Many business schools teach the importance of using strategy tools when engaging in strategizing activities. Despite this fact there is an ongoing debate concerning what is taught in business schools and what is actually used in practice. In spite of this debate there has been little research done regarding how these strategy tools are used in practice. This study seeks to address this through the adoption of a strategy as practice perspective which helped to identify what is actually practiced by managers while engaging in strategizing activities. Managers use strategy to respond to complex forces (social, political, economic) in their business environments. However to develop and implement strategy encompasses a full range of strategizing activities such as strategic thinking, strategic analysis, strategic decision making and implementation. Many business schools teach strategy tools are techniques which managers use to structure and influence strategizing activities. Previous research on strategy tools played emphasis on the benefits that can be derived if tools are used in different context. Others have highlighted the frequency of tool usage. Nevertheless, there is a need to make a review what is taught and how strategy tools are used in practice. A qualitative study was conducted in two universities through the use of semi structured interviews to gather data. The use of an inductive and interpretivism perspective through a case study helped the researcher identify the context in which events were taking place. The choice of a small yet deliberate sample size was done to focus in on the various levels of management within these universities and to review how strategy tools were used at these levels. After each interview the interviewees were given a list of 15 strategy tools (all of which were taught in the researcher’s masters programme) to identify whether they used any of the strategy tools on the list and if they did how did they use them. It was noted from the empirical data acquired that quite often strategy tools were not always being used for the purpose for which they were taught nevertheless managers were altering components of various tools to meet their individual business needs. Strategy tools were often used to assist in strategic thinking and strategic decision making. Managers’ perception of strategy tools affected the extent to which tools were used and the frequency of usage. While strategy tools were often used for growth and development, communication and persuasion and best practices it was its use in sense-making and evaluation which indicated that there is a need for a greater understanding into how managers make sense of strategy tools. The study answers how strategy tools are used in practice in a university context by giving illustrations and quotations from the various interviewees regarding strategy tools.

In this thesis I investigate how boards of directors strategize, how they manage strategy and how context affects this role. The significance of this research is underscored by three points. First, while there is an extensive body of literature on the board’s role in strategy, our understanding of how boards address this role, particularly how boards interact with management on strategy, is limited. Second, there is an implicit, albeit largely unproven, assumption in the literature that board involvement in strategy leads to more effective organizational performance. Third, there is a significant concern, especially from a practitioner perspective, that boards are overly focused on aspects of compliance at the expense of strategy and hence, underemphasize their role in driving firm performance. I begin with a review of the relevant literature on the strategy role of boards, using this literature to inform and reframe the broad research question that initiated this thesis – how do boards of directors contribute to strategy? In synthesizing this literature, I argue that it has not adequately addressed actual board behaviour in strategy and the impact of context on this behaviour. With this argument in mind, I frame board involvement in strategy from a Strategy as Practice perspective. I define board level strategizing as the situated (context dependent), socially accomplished flow of activities that characterizes how boards manage strategy, alternatively expressed as how boards ‘do’ strategy. I use this Strategy as Practice perspective to reframe and refine the original research question. I follow the literature review with a discussion of the philosophical and methodological basis for this thesis, outlining an exploratory research program focused primarily on qualitative inquiry and supported by quantitative inquiry. In the qualitative stage I follow an inductive process that involves the pragmatic use of Grounded Theory Method. My specific objective is to develop a rich understanding of the practices that characterize board level strategizing and how these practices are affected by contextual aspects of the firm’s internal and external environments. I draw on pre-existing ideas from the Strategy as Practice literature on corporate level strategizing practices – Procedural and Interactive Strategizing – and use these as the starting point for an investigation into the strategizing practices of boards of directors. This stage involves in-depth, semi-structured interviews with all directors and senior managers (47 in total) in six purposively chosen organizations. It also involves in-depth interviews with another 17 senior managers in 15 different organizations. viii In the quantitative stage I rely on survey research. My specific objectives are to both simplify and enhance the understanding of board level strategizing developed in the qualitative stage. In simplifying understanding I aim to develop concise constructs that adequately capture board level strategizing; in enhancing understanding I aim to develop multiple item indicators for each construct that address its complexity. This stage involves three phases: a pre-test, a pilot survey in one Australian state and a national survey. In operationalizing constructs, I integrate key points from the literature with the detailed description of board level strategizing that emerges from the qualitative stage. Data analysis involves the use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in the Pilot study and Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the National study. The qualitative findings indicate that boards engage in a context specific balance between Procedural and Interactive Strategizing. The former involves an administrative, formalized and hierarchical focus while the latter involves an interpretative and reciprocal focus, one that emphasizes face-to-face interaction between directors and management. While Procedural Strategizing involves the board responding to management’s interpretation of strategy, Interactive