The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0025-1747.htm

Strategy workshops with wider Strategy

workshops
participation: trust as enabler with wider
participation
Johanna E. Pregmark and Rita Berggren
Department of Technology Management and Economics,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Received 31 July 2019
Abstract Revised 19 December 2019
Purpose – A wider participation from outside the top management team can support the strategy creation and 22 February 2020
execution of firms through improving access to knowledge, increasing innovativeness and creating legitimacy Accepted 8 March 2020
for the strategy. However, creating a climate of trust where ideas are freely expressed and challenged is easier
said than done. This paper thus focuses on trust in strategizing, in particular in strategy workshops with wider
participation.
Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on qualitative data from 10 strategy-making
processes consisting of a total of 28 strategy workshops. Data were collected through interviews and joint
reflections with the leaders, external facilitators and consultants, as well as through action research.
Findings – This study identifies three factors that influence trust in strategy workshops with wider
participation, namely opening up the conversation, clarity of the participative process and delivering with honest
intent. These factors could play crucial roles in creating the trust needed for wider participation in strategy
workshops.
Practical implications – This paper provides strategy actors (e.g. leaders, consultants) with actionable
knowledge about what strategy workshops with a wider circle of participants require to create trust.
Originality/value – This study relates to the ongoing and increased interest in openness for strategy-as-
practice in general and open strategy in particular. Moreover, it contributes to the discussion that the
boundaries between strategizing and change tend to become blurry. Therefore, the present paper contributes to
the theory and practice of strategy creation, strategy execution and change by investigating wider
participation in strategy workshops.
Keywords Strategy workshops, Strategy-as-practice, Trust, Organizational change
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
A new trend in strategy work is increased inclusiveness and transparency inspired by open
innovation (Whittington et al., 2011; Hautz et al., 2017; Birkinshaw, 2017). As such, shifting
strategizing practices toward such openness is due to the changing business and societal
context (Hautz, 2017; Whittington et al., 2011). In this process, more voices become a key
component for strategizing to increase the generation of new ideas and enhance
innovativeness in the strategy process (Sull, 2004; Burgelman, 1991; Hodgkinson and
Sparrow, 2002). Moreover, the interaction between top managers and the organization is
essential for a strategy to win legitimacy (Jarzabkowski, 2005; Beer and Eisenstat, 2000, 2004;
Senge, 1990; Liedtka and Rosenblum, 1996; Beer et al., 2011) and supports organizational
change and strategy execution. This relates to an ongoing discussion in organization’s
change and development, where participation and inclusiveness are deemed essential to
overcome resistance/cost of change (Beckhard and Harris, 1987) and create commitment
(Senge, 1990; Beer, 2009).
One frequently used tool to interact and interplay between strategy, top management and
organizational community is strategy workshop, as critical component of strategic planning
processes (Hodgkinson et al., 2006). Because of their frequency, cost and central place in the
strategy process, it is of importance to understand strategy workshop practices (Hodgkinson
et al., 2006) and how they can be managed more effectively. Specifically, Hodgkinson et al. Management Decision
(2006) show that the most common purposes of strategy workshops are challenging the © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
existing strategy, generating new ideas and solutions and/or undertaking strategic analysis DOI 10.1108/MD-07-2019-1004
MD by tapping into more perspectives to develop the strategy. However, the strategic direction in
companies is often criticized for not being innovative enough (Hodgkinson et al., 2006; Sull,
2004). As such, including a wider range of participants in creation processes can potentially
enhance creativity through different perspectives (Burgelman, 1991; Hodgkinson and
Sparrow, 2002; Liedtka and Rosenblum, 1996; Sull, 2004). Hence, to reach the most common
purpose of a strategy workshop (i.e. strategy creation), inviting a wider range of participants
seems to be the way forward.
However, having a wider range of participants in strategy workshops is meaningless if
people are not contributing to the conversation. Research suggests that, to successfully
leverage a wider participation and broader perspective, the ability and commitment to voice
opinions and ideas are critical (Isaacs, 1999; Senge et al., 1994). Lacking vertical
communication is often a problem in organizations (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000) and it is a
well-known saying that it is hard for truth to speak to power—research suggests that this is
because it can be hard to express critique to superiors (Beer and Eisenstat, 2004; Detert and
Burris, 2016). Moreover, messages often get distorted as they travel across levels in
organizations (Senge et al., 1994). However, to cocreate, contribute with best ideas, and listen
are different than speaking up. According to Isaacs (1999), a dialog is needed to cocreate,
where inquiring and listening should be balanced with advocating and speaking up. Schein
(1993) allows for the identification and solution to a problem by “thinking together,” and this
process starts with the suspension of underlying assumptions, followed by deep inquiry into
the assumptions of all participants. Heracleous et al. (2018) note that tension in dialogs during
open strategy can originate from the difference between new flexible practice and traditional
practice based on control and hierarchy.
To achieve thinking together, an environment characterized by trust is needed—a safe
place to explore new assumptions, beliefs and actions (Isaacs, 1999; Schein, 1993). Many
authors agree that, in professional relationships, both task-oriented trust/cognitive and
relationship-oriented trust/affective trust are needed (Mayer et al., 1995; Morrow Jr et al.,
2004). Affective trust is relationship based and linked to the interactions and frequency of
interactions, whereas cognitive trust is based on a thought process to decide the other party’s
trustworthiness (Morrow Jr et al., 2004) and is linked to reliability and dependability
(McAllister, 1995). As such, trust is a fairly well-investigated concept in literature, but in the
strategy-as-practice literature, trust in strategizing practices is not well investigated. Authors
investigating inclusion and participation practices in strategy work note that it can create
tension in organizations and possibly decrease the speed and quality of decision-making
(Hautz et al., 2017). Furthermore, Ghoshal and Bartlett (1994) suggest that trust is one of four
key factors for management quality.
Building on this dual perspective of strategy creation, that is, strategy-as-practice (e.g.
Hautz et al., 2017; Whittington et al., 2011) and organization development and change (e.g.
Beer, 2009; Beckhard and Harris, 1987), this paper focuses on trust in strategizing, in
particular strategy workshops with wider participation. Its contribution thus falls in the
strategy-as-practice field by identifying practices for creating trust in strategy workshops
and extending strategy-as-practice into organization development and change.
To this end, qualitative data have been collected through action research and interviews
with leaders, first-line employees and consultants. Hence, the focus has not only been on the
content of the workshop but also on the qualitative aspects of the conversations and the
process and communication around the workshops. In total, data from 28 strategy workshops
for 10 strategy processes have been collected. The findings and discussion suggest three
high-level factors influencing the creation of trust in strategy workshops with broader
participation, namely opening up the conversation in the meeting, clarity of participative
process and delivering upon an honest intent. This study also indicates that facilitators for
strategy workshops with broad participation are needed to create a safe environment of trust
(not only during the actual meeting). Furthermore, when trust is not considered, the quality of Strategy
the workshop is perceived as lower by the participants and there could be a decrease in trust. workshops
This paper starts by providing a theoretical framework for strategy workshops and for
thinking together, followed by a description of the methodology. The paper then presents the
with wider
main findings and their discussion, conclusions and implications for theory and practice. participation

