In this paper, we adopt a Communication as Constitutive of Organizations (CCO) perspective to investigate how organizations implementing Open Strategy initiatives maintain openness and closure in tension by attending to a plurality of voices and their diversity (polyphony), while at the same time speaking in one strategic voice (monophony). Based on the Kiabi case, we explore what we name the voice dilemma by focusing on the ways different stakeholders involved in strategy making manage the co-authoring of strategy through voicing, negotiating, and legitimizing matters of concern. We contribute to extant literature by focusing on the management of polyphony and monophony as a way to embrace the paradox of openness that characterizes Open Strategy. More precisely, we show how some form of closure needs to be nurtured during the opening process (the co-authoring process during which multiple employees are invited to contribute to strategizing). However, we also argue that some form of opening needs to be nurtured during the closure process (the process during which the official authoring/positioning of the organization is finally defined). This study offers a longitudinal case that allows showcasing how the opening and closing strategies evolve over time.
AggerholmH. K.AsmußB. (2022). Authority-in-action: How voices are negotiated through idiomatic formulations during organizational downsizing. In Benoit-BarnéC.MartineT. (Eds.), Speaking with one voice: Multivocality and univocality in organizing (pp. 19–40). Routledge.
2.
AntebyM. (2013). Relaxing the taboo on telling our own stories: Upholding professional distance and personal involvement. Organization Science, 24(4), 1277e1290. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649261143085
3.
AsmußB.OshimaS. (2018). Strategy making as a communicative practice: The multimodal accomplishment of strategy roles. M@n@gement, 21(2), 884–912. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.212.0884
4.
AtenK.ThomasG. F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 148–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415627269
5.
BakhtinM. M. (1984). Problems of dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans). University of Minnesota Press.
6.
BaptistaJ.WilsonA. D.GalliersR. D.BynghallS. (2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.005
7.
BasqueJ.BencherkiN.KuhnT. (Eds.), (2022). The Routledge handbook of the communicative constitution of organization. Routledge.
8.
BencherkiN.BasqueJ.RouleauL. (2019). A sensemaking perspective on open strategy. In WhittingtonR.Von KroghG.SeidlD. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 241–258). Cambridge University Press.
9.
BencherkiN.SergiV.CoorenF.VásquezC. (2021). How strategy comes to matter: Strategizing as the communicative materialization of matters of concern. Strategic Organization, 19(4), 608–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127019890380
10.
Benoit-BarnéC.CoorenF. (2009). The accomplishment of authority through presentification: How authority is distributed among and negotiated by organizational members. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335414
11.
Benoit-BarnéC.MartineT. (Eds.), (2022). Speaking with one voice: Multivocality and univocality in organizing. Routledge.
BjellandO. M.WoodR. C. (2008). An inside view of IBM’s “Innovation Jam,”. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), 32–40.
14.
BoivinG.BrummansB. H. J. M.BarkerJ. R. (2017). The institutionalization of CCO scholarship: Trends from 2000 to 2015. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318916687396
15.
BourgoinA.BencherkiN.FarajS. (2020). “And who are you?”: A performative perspective on authority in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1134–1165. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1335
16.
BrummansB. H. J. M.CoorenF.RobichaudD.TaylorJ. R. (2014). Approaches in research on the communicative constitution of organizations. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), Sage Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 173–194). Sage.
17.
CoorenF. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. John Benjamins.
18.
CoorenF. (2018). Materializing communication: Making the case for a relational ontology. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx014
CoorenF.BencherkiN.ChaputM.VasquezC. (2015). The communicative constitution of strategy-making: Exploring fleeting moments of strategy. In GolsorkhiD.RouleauL.SeidlD.VaaraE. (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (2nd ed., pp. 365–388). Cambridge University Press.
21.
CoorenF.MatteF.TaylorJ. R.VasquezC. (2007). A humanitarian organization in action: Organizational discourse as an immutable mobile. Discourse & Communication, 1(2), 153–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307075996
22.
CouldryN. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. Sage.
23.
DenyerD.ParryE.FlowersP. (2011). “Social,” “open” and “participative”? Exploring personal experiences and organisational effects of enterprise2.0 use. Long Range Planning, 44(5-6), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2011.09.007
24.
DobuschL.DobuschL. (2019). The relation between openness and closure in open strategy: Programmatic and constitutive approaches to openness. In WhittingtonR.Von KroghG.SeidlD. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 326–336). Cambridge University Press.
25.
DobuschL.DobuschL.Müller-SeitzG. (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617736930
26.
DobuschL.KremserW.SeidlD.WerleF. (2017). A communication perspective on open strategy and open innovation. Management, 27(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1365/s41113-017-0015-6
27.
GegenhuberT.DobuschL. (2017). Making an impression through openness: How open strategy-making practices change in the evolution of new ventures. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.09.001
28.