Strategizing involves each group arguing for their own interpretations of strategy before reaching collective agreement based on these interpretations. The qualitative findings also indicate that Procedural and Interactive Strategizing are opposite but complementary practices and that the balance between these practices is affected by the interaction between three contextual aspects: (1) the strategic stance of the board; (2) board power relative to management; and (3) the perceived legitimacy of each practice on the part of the organizational actors involved. In elaborating this balance between Procedural and Interactive Strategizing I develop a new theoretical perspective to describe board involvement in strategy. The quantitative findings identify the specific micro-activities that comprise Procedural and Interactive Strategizing. I argue that this thesis makes three significant and interrelated contributions to knowledge. First, it develops a board specific strategizing framework and language, one that advances current concepts in the literature. Second, it represents the initial steps in developing an explanatory theory of board strategizing, one that focuses on the underlying, context specific, practices that constitute boards ‘doing’ strategy. Third, it develops a preliminary scale to measure this strategizing behaviour. Finally, I discuss the implications of this thesis for further research and for practice.

In this thesis I investigate how boards of directors strategize, how they manage strategy and how context affects this role. The significance of this research is underscored by three points. First, while there is an extensive body of literature on the board’s role in strategy, our understanding of how boards address this role, particularly how boards interact with management on strategy, is limited. Second, there is an implicit, albeit largely unproven, assumption in the literature that board involvement in strategy leads to more effective organizational performance. Third, there is a significant concern, especially from a practitioner perspective, that boards are overly focused on aspects of compliance at the expense of strategy and hence, underemphasize their role in driving firm performance. I begin with a review of the relevant literature on the strategy role of boards, using this literature to inform and reframe the broad research question that initiated this thesis – how do boards of directors contribute to strategy? In synthesizing this literature, I argue that it has not adequately addressed actual board behaviour in strategy and the impact of context on this behaviour. With this argument in mind, I frame board involvement in strategy from a Strategy as Practice perspective. I define board level strategizing as the situated (context dependent), socially accomplished flow of activities that characterizes how boards manage strategy, alternatively expressed as how boards ‘do’ strategy. I use this Strategy as Practice perspective to reframe and refine the original research question. I follow the literature review with a discussion of the philosophical and methodological basis for this thesis, outlining an exploratory research program focused primarily on qualitative inquiry and supported by quantitative inquiry. In the qualitative stage I follow an inductive process that involves the pragmatic use of Grounded Theory Method. My specific objective is to develop a rich understanding of the practices that characterize board level strategizing and how these practices are affected by contextual aspects of the firm’s internal and external environments. I draw on pre-existing ideas from the Strategy as Practice literature on corporate level strategizing practices – Procedural and Interactive Strategizing – and use these as the starting point for an investigation into the strategizing practices of boards of directors. This stage involves in-depth, semi-structured interviews with all directors and senior managers (47 in total) in six purposively chosen organizations. It also involves in-depth interviews with another 17 senior managers in 15 different organizations. viii In the quantitative stage I rely on survey research. My specific objectives are to both simplify and enhance the understanding of board level strategizing developed in the qualitative stage. In simplifying understanding I aim to develop concise constructs that adequately capture board level strategizing; in enhancing understanding I aim to develop multiple item indicators for each construct that address its complexity. This stage involves three phases: a pre-test, a pilot survey in one Australian state and a national survey. In operationalizing constructs, I integrate key points from the literature with the detailed description of board level strategizing that emerges from the qualitative stage. Data analysis involves the use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in the Pilot study and Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the National study. The qualitative findings indicate that boards engage in a context specific balance between Procedural and Interactive Strategizing. The former involves an administrative, formalized and hierarchical focus while the latter involves an interpretative and reciprocal focus, one that emphasizes face-to-face interaction between directors and management. While Procedural Strategizing involves the board responding to management’s interpretation of strategy, Interactive Strategizing involves each group arguing for their own interpretations of strategy before reaching collective agreement based on these interpretations. The qualitative findings also indicate that Procedural and Interactive Strategizing are opposite but complementary practices and that the balance between these practices is affected by the interaction between three contextual aspects: (1) the strategic stance of the board; (2) board power relative to management; and (3) the perceived legitimacy of each practice on the part of the organizational actors involved. In elaborating this balance between Procedural and Interactive Strategizing I develop a new theoretical perspective to describe board involvement in strategy. The quantitative findings identify the specific micro-activities that comprise Procedural and Interactive Strategizing. I argue that this thesis makes three significant and interrelated contributions to knowledge. First, it develops a board specific strategizing framework and language, one that advances current concepts in the literature. Second, it represents the initial steps in developing an explanatory theory of board strategizing, one that focuses on the underlying, context specific, practices that constitute boards ‘doing’ strategy. Third, it develops a preliminary scale to measure this strategizing behaviour. Finally, I discuss the implications of this thesis for further research and for practice.