Theoretical framework
Interplay between organizational community, management and strategy
The ability for leaders to get commitment from the organization for the chosen direction is
central for success (Beer, 2009; Jarzabkowski, 2005; Senge, 1990). Furthermore, Beer et al.
(2011) are drawing attention to the interplay between top management, strategic vision and
the organization. It can take many forms, but one is to engage in strategy workshops on
critical issues for the direction and development of the organization. Strategy workshops are
typically part of regular formal strategy development processes in organizations, with a
majority of the workshops dealing with both strategy creation and implementation/
execution, while about a third focuses solely on the creation of strategy (Hodgkinson et al.,
2006). The creation-focused strategy workshops contained features to generate new ideas
and solutions, to challenge existing strategy and/or to undertake strategic analysis as a
contribution to strategy development (Hodgkinson et al., 2006).
Addressing strategic conversations, Liedtka and Rosenblum (1996) conclude that “The
quality of an organization’s future is determined, in important ways, by the ability of its
members at all levels to think together, with important stakeholders, about the kinds of
futures that they want to co-create” (p. 155), thus highlighting the relevance of widening the
range of participants and the ability to create a setting for thinking together.

Participation from outside the management team in strategy workshops

Developing strategy used to be a top management perquisite (Hautz, 2017; Birkinshaw,
2017), with the rest of the organization being involved only in the implementation phase, as
also identified by Hodgkinson et al. (2006) and Westley (1990). However, only inviting the
management team to participate in strategy creation might limit innovativeness (Sull, 2004;
Burgelman, 1991; Hodgkinson and Sparrow, 2002; Sarasvathy, 2001). Furthermore,
according to Hutter et al. (2017), different practices for openness and participation could
have different effects that managers need to be aware of. Luedicke et al. (2017) find that
open strategizing can have different degrees of openness and they focus on radically open
practices that involve all stakeholders continuously. By contrast, open strategy research
has so far focused on strategizing with time limits, part of the process or with invited
stakeholders (Luedicke et al., 2017).
Strategizing and strategy execution can be related to strategic change—especially
planned change (Neilson et al., 2008; Dunphy and Stace, 1993). In strategic change, Lines
(2004) shows that implementation success is strongly connected to the participation of
coworkers outside the top management team. Furthermore, a lack of participation from the
organizational community could inhibit strategy execution (Senge, 1990), as well as
commitment to the change ahead (Beer, 2009). However, the perceived emotional and
relational costs of change (Beckhard and Harris, 1987) can be lowered when organization
members are clear about process and direction (see Kotter, 1995). Moreover, a wider circle of
participation in strategy can lead to more creativity, access to more knowledge and increased
commitment (Hautz et al., 2017; Luedicke et al., 2017). Many scholars agree that a lack of
participation often leads to poorly developed strategy (Mantere and Vaara, 2008; Beer, 2009;
Burgelman, 1991). Arguably, a positive impact of participation across all phases of strategic
work, from creation to implementation, is evident.
MD In partially open strategizing, the management typically reverts to traditional ways of
working and puts in place barriers against openness (Luedicke et al., 2017); thus,
organizations’ decision on openness is often dynamic (Appleyard and Chesbrough, 2017).
Many strategy workshops are held with only the top management present (Hodgkinson et al.,
2006; Westley, 1990) and what participation is needed is not fully investigated (Mantere and
Vaara, 2008).

