ABSTRACT
In summary, by exploring, these insights expandthe research expands the arguably positivistic strategy literature, by exploring more accurate theory through the use of micro-level SAP insights. Further, the restrictions highlighted within a purely micro-level analysis, currently dominating SAP research, are addressed by utilising a macro lens derived from NIT. The NIT field further extends insights through analysis of micro, actor-level agency, addressing the field’s key gap. Lastly a more detailed understanding of strategy workshops will further develop knowledge within this area of practice.
There is clearly a need for strategy to explain the actions of actors and bring more accuracy to theory by utilising more sociologically informed approaches, which include institutional theory, to support accuracy within existing strategy theory (Jarzabkowski and Whittington, 2008). Smets et al. (2017) argue that the combination of the two theoretical 165strands address blind spots within both theories. A contextual reference for practice is achieved by an institutional eye. The field of strategic decision-making has explored a range contextual variables that may influence strategic decisions, but existing studies are fragmented, inconsistent, and limited in range and highlight the need for more detailed work (Shepherd and Rudd, 2014). By addressing functional practice but relating it to institutional phenomena and practices across institutionally defined organisational fields. This combination of perspectives “can open each other’s eyes to new phenomena and start looking at familiar phenomena in new ways” (Smets et al., 2017: 283). Acknowledging practice-driven institutionalism will enable the close-up “zooming in” scrutiny of strategy-making workshops within organisations, then zooming out to the broad societal logics embedded within institutionally defined organisational fields of study.
Within the practice lens, a quest for rationality is viewed as a social convention that pre-prescribes sets of values for actors, the strategy tools symbolising “rational strategic processes” (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Jarzabkowski and Kaplan, 2015: 551), very much neo-institutional views. Research recommendations are put forward by Jarzabkowski and Kaplan (2015) to explore the strategic management consultancy field, individuals, teams, and projects, but this reveals a gap as there are no recommendations or discussion on comparative studies across organisational fields and how actors within differing organisational fields may utilise strategy tools in ways that may be defined by the institutionalism within those fields.