In this thesis I investigate how boards of directors strategize, how they manage strategy and how context affects this role. The significance of this research is underscored by three points. First, while there is an extensive body of literature on the board’s role in strategy, our understanding of how boards address this role, particularly how boards interact with management on strategy, is limited. Second, there is an implicit, albeit largely unproven, assumption in the literature that board involvement in strategy leads to more effective organizational performance. Third, there is a significant concern, especially from a practitioner perspective, that boards are overly focused on aspects of compliance at the expense of strategy and hence, underemphasize their role in driving firm performance. I begin with a review of the relevant literature on the strategy role of boards, using this literature to inform and reframe the broad research question that initiated this thesis – how do boards of directors contribute to strategy? In synthesizing this literature, I argue that it has not adequately addressed actual board behaviour in strategy and the impact of context on this behaviour. With this argument in mind, I frame board involvement in strategy from a Strategy as Practice perspective. I define board level strategizing as the situated (context dependent), socially accomplished flow of activities that characterizes how boards manage strategy, alternatively expressed as how boards ‘do’ strategy. I use this Strategy as Practice perspective to reframe and refine the original research question. I follow the literature review with a discussion of the philosophical and methodological basis for this thesis, outlining an exploratory research program focused primarily on qualitative inquiry and supported by quantitative inquiry. In the qualitative stage I follow an inductive process that involves the pragmatic use of Grounded Theory Method. My specific objective is to develop a rich understanding of the practices that characterize board level strategizing and how these practices are affected by contextual aspects of the firm’s internal and external environments. I draw on pre-existing ideas from the Strategy as Practice literature on corporate level strategizing practices – Procedural and Interactive Strategizing – and use these as the starting point for an investigation into the strategizing practices of boards of directors. This stage involves in-depth, semi-structured interviews with all directors and senior managers (47 in total) in six purposively chosen organizations. It also involves in-depth interviews with another 17 senior managers in 15 different organizations. viii In the quantitative stage I rely on survey research. My specific objectives are to both simplify and enhance the understanding of board level strategizing developed in the qualitative stage. In simplifying understanding I aim to develop concise constructs that adequately capture board level strategizing; in enhancing understanding I aim to develop multiple item indicators for each construct that address its complexity. This stage involves three phases: a pre-test, a pilot survey in one Australian state and a national survey. In operationalizing constructs, I integrate key points from the literature with the detailed description of board level strategizing that emerges from the qualitative stage. Data analysis involves the use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in the Pilot study and Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the National study. The qualitative findings indicate that boards engage in a context specific balance between Procedural and Interactive Strategizing. The former involves an administrative, formalized and hierarchical focus while the latter involves an interpretative and reciprocal focus, one that emphasizes face-to-face interaction between directors and management. While Procedural Strategizing involves the board responding to management’s interpretation of strategy, Interactive Strategizing involves each group arguing for their own interpretations of strategy before reaching collective agreement based on these interpretations. The qualitative findings also indicate that Procedural and Interactive Strategizing are opposite but complementary practices and that the balance between these practices is affected by the interaction between three contextual aspects: (1) the strategic stance of the board; (2) board power relative to management; and (3) the perceived legitimacy of each practice on the part of the organizational actors involved. In elaborating this balance between Procedural and Interactive Strategizing I develop a new theoretical perspective to describe board involvement in strategy. The quantitative findings identify the specific micro-activities that comprise Procedural and Interactive Strategizing. I argue that this thesis makes three significant and interrelated contributions to knowledge. First, it develops a board specific strategizing framework and language, one that advances current concepts in the literature. Second, it represents the initial steps in developing an explanatory theory of board strategizing, one that focuses on the underlying, context specific, practices that constitute boards ‘doing’ strategy. Third, it develops a preliminary scale to measure this strategizing behaviour. Finally, I discuss the implications of this thesis for further research and for practice.

