Create the Text as a Foundation (Step 2)

! *')!

research. The former is useful in early stages of research on a topic or when a fresh perspective is needed, whilst the latter is useful in later stages of knowledge (Eisenhardt, 548-549).

5.3 Create the Text as a Foundation (Step 2)

5.3.1 Reconstruct Case as Text of Phenomenon

To reconstruct data as a written text of the phenomenon, I employed several analytic devices. First, the interview participant responses to each interview question were reviewed and analyzed thoroughly in a formal, uniform table format so as to align participant statements for further development into apparent themes emerging from the case study. Second, I went back to early field notes and memos to reconsidered these in light of emerging participant interview themes, and classified them in a similar thematic structure. Third, data content collected across various

documents, emails, and artifacts was likewise subjected to analysis under the evolving themes. Finally, extant literature, critically reviewed

previously, was reassessed in relation to the empirical derived case data evidence.

I normalized multiple, disparate data sources in a single case study narrative to create an evidential synopses of the minimal structure

phenomenon represented in KYF2. Units of analysis were introduced in the initial processing of case study data as a general guide for interpreting the case narrative. Working from the strategic episodes as units of analysis I observed the “sequence of communications structured in terms of a beginning and end” (Hendry and Seidl, 2003: 176) consisting of bounded process observations about KYF2 strategy management. This data textualization step is presented previously in chapter four of my thesis.

!!

! *(+!

After the initial case data collection was conducted, I immersed myself in the data by reviewing notes and recordings compiled from interview, participant observation field book, documents, artifacts, and literature review. This analytical activity helped me acquire a feeling for the

experience of strategic management improvisation with minimal structures among case study actors, and develop a written text of phenomenon.

I then revisited each participant’s written, and audio recording, interview interpretation to identify significant thematic statements, which included metaphors, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs connecting directly to the participant’s personal experience of minimal structures used in practice.

The intention of this first phase of the analysis was to describe facets of the phenomenon as experienced by each individual in the context of other data sources such as historical records and my field journal notes. The attention to maintaining a “steady and explicit dialogue” between emerging ideas and evidence, and entering into data by means of a dialogue, was crucial (Ragin, 1987; Charmaz, 2006: 25).

5.3.2 Conduct Initial Coding

Open coding enabled me to break data down into component parts, or categories, which are were named and treated as potential indicators of propositions in iterative comparison (Bryman and Bell, 2003: 428-429). The critical approach forced me to ask more robust and focused questions related to the phenomena, and “make the participant’s language

problematic to render an analysis of it” (Charmaz, 2006: 47). Open coding fostered the "theoretical sensitivity" to improvisation with minimal

structures provided a perspective that helped me see relevant data and abstract significant concepts from my scrutiny of the data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967: 3).

!!

! *(*!

The following table (Table 5.2: Grouping of Five Initial Codes) summarizes the first iteration of coding analysis of KYF2 case data in relation to core spatial categories:

Table 5.2: Grouping of Five Initial Codes Initial Codes

Push Envelop: Redirection, stamina on points, tossed in deep end, catalyzed growth, my space, forcibly thrown, against deadlines, time constraints, abundance of time, volume of time, lack of evidence, holistic, want to be smarter, naming the edge, pushed beyond limits, role conflicts, emerging tension, putting department in a space, staying in my lane, flipping frames, jumping into group, climbing,

choreography, figuring out pace, conduit of information, permission to solve problem, imagination, trusted with content, behind the scenes, shifted conversation, reverse education, head nodding, persistence, getting over own ideas, present, not by sight, watch and learn, feeling out of control, old reactions, scared of others, cognitive separation, fatalism

Stuck Between: Giving and taking back, naming committee, paradigms of work, mediating, compliments of perspective, compatibility, contemplation, position versus condition, alliances, favor, clarity, survival of ideals, life of own, turnover, disagreement, authority, liability, personalization, magnitude, confusion in situ, agreements, diplomacy, confidences, tensions, interpreting for others, separation Shared Space: Physical space, intellectual space, visual space, shared narratives, mashup spaces, new spaces, single portal, common room, agility, joint problem solving, storytelling, puzzle pieces, borders, chronos, part and wholes, appreciate in value, better together, transformative, momentum, shared ownership, presence, compliments, warriors, initiative, naïve, technology obstacles, map leverage, contrasts, obsolescence, communal areas, serendipity, values, structured meetings, technology failure, off-sites, tone setting, experimentation