An environment of trust
In the literature, trust is discussed from different perspectives and angles, for instance,
institutional, collective and interpersonal trust (Rousseau et al., 1998). A commonly used
definition of trust is “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability
based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (Rousseau et al.,
1998, p. 395). That is, trust is both a feeling and an intention to act based on that feeling.
One frequently used way to describe trust is the integrative model of Mayer et al. (1995),
where the trustworthiness of the trustee is based on perceived ability (competence),
benevolence (attitude) and integrity (honesty). Furthermore, Morrow Jr et al. (2004) stress that
both affective influences and cognitive processes affect the perceived interpersonal trust. In
truly trustful relationships, both affective and cognitive trust are present but play different
roles. Affective trust takes time to develop but affects the entire interpretation of actions
when in place. However, affective trust can be hard to develop in professional relationships if
no cognitive trust exists, as cognitive trust strongly influences the level of affective trust
(McAllister, 1995).
A common way to describe trust is that it is hard to build and easily broken. Lewicki and
Tomlinson (2003) discuss the cause and effect of trust violations with regard to interpersonal
trust. The general cause of trust loss is described as the trustor’s positive expectations of the
trustee being disconfirmed and the seriousness of consequences is dependent on the severity
of the violation (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003). A violation of trust often leads to anger,
frustration and potential conflict, retribution and ultimately a wish to terminate the
relationship or group participation.
While widely discussed in the literature, the role of trust when strategizing in general and
in strategy workshops in particular is not well investigated. A special condition for a strategy
workshop with participants from outside the management team with regards is that it is not a
stable group with long-time relations, potentially creating obstacles for trust creation.
McAllister (1995) states that affective trust takes time to develop and Rousseau et al. (1998)
describe relational trust as deriving from repeated interactions over time. In a temporary
group, no such repeated interactions exist. A strategy workshop with wider participation is
potentially a group with nonfrequent meetings, with different levels of formal and informal
competence, and from different levels in the organization. Hence, trust can be challenging.
To create strategy, it is important to access the creativity, innovativeness and
collaborative skills of participants. To do so, it is necessary to create an environment
where people want to and dare champion their thoughts and ideas. In other words, the
management needs to create a safe space (Burgelman, 1991; Lieberman, 2013; Edmondson
and Lei, 2014), where the reward for contributing is greater than the threat of being punished
for saying the wrong thing. Several scholars have mentioned speaking up about hard issues,
especially employees mentioning difficult truths to management (Argyris, 1977; Beer and
Eisenstat, 2000; Detert and Burris, 2016). However, these studies discuss less on how to bring
up not only the hard truths but also the best ideas. To benefit from wider participation, an
environment that supports creativity and commitment to champion ideas is critical. This
environment could be framed as a container of trust (Schein, 1993; Isaacs, 1999), must be
perceived as “safe” (Rock, 2008) for the participants and should be characterized by trust.
According to Dodgson (1993), a high level of trust is essential to generate learning and Strategy
innovation. Furthermore, Newell and Swan (2000) discuss that cooperation without trust is workshops
doomed to fail.
When exploring the concept of thinking together, Robertson et al. (2007) find that, to
with wider
achieve high-quality strategic thinking, it is essential to take advantage of both rational/ participation
analytical and emotional/social thinking. However, the tools and agendas of workshops favor
rational/analytical thinking (Hodgkinson et al., 2006), not emphasizing relations and the
comfort of participants. Burgelman (1991) focuses on what setting or atmosphere enhances
the ability to think together, suggesting “an atmosphere in which strategic ideas can be freely
championed and fully contested by anyone with relevant information or insight may be a key
factor in developing internal selection processes that maximize the probability of generating
viable organizational strategies” (p. 252). Other authors mention open communication for
creating a promotional mindset (Higgins, 1997) and avoiding defensive routines (Argyris,
1993; Kyl
en, 1999).