Cette thèse se propose d'étudier une activité et des organisations singulières, le brokerage et les sociétés d'intermédiation financière de type Prestataire de Service en Investissement - encore appelée récemment société de bourse - sur EURONEXT France. L'idée est d'éclairer, à partir des pratiques des acteurs qui y sont impliqués et leurs interactions avec leur environnement, le processus de formation de la stratégie entendu comme agir stratégique ou « strategizing » dans la perspective de la Strategy-as- Practice. Ce type d'organisation, inséré dans le système financier aujourd'hui très prégnant économiquement et socialement, nous semble particulièrement intéressant car au centre de développements en microstructure et en sociologie de la finance mais peu observé du point de vue du management stratégique. Il est soumis à des transformations importantes depuis deux décennies ayant pour conséquences, plus ou moins apparentes, des tensions internes voire des dérapages. / The aim is to contribute to the research agenda of “Strategy As Practice” taking a practice perspective and showing how practitioners are also engaged in the creation process or strategizing for their own professions and their institutional positions. After a long period of stability, the French stock exchange environment and its associated practices have, for over two decades now, co-evolved very quickly. One category of stock market professionals has been particularly impacted: the brokers, historically at the heart of the Stock Exchange. On French financial markets, the former agents de change have become brokerage companies with some disruptions of professions and an increasing place for others and their practices. If the usefulness of brokerage as an intermediation activity has been examined by finance, interesting developments in the sociology of finance have also enabled the social construction perspective but there is a lack of studies in the strategic management.

Date: 02.06.2021 Level: Bachelor thesis in Business Administration, 15 cr  Institution: School of Business, Society and Engineering, Mälardalen University  Authors: Naomi Akafare Akelmu                      Mihaela Dafinova Mihaylova                          (90/08/18)                                                  (98/01/17) Title: Exploring budgeting as an underlying guidance tool for the management of externally induced crises Tutor: Leanne Johnstone Keywords: crisis management, sensemaking, strategy, strategizing, organizational learning, budgeting Research question: How can budgeting assist crisis management during the Covid-19 pandemic, using the aviation industry as an empirical context? Purpose: Drawing upon the contingencies of managing externally induced crises and thus, the inherent lack of a single effective approach, this research attempts to uncover the role of budgeting in assisting crisis management practices, by marrying management and accounting literature. Method: Using the crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic in the aviation industry as an empirical context, a mixed-method research design was employed, with both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Primary data was collected through interviews with managers for a thematic analysis, and secondary data from interim financial reports was used for statistical accounting analysis. Conclusion: The alternative budgeting process provides possibilities for forecasting and reference during crisis management and thus, managers can receive practical guidance on their performance. That, in turn, minimizes the complexities (uncertainty, threats and time pressure) of crises and reduces crisis’ impact on organizations. Key contribution: Employing alternative budgeting methods in managing externally induced crises increases the measurability of reactions through budgeting’s functions, by quantifying the sensemaking process, strategizing process, and organizational learning, which are discovered to occur simultaneously during crisis management.

