The adoption of contingency theory is a logical theoretical choice to conceptualise middle management behaviours given the situated nature of the strategy-as- practice lens. Since st ategizi g i ludes all the a tio s, i te a tio s a d
negotiations of multiple actors and the situated practices that they draw upon in a o plishi g this a ti it Ja za ko ski et al, : -8), a contextualised view is
e essa . Middle a age s st ategi age is o st ai ed i u sta es (Mantere, 2008) and so prevailing environmental influences cannot be ignored in a study of upper middle manager strategists. This study incorporates a macro
concern for the environment and a micro level interest in grouping strategic behaviours within mid-level roles to generate a set of practitioner archetypes.
83 Several studies illustrate how contingent factors influence iddle a age s everyday strategizing practices. For instance, in their paper on top management team strategizing in a leading UK university, Jarzabkowski and Wilson (2002: 357) po t a o te t as a a tivity system in which actor, community, and the socio- cultural artefacts of interaction are integrated through activity.
Figure 3 highlights the connections made in this thesis between the key strategic players, the practitioners who enact practices within their given social roles and positions where particular behaviours are expected. An understanding of prevailing contingencies of place, time, and markets determines the strategies that provide a purpose. This adds the person to Mi tz e g s fi e Ps of strategy – pla , plo , patte , positio , pe spe ti e. Whitti gto s 2006: 619) three Ps of strategy praxis, practices, and practitioners are integrated in this study by exploring actual activities, routine behaviours, and strategic actors.
Figure 3: The 3Ps of strategy-as-practice in this study
Practitioners Prevailing circumstances Positions Typology of hybrid UMM strategists based on strategizing behaviours in different contexts
84 Whittington (2006: 619) writes that st ateg s p i e o e s, st ateg
practitioners are those who do the work of making, shaping and executing st ategies. He captures the benefits of practice theory to gain insights into strategists: The esse tial i sight of the p a ti e pe spe ti e is that strategy is more than just a property of organizations; it is something that people do, with stuff that comes from outside as well as within organizations, and with effects that pe eate th ough hole so ieties (ibid: 627). Whittington argues for greater integration, with links made between strategizing on the ground intra-
organisationally and also at the extra-organisational level, taking into account prevailing exogenous influences. This contrasts with previous research that focuses on discrete areas of strategy such as micro studies of individuals (e.g. Samra-Fredericks, 2003), work on meso institutional level strategy (e.g. Balogun and Johnson, 2004), and more macro socio-political studies (e.g. Kornberger and Clegg, 2011).
In considering how business school deans develop their practices and capabilities in their roles over time, this thesis is underpinned by a p a ti e tu in the social sciences (Schatzki et al, 2001; Reckwitz 2002). This view reconciles the individual and society (Schatzki, 2005). The practice viewpoint concerns everyday practices (Goffman, 1959; De Certeau, 1984). Sztompka (1991), for example, was interested in the interactions between structures and actors. In organisational studies, practice relates to how individuals and g oups a out eal o k th ough o- o di ated a ti ities that a e i flue ed the g oup s o o ga isatio s context (Cook and Brown, 1999).
85 Whittington (1996: 732) debunks the glamour of strategizing practices by
suggesting that strategy entails craft, tacit, local, and detailed skills as well as flashes of illia e: all the eeti g, the talki g, the fo -filling and the number- crunching...Getting things done involves the nitty-gritty, often tiresome and
epetiti e outi es of st ateg . Joh son et al (2003: 3) too stress mundane aspects of st ateg o k: the detailed p o esses a d p a ti es hi h o stitute the da - to-da a ti ities of o ga isatio al life a d hi h elate to st ategi out o es.
Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009: 69) explain that [s]trategy-as-practice (s-as-p) as a research topic is concerned with the doing of strategy; who does it, what they do, ho the do it, hat the use, a d hat i pli atio s this has fo shapi g st ateg . Strategy-as-practice research stems from strategy process research which
p i a il fo used o the a tio s that lead to a d suppo t st ateg , i.e. pla i g and decision-making (Huff and Reger, 1987: 212). “AP suppo ts Wei k s
recommendation to be extravagant with gerunds and to re-envisage organisations as dynamic. It restores the actor into research on strategy (Whittington, 2006). Vaa a a d Whitti gto : a gue that [t]he po e of this pe spe ti e lies in its ability to explain how strategy-making is enabled and constrained by
prevailing o ga izatio al a d so ietal p a ti es. “ hatzki : takes the view that practice frameworks enable an understanding of how practices unfold over time. The practice turn in strategy (Whittington, 2006) provides insights into what strategists actually do close-up hi h is a se t f o Flo d a d Woold idge s (1992, 1994, 1996) typology of strategic middle management roles.
86 This thesis reflects on empirical studies of strategizing behaviours in non-profit organisations (Maitlis and Lawrence, 2003; Vaara et al, 2010; Denis et al, 2011; Kornberger and Clegg, 2011; Sillince et al, 2012) which are often neglected in strategic management literature. Some not-for-profit studies in the strategy-as- practice literature ha e e a i ed a age s st ategizi g i universities
(Jarzabkowski, 2003; Jarzabkowski, 2008; Jarzabkowski and Seidl, 2008; Spee and Jarzabkowski, 2011). Empirical work on middle management strategizing
(Mantere, 2008; Suominen and Mantere, 2010; Rouleau and Balogun, 2011) are pertinent to this thesis. In terms of actual strategic episodes, insights into the importance of meetings (Hoon, 2007; Liu and Maitlis, 2013) and strategy away days (Hodgkinson et al, 2006; Johnson et al, 2010) are also relevant.