Research at the nexus of strategy as practice and the communicative constitution of organizing indicates strategizing is a formalized process occurring alongside materialities supporting discourse in conventional organizations. Yet, strategizing is also accomplished informally in fluid organizational settings alongside diverse materialities that have little to do with discourse. Drawing upon a relationality analytical lens, we investigate how diverse other-than-discursive materialities are implicated in the strategizing process of a fluid social collective. After analyzing interview, observation, and encrypted online discourse data from a fluid social movement aimed at preventing the construction of a police training center, we find that materially enmeshed, aggregated, and reappropriated direct actions come to ‘speak’ for strategic directions of the collective. The study augments theory by moving past explicitly articulated discursively formulated strategies—often reliant upon conventional settings and human-designed materialities—to provide sharper theorizing on agentic contributions of diverse, other-than-discursive materialities in strategizing.
AggerholmH. K.AsmußB.ThomsenC. (2012). The role of recontextualization in the multivocal, ambiguous process of strategizing. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492611430852
2.
AlbuO. B. (2023). Managing visibilities: The shades and shadows of NGO work in repressive contexts. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(3), 659–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221144991
3.
AlvessonM.SandbergJ. (2022). Pre-understanding: An interpretation-enhancer and horizon-expander in research. Organization Studies, 43(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840621994507
4.
Archambault-JanvierC.CoorenF.VásquezC. (2024). Speaking in unison: The voice dilemma in open strategy. Management Communication Quarterly, 39(1), 88–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189241247140
5.
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
6.
BalogunJ.JacobsC.JarzabkowskiP.MantereS.VaaraE. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 175–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12059
7.
BasqueJ.BencherkiN.KuhnT. (2022). The Routledge handbook of the communicative constitution of organization. Routledge.
BencherkiN.CoorenF. (2011). Having to be: The possessive constitution of organization. Human Relations, 64(12), 1579–1607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711424227
10.
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
11.
BencherkiN.SnackJ. P. (2016). Contributorship and partial inclusion: A communicative perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915624163
12.
BoykoffJ. (2007). Limiting dissent: The mechanisms of state repression in the USA. Social Movement Studies, 6(3), 281–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830701666988
CoorenF.BencherkiN.ChaputM.VásquezC. (2015). The communicative constitution of fleeting moments of strategy. In GolsorkhiD.RouleauL.SeidlD.VaaraE. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (2nd ed., pp. 365–388). Cambridge University Press.
17.
DawsonV. R.BencherkiN. (2022). Federal employees or rogue rangers: Sharing and resisting organizational authority through Twitter communication practices. Human Relations, 75(11), 2091–2121. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211032944
DobuschL.SchoenebornD. (2015). Fluidity, identity, and organizationality: The communicative constitution of anonymous. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8), 1005–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12139
FerrellJ. (2014). Scrounging and reclaiming. In ParkerM.CheneyG.FournierV.LandC. (Eds.), The routledge companion to alternative organization (pp. 295–307). Routledge.
23.
FotakiM.ForoughiH. (2022). Extinction rebellion: Green activism and the fantasy of leaderlessness in a decentralized movement. Leadership, 18(2), 224–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211005578
24.
GaneshS. (2015). The capacity to act and the ability to move: Studying agency in social movement organizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(3), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915586220
25.
GraeberD. (2009). Direct action: An ethnography. AK press.
I.C.L.A. (2024, Feb 19). A conscious message to the underground: ‘It’s terrible! And it’s fine’ Scenes from the Atlanta Forest. [website no longer exists].
29.
JarzabkowskiP.BurkeG.SpeeP. (2015). Constructing spaces for strategic work: A multimodal perspective. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S26–S47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12082
30.
JarzabkowskiP.KaplanS. (2015). Strategy tools‐in‐use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2270
31.
JarzabkowskiP.KavasM.KrullE. (2021). It’s practice. But is it strategy? Reinvigorating strategy-as-practice by rethinking consequentiality. Organization Theory, 2(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211029665
32.
JarzabkowskiP.SpeeA. P. (2009). Strategy‐as‐practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00250.x
33.
JarzabkowskiP.SpeeA. P.SmetsM. (2013). Material artifacts: Practices for doing strategy with ‘stuff. European Management Journal, 31(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.09.001
34.
KozinetsR. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Sage Publications.
35.
KuhnT. (2024). What do corporations want?: Communicative capitalism, corporate purpose, and a new theory of the firm. Bristol University Press.
36.
KuhnT.AshcraftK. L.CoorenF. (2017). The work of communication: Relational perspectives on working and organizing in contemporary capitalism. Routledge.
37.
LeonardiP. M. (2015). Materializing strategy: The blurry line between strategy formulation and strategy implementation. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S17–S21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12077
38.
LiuF.MaitlisS. (2014). Emotional dynamics and strategizing processes: A study of strategic conversations in top team meetings. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 202–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01087.x
MantereS.VaaraE. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0296
41.
MyllykoskiJ.RantakariA. (2023). Material agency in discursive strategizing–the study of a software company seeking global growth. Journal of Management Inquiry, 33(4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231207304
42.
NathuesE.EndedijkM.van VuurenM. (2023). Coauthoring collaborative strategy when voices are many and authority is ambiguous. Strategic Organization, 21(3), 683–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270211068842
43.
PälliP. (2018). Ascribing materiality and agency to strategy in interaction: A language-based approach to the material agency of strategy. Long Range Planning, 51(3), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.02.008
44.
PoonM. (2024). Achieving organizationality through authorship affordances—a communicative episode of telegram polling from 2019 Hong Kong. Social Movement Studies, 23(3), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2023.2296868
45.
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
46.
ShanahanG. (2023). ‘No decision is permanent!’: Achieving democratic revisability in alternative organizations through the affordances of new information and communication technologies. Human Relations, 76(10), 1661–1686. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221112821
47.
SouleS. (2013). Bringing organizational studies back into social movement scholarship. In Van StekelenburgJ.RoggebandC.KlandermansB. (Eds.), The future of social movement research: Dynamics, mechanisms, and processes (pp. 107–123). U of Minnesota Press.
48.
SpeeA. P. (2022). Strategic management and CCO: A generative nexus. In BasqueJ.BencherkiN.KuhnT. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the communicative constitution of organization (pp. 339–353). Routledge.
SutherlandN.LandC.BöhmS. (2014). Anti-leaders(hip) in social movement organizations: The case of autonomous grassroots groups. Organization, 21(6), 759–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413480254
51.
TracyS. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
VaaraE.WhittingtonR. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 285–336. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.672039
54.
van den BroekA.GanderJ. (2024). When strategy is a dirty word: The role of visuals in sensegiving strategy to a skeptical audience. Long Range Planning, 57(1), 102411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2023.102411
55.
VásquezC.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