Notre thèse a pour point de départ une situation de management empirique représentée par un Cercle de réflexions prospectives, que nous appelons PSP (Prospective Stratégique Participative), menée par BASF Agro sur une période de plus de dix ans avec l’ensemble des acteurs de la filière agro-alimentaire. Les acteurs du Cercle ont une relation marchande et décident d’explorer des opportunités de collaboration sur un mode communautaire. Ils expandent ensemble un espace de conception où interagissent les savoirs et les relations dans un processus d’innovation. Nous aboutissons à l’hypothèse que la PSP joue le rôle d’une plateforme ouverte de fabrique de la stratégie (open strategizing platform) et de fonctionnement des affaires entre les acteurs qui sert à réfléchir et concevoir ensemble des stratégies nouvelles. La PSP est un dispositif de gestion dont la vision simplifiée de l’organisation (la configuration de référence implicite) est un écosystème d’affaires, et pas seulement une organisation classique. Notre analyse est basée sur une étude de cas longitudinale de dix-sept ans / Our thesis has to point of departure a situation of empirical management represented by a circle of foresight thinking, which we call FPS (Foresight Participatory Strategic), conducted by BASF Agro over a period of more than ten years with all the actors involved in the food chain. The players in the circle have a merchant relationship and decide to explore opportunities for collaboration on a community way. They expanded together a design space or interact the knowledge and relationships in a process of innovation. We have ended up with the assumption that the FPS plays the role of an open-strategizing platform and for the operation of business between the actors which is used to reflect and devise all the new strategies. The FPS is a management innovation which the configuration of implicit reference is a business ecosystem, and not just a typical organization. Our analysis is based on a longitudinal case study of seventeen years

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2017-09-01T13:44:32Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 3633293 bytes, checksum: 5c0d06ead8ae7d95ddfb595a33b47cac (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Viviane Lima da Cunha (viviane@biblioteca.ufpb.br) on 2017-09-01T15:58:28Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 3633293 bytes, checksum: 5c0d06ead8ae7d95ddfb595a33b47cac (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-01T15:58:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 3633293 bytes, checksum: 5c0d06ead8ae7d95ddfb595a33b47cac (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-07-14 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / Considering that product development is an example of dynamic capability, the advocated thesis argument consists in the understanding that the elements of strategizing (practice, praxis and practitioners), together with learning and isomorphic mechanisms present in the organizational field explain the process of how the development of dynamic capabilities occurs. In this sense, the aim of this research was to analyse how the elements of strategizing (practice, praxis and practitioners), together with learning and isomorphic mechanisms present in the organizational field, explain the product development process. Methodologically, it was used a qualitative approach and the method applied was narratives of practice, which were held in two companies working with product development: São Braz and ShoesShop. In order to collect the data it was used narrative interviews, non-participant observation and document analysis during the period between May 2015 and May 2016. Data were analysed using narrative analysis. The results showed that the learning processes (intuition, interpretation, integration and institutionalization), underlying the product development, are mediated by learning mechanisms (experience accumulation, knowledge articulation and codification of knowledge). The appropriated practices and institutionalized praxis by the organizations surveyed explain the product development process and are performed by practitioners. The role played by external practitioners, such as consultants, proved to be important, as because of their work, practices were adopted by organizations. Some practices that prevail in the organizational environment and that are institutionalized in society are incorporated by both São Braz and ShoesShop with a view to development products through coercion, mimesis and normativity, demonstrating that the isomorphism also explains the product development process in companies. It was concluded that the use of the strategy as practice approach associated with the performance of isomorphic mechanisms and learning explain the product development process and represent an advance in knowledge about the development of dynamic capabilities. Additionally, the identification of practice, praxis and practitioners in building routines gives greater robustness to the product development process, as companies come to know more clearly the most important elements in this process and therefore deserve more attention. / Considerando que o desenvolvimento de produto é um exemplo de capacidade dinâmica, o argumento de tese defendido consiste no entendimento de que elementos constituintes do strategizing (prática, práxis e praticantes), em conjunto com a aprendizagem e os mecanismos isomórficos presentes no campo organizacional, explicam como ocorre o processo de desenvolvimento de produto. Nesse sentido, o objetivo da presente pesquisa foi analisar como os elementos constituintes do strategizing (prática, práxis e praticantes), em conjunto com a aprendizagem e os mecanismos isomórficos presentes no campo organizacional, explicam o processo de desenvolvimento de produto. Metodologicamente, foi utilizada uma abordagem qualitativa e o método empregado foi o das narrativas de prática, realizada em duas empresas que trabalham com desenvolvimento de produto: São Braz e ShoesShop. Para coletar os dados foram utilizadas entrevistas narrativas, observação não participante e análise documental durante o período de maio de 2015 à maio de 2016. Os dados coletados foram analisados por meio de análise de narrativas. Os resultados evidenciaram que os processos de aprendizagem (intuição, interpretação, integração e institucionalização), subjacentes ao desenvolvimento de produto, são mediados pelos mecanismos de aprendizagem (acumulação de experiência, articulação do conhecimento e codificação do conhecimento). As práticas apropriadas e as práxis institucionalizadas pelas organizações pesquisadas explicam o processo de desenvolvimento de produto e são executadas por praticantes. O papel desempenhado pelos praticantes externos, como os consultores, demonstrou ser importante, pois, em decorrência do trabalho deles, práticas foram adotadas pelas organizações. Algumas práticas que prevalecem no ambiente organizacional e que estão institucionalizadas na sociedade são incorporadas tanto pela São Braz quanto pela ShoesShop para o desenvolvimento de produto por meio da coerção, mímese e normatividade, demonstrando que o isomorfismo também explica o processo de desenvolvimento de produto nas empresas. Conclui-se que o uso da abordagem da estratégia como prática associado à atuação dos mecanismos isomórficos e à aprendizagem organizacional explicam o processo de desenvolvimento de produto e representam um avanço no conhecimento sobre o desenvolvimento de capacidades dinâmicas. Adicionalmente, a identificação das práticas, práxis e praticantes na formação das rotinas confere maior robustez ao processo de desenvolvimento de produto, já que as empresas passam a conhecer mais claramente quais os elementos mais importantes nesse processo e que, consequentemente, merecem mais atenção.

