Interdiscursive struggles: Managing the co‐existence of the conventional and open strategy discourse

AbstractResearch Summary“Open strategy” is a new macro discourse on strategy that differs fundamentally from the conventional strategy discourse. In this paper, we examine how actors deal with the co‐existence of the two discourses, given their conflicting nature. For this purpose, we draw on a longitudinal, in‐depth case study of an international finance firm that introduced open strategy alongside the conventional strategy discourse that had shaped their strategy work in the past. We find that strategy actors deal with interdiscursive tensions by enacting meta‐discursive practices that regulate the mobilization of the two strategy discourses. Furthermore, we identify power as an important driver and necessary resource in enacting these practices. With these findings, we contribute to the open strategy literature and the literature on organization and strategy discourse.Managerial SummaryThere is a recent trend for opening up the strategy process to actors outside the upper echelons, which is referred to as “open strategy.” This new approach is based on a fundamentally different logic than the conventional approach to strategy making; while the latter highlights exclusivity and secrecy, the former stresses inclusivity and transparency. This empirical study examines how managers deal with tensions that arise from the co‐existence of these approaches. We find that managers try to resolve these tensions by regulating where and when each approach can be applied. We also show that the switch from one way of regulating the application of approaches to another depends on the power and interests of the participants.