Boundaries: Early imprint, social structure, experiment in sharing responsibility, linking the what and where, first shot accuracy, intellectual versus organization framework, created by movement or stalling, lack of uniformity, shared sense of job completion, fluid exchange, accommodation of volunteers, general boundaries, allowed permission to hold new perspective, data transgressed boundaries,

boundary crossing fit, intentionally breaking barriers, predefined daily hurtles, goodness of, evident in body language, constraints on language, value conflicts, legacy paradigms, pervasive principle, smashups, elusiveness, tight patterns, early wins, play out reins, individual embodiment, splurging into new space agility, strategic ambiguity always morphing, dimensions, organically defined in context, relationship of goals to boundaries, mutual respect, not hard edges, cope expansion with success, relationships of boundaries to ownership, decentralized information, definition in working style, evolving in practice, feeling and accountability form boundaries, political ambiguity, trip wire boundaries, awareness, sixth sense, constant groping for, finding sideboards of debate, avoiding pitfalls, don’t step into

!!

! *("!

5.3.3 Create Initial Propositions

The within-case analysis grounded theory approach facilitates the

preliminary textual content reconstruction, and review process, identifying and organizing emerging data themes and locating emerging patterns from the coding process. I made these themes explicit through a disciplined process of iteratively labeling and comparing content side-by-side with source data, which resulted in the identification of 21 unique themes. The common data themes essentially formed the case structure, which is the nascent story of the phenomenon.

The analysis of the KYF2 case narrative engaged the units of analysis to concentrate on specific processes associated with improvisation using minimal structures. Applying this method to each of the five strategic episodes of the case produced a set of initial participant described meanings from within the context of the events; the emergence of Data Themes. To focus the study, I illustrate several of the most dominant, interesting, and/or exemplary data themes from each strategic episode, and linked these data to my research questions to create alignment and potentially locate patterns.

mess, not creating targets, ground swells, overlapping channels

Patterns: Formulating dialogues, reinterpreting in context, high tension,

technology creates message, external critiques, process patterns, never a perfect outcome, proof points in nooks and crannies, institutionalism resistance, one way transaction, no single winning strategy, downside of transparency, creativity incubator, self-exposure, crowdsource failures, kitchen cabinet, guild-like participation, ignoring patterns, repeatable interactions, continuing to surprise with partner, voices silenced, get big or get out, testing pre-existing structures, bouncing off walls, work with boundaries, going around obstacles, self manifesting, postponement, adaptability, no focal point, ebb and flow, humor

!!

! *(#!

The next data analysis activity in the process employed case narrative data themes as early inductively derived evidence in the phased creation of the initial propositions, linked to minimal structures research questions. The analysis reduced the theme to four core propositions for further validation with the data and the literature.

Table 5.3: Development of Initial Propositions, Research Question 1 Q1: How are minimal structures created and used to frame strategy in practice?

Research Question 1: Case Episode Data Themes *Developing Initial Propositions:

Establish an open sense of opportunity and ownership

MS enable actors to

recognize spatial reference points in strategic context, obtain bearings, and act on information.

MS embody values that actors use to interpret, indwell, and mediate strategy in practice.

* Minimal Structures = MS

Constant groping and testing for edges Sanction off space to choreograph strategy Find space or pathway to discover in practice Will to stay in between to realize transition to next stage

Cannot not see it when you are in the margin of a transition

Identify connection points outside comfort zone Uncertainty in a strange space, outside looking in Cast out beyond expertise and limits to unfamiliar place

Change directional magnetism of perceived value Reposition values with the values chain

Mediate between positions to create space and distance

Tables 5.4: Development of Initial Propositions, Research Question 2 Q2: How do minimal structures contribute to strategy coherence and sensemaking?

Research Question 2: Case Episode Data Themes *Developing Initial Propositions:

Work within structure to break down boundaries and smash barriers, then figure it out

MS promote emergence of thinking surfaces and space Take the unobvious way out to avoid old

frameworks

!!

! *($!

Make space appear, to emerge as open areas

where convergence occurs in strategy practice.

MS increase actor presence and risk taking in strategy enactment.

* Minimal Structures = MS Stretch to the edge of surface areas, cross

boundaries to open new possibilities

Will to act out of unknowing, to improvise and not block with others surrounding us

Reveal the true nature of a thing

Permission to explore a thin space in new territory Be present to understand right pace and see obstacles coming

Agile frame of mind to allow comprehension and coupling of the known