy practice in pluralistic contexts: Actor-Network Theory, Conventionalist Theory and the social practice perspective. Each of these frameworks has a predominant focus on one of the fundamental attributes of pluralism: power, values and knowledge. Together, they offer a multi-faceted understanding of the complex practice of strategizing in pluralistic contexts. Actor-Network Theory ᭿ Conventionalist Theory ᭿ pluralistic contexts ᭿ social practice perspective ᭿ strategizing The 'strategy-as-practice' perspective takes a particular interest in the way that strategizing takes place in different contexts (Whittington, 2003; Wilson & Jarzabkowski, 2004). This article aims to develop a better understanding of the practice of strategy (or 'strategizing') in 'pluralistic contexts', defined here as organizational contexts characterized by three main features: multiple objectives, diffuse power and knowledge-based work processes. Clearly, all organizations are to some degree pluralistic and to that extent, the ideas we present here are applicable anywhere. Yet, some organizations appear to be 'more pluralistic' than others. For example, hospitals, arts organizations, universities, professional partnerships and cooperatives have traditionally possessed the characteristics we have described rather strongly. As organizations in many industries enter into various forms of collaborative arrangements , as matrices and networks penetrate organizational structures, and as knowledge workers play an increasingly important role in the economy, pluralistic forms of organization are becoming more and more prevalent (Løwendahl & Revang, 1998). Yet, while pluralism may have benefits, it challenges conventional conceptions of strategic decision-making. As Cohen and March (1986: 195) noted in their discussion of the dilemmas underlying the university president's role: 'When purpose is ambiguous, ordinary theories of decision-making and intelligence become problematic. When power is ambiguous, ordinary theories of social order and control become problematic'. Our article seeks to enrich Cohen and March's (1986) observation by exploring the potential contribution of some alternative theoretical frames from sociology and organization theory to the understanding of strategy practice. The three foundational frameworks presented here were chosen …