Since 2016 the external communication of the Swedish international development cooperation agencys (Sida) has been governed by the ‘Strategi för informations- och kommunikationsverksamhet, inklusive genom organisationer i det civila samhället, 2016–2022’. Government investigations have shown that the strategy leaves room for divergent interpretation due to abstract formulations and ambiguous objectives. Several researchers have studied How ambiguous strategy is interpreted by organizational members. However, there are no studies that, beyond the scope of profession-related factors, examine Why the interpretationsappear in any given way. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to analyze the interpretation process of an ambiguous strategy, by examining how cognitive, social and structural factors affect how employees at the communication units of Sida and Sida Partnership Forum interpret, and (consequently) enact the 'Strategy for information and communication activities 2016-2022 '. Based on the idea of accumulative understanding, the thesis theoretical framework consisted of Eric Eisenberg's Strategic Ambiguity, Abdallah & Langley's dimensions of the strategy process, and Hall's encoding/decoding model for communication. We used a combination of strategy documents and semi-structured interviews to answer the research questions through an interpretive discourse analysis. Ascertained organizational discourses were linked back to the theories of Strategic ambiguity and encoding/decoding to draw conclusions from chosen theoretical perspective. We found that organizational socialization, governing signals and actors as well as formal structures for strategy planning caused divergent interpretations and perceptions of the InfoCom-strategy. We also found that how the employees interpreted the InfoCom strategy affects how it was enacted in their work. Since the strategy does not offer clear directives, the enactment seems to differ depending on the employee's position at Sida or SPF.

Increasingly, researchers on strategy are turning away from the highly abstracted and de-humanized components that seem to typify the macro approach to strategy. This movement is at least partially brought about by a philosophical recognition that the emergent and unpredictable nature of organizational life is fast exposing the constraints of an approach to strategy that is based on the values of rationality, predictability and control. In this thesis I argue that organizational change in general and the act of strategizing in particular can be thought of as a social, transformative and emergent process as opposed to the overly orderly, rational, formative and/or humanistic views on strategy presented by systemically oriented theorists. I draw on the theory of complex responsive processes of relating as espoused by Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000) and specifically on Stacey’s (2003, 2007) substantial contribution to the field of strategic management. By utilizing a reflexive research methodology I describe the arduous social and emergent process of transformation in my practice and identity (observable in subtle changes in disposition, language and assumptions) as I begin to act into the understanding of strategizing as an ongoing, incomplete, social process. In doing this, I am suggesting that the narrated accounts of our shifts in practice due to us knowing differently are important contributions in the process of transforming our theories on and beliefs around strategy. These accounts should not be seen as premature attempts at methodological frameworks, but rather as explorative participation in the emergent transformation of a radical, social approach to strategizing. I engage critically with the notion of strategy-as-practice and suggest a review of the fundamentally rational and formative assumptions still prevalent in the work of researchers like Johnson, Melin and Whittington (2003) and Samra- Fredericks (2003). Whilst acknowledging the role of culturally mediated dispositions in the ongoing transformation of organizations advocated by Chia and Holt (2006) and Chia and MacKay (2007), I argue for the paradoxical and therefore simultaneous occurrence of habitual and mindful actions by people strategizing as opposed to the authors’ suggestion of a predominantly mindless experience of organizational change. Finally, I turn to Stacey’s (2007) question as to why people continue to make long-term forecasts if their usefulness is so obviously limited. Whilst understanding his frustration, I argue that there is value nevertheless in engaging in strategy making albeit not for the rationalist reasons usually stated. In my view the real value of strategising is to be found in two areas: first in the social activity that goes into creating these documents, and second: the documents not only serve as markers in an ongoing process of strategising; they also give us a way of ‘going on’ and taking the next step.