HaefligerS. (2019). Orientations of open strategy: From resistance to transformation. In WhittingtonR.Von KroghG.SeidlD. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 151–166). Cambridge University Press.
HeracleousL.GößweinJ.BeaudetteP. (2018). Open strategy-making at the wikimedia foundation: A dialogic perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317712665
31.
HutterK.NketiaB. A.FüllerJ. (2017). Falling short with participation — different effects of ideation, commenting, and evaluating behavior on open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.08.005
32.
JahnJ. L. S. (2016). Adapting safety rules in a high reliability context: How wildland firefighting workgroups ventriloquize safety rules to understand hazards. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 362–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915623638
33.
KoschmannM. A. (2013). The communicative constitution of collective identity in interorganizational collaboration. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318912449314
34.
KoschmannM. A.McDonaldJ. (2015). Organizational rituals, communication, and the question of agency. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(2), 229–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915572386
35.
KuhnT. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29(8-9), 1227–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608094778
36.
LangleyA. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.2307/259349
37.
LuedickeM. K.HusemannK. C.FurnariS.LadstaetterF. (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.001
38.
MackD. Z.SzulanskiG. (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.08.004
NathuesE.EndedijkM.van VuurenM. (2022). Coauthoring collaborative strategy when voices are many and authority is ambiguous. Strategic Organization, 21(3), 683–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270211068842
41.
NeeleyT.LeonardiP. (2018). Enacting knowledge strategy through social media: Passable trust and the paradox of nonwork interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 922–946. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2739
42.
PorterA. J.KuhnT. R.NerlichB. (2018). Organizing authority in the climate change debate: IPCC controversies and the management of dialectical tensions. Organization Studies, 39(7), 873–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617707999
43.
PutnamL. L. (2014). Research methods in organizational communication studies. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 217–222). Sage.
44.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421
45.
PutnamL. L.PacanowskyM. (Eds.), (1983). Communication and organization: An interpretive approach. Sage.
46.
RobichaudD.GirouxH.TaylorJ. R. (2004). The Metaconversation: The recursive property of language as a key to organizing. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.14497614
SeidlD.Von KroghG.WhittingtonR. (2019). Defining open strategy: Dimensions, practices, impacts, and perspectives. In WhittingtonR.Von KroghG.SeidlD. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 9–26). Cambridge University Press.
49.
SeidlD.WerleF. (2018). Inter-organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic meta-problems: Requisite variety and dynamics of participation. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 830–858. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2723
50.
SpradleyJ. P. (1980). Participant observation. Harcourt.
51.
StiegerD.MatzlerK.ChatterjeeS.Ladstaetter-FusseneggerF. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.44
52.
TaylorJ. R.CoorenF. (1997). What makes communication organizational? How the many voices of a collectivity become the one voice of the organization. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(4), 409–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(96)00044-6
53.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2011). The situated organization: Case studies in the pragmatics of communication research. Routledge.
55.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2014). When organization fails. Why authority matters. Routledge.
56.
TeulierR.RouleauL. (2013). Middle managers’ sensemaking and interorganizational change initiation: Translation spaces and editing practices. Journal of Change Management, 13(3), 308–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.822674
57.
TrittinH.SchoenebornD. (2017). Diversity as polyphony: Reconceptualizing diversity management from a communication-centered perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2825-8
58.
VaaraE.FritschL. (2022). Strategy as language and communication: Theoretical and methodological advances and avenues for the future in strategy process and practice research. Strategic Management Journal, 43(6), 1170–1181. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3360
VásquezC.SchoenebornD.SergiV. (2016). Summoning the spirits: Organizational texts and the (dis)ordering properties of communication. Human Relations, 69(3), 629–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715589422
63.
VásquezC. N.BencherkiN.CoorenF.SergiV. (2018). From ‘matters of concern’ to ‘matters of authority’: Studying the performativity of strategy from a communicative constitution of organization (CCO) approach. Long Range Planning, 51(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.01.001
64.
WerleF.SeidlD. (2015). The layered materiality of strategizing: Epistemic objects and the interplay between material artefacts in the exploration of strategic topics. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12080
65.
WhittingtonR.CailluetL.Yakis-DouglasB. (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
66.
WilhoitE. D.KisselburghL. G. (2019). The relational ontology of resistance: Hybridity, ventriloquism, and materiality in the production of bike commuting as resistance. Organization, 26(6), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417723719
67.
WrightA.KuhnT.MichailovaS.HibbertP. (2023). Ventriloquial authority in management learning and education: A communication as constitutive of learning and education perspective. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 22(2), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0191
68.
Yakis-DouglasB.AngwinD.AhnK.MeadowsM. (2017). Opening M&A strategy to investors: Predictors and outcomes of transparency during organisational transition. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.007
69.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
