ABSTRACT
This chapter points out how dominant ways of understanding strategy are based on the idea of the rationalist manager, or managers, choosing the future for the organisation. It also raises questions about how we could know that the strategy we are choosing is optimal, all of which are explored more thoroughly in this chapter. Peter Hedstrm describes himself as an analytical sociologist. He metes out particular criticism for one of the sociologists which is quoted in this book, Pierre Bourdieu, for offering explanations of social phenomena that mystify as much as they explain. It explores the way in which a group of senior managers engaged together in making strategy. By turning to some social scientists who consider themselves firmly in the natural science tradition, working with mathematically formalised representations of complex social phenomena, the author sets out to demonstrate that the sciences of uncertainty offer some explanations about how it is that novelty and change emerge.