Method
To understand the strategy process, the research design follows a qualitative approach,
following one or several cases over time (Pettigrew et al., 2001). The interest in structured
qualitative approaches for studying questions of interest in both practice and academia has
increased (Prahalad, 2011; Van de Ven, 2007). This paper is thus responding to that call by
investigating strategy workshops through action research. To comprehend the nature of
strategy workshops, data have been collected through a multiple case study (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2011; Yin, 1994; Eisenhardt, 1989). The different organizations in this study were
selected based on two criteria:
(1) The organization was undertaking a strategy process including participants from
outside the management team in strategy workshops.
(2) The possibility to form close and strong relationships characterized by trust between
the researcher and organization, which is suggested as important for action research
by Schein (1987) and Coghlan and Shani (2014).
The research team systematically combined theory and empirical insights in an abductive
process (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). The research process is displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows that the understanding of the issue at hand developed over time by
relating the empirical data to the theory. Moreover, over the research period (denoted as years
1–3 due to data confidentially), the research team hosted events for learning and reflection,
where organization members were invited to make sense of the findings. The data were
collected from 10 cases, that is, 10 strategy processes, consisting of 28 strategy workshops.
All processes included at least one workshop for strategizing with participants from
outside the management team, while workshops with only the management team and/or with
a different purpose than strategy creation were used to understand the effects of broader
measures for strategy creation. The purposes of the workshops and range of participants are
shown in Table 1. Reflections from workshop participants were also collected, either after or
at another time than the workshop.
In all cases, a collaborative action research approach was used (Adler et al., 2003; Shani
et al., 2007). Action research combines insights from research and practice and thus enhances
result relevance (Coghlan and Shani, 2014). The research team had long-term relations with
all organizations. This shaped the possibility to conduct action research (Argyris et al., 1995;
Schein, 1987), where the researcher takes an active role in the process under study
(Gummesson, 2000). Schein (1987) also stresses the importance of learning to understand the
MD

Figure 1.
Outline of the research
process

reactions of the organizational system. The action research component was in support of
planning and facilitating workshops as an external facilitator/contributor. Specifically, the
research team took a clinical perspective (Schein, 1987), stressing the importance of being
helpful in the process under study. Action research was complemented by interviews with
leaders, workshop participants and external consultants/facilitators. Moreover, learning
workshops were held with various contributors to better understand the findings. The
strategy investigated processes and incorporated strategy workshops are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1 is designed to give a background and overview of the data set as well as an
understanding of purpose and the undertaking of inviting a broad range of participants
(represented by number of participants).
The perceptions of the participants in terms of outcome, overall process and perceived
workshop quality were noted, with emphasis on the components that contributed to/inhibited
trust. The coding scheme for the empirical data is adapted from Gioia et al. (2012) and
displayed in Table 2.
By collecting data from several levels in the organizations, as well as through combining
action research with interviews and reflection meetings, the validation through data
triangulation (Denzin, 2006; Rothbauer, 2008) should increase.
Brief descriptions of the organizations can be found below:
(1) Alfea is a Nordic management consultancy with around 50 employees. The data are
from two strategy processes (over two years) and four workshops.
(2) Betea is a small advertising agency, with mainly Nordic customers. All 20 employees
participated in the single workshop. The company had a record of including
everyone.
(3) Danea is a financial services firm that experimented with inviting all 1,000 employees
to actively participate in strategizing. During one process, we collected data from 10
workshops. Eight workshops included around 120 employees at a time.
 Approx. number of Strategy Strategy Number of Nonmanagement
Alias Industry employees process no. workshop no. Purpose participants participants

Alfea Management 50 1 1 Strategy creation 20 Yes

consultancy
Alfea Management 50 1 2 Strategy implementation 50 Yes
consultancy
Alfea Management 50 2 3 Strategy creation and 6 No
consultancy implementation
Alfea Management 50 2 4 Strategy creation and 20 Yes
consultancy implementation
Betea Advertising 20 3 5 Strategy creation and 20 Yes
implementation
Denea Financial services 1,000 4 6 Strategy creation 8 No
Denea Financial services 1,000 4 7–14 Strategy creation and 120/ws Yes
implementation
Denea Financial services 1,000 4 15 Strategy implementation 60 Yes
Efea Public sector 60 5 16 Strategy creation 25 Yes
Gedea Public sector 2000 6 17 Strategy creation 8 No
Gedea Public sector 2000 6 18–22 Strategy creation and 100/ws Yes
implementation
Hallea Tourism 200 7 23 Strategy creation 20 Yes
Hallea Tourism 200 8 24 Strategy creation 20 Yes
Ivea IT consultancy 200 9 25 Strategy creation 10 No
Ivea IT consultancy 200 9 26–27 Strategy creation 100/ws Yes
Kafea Architecture 100 10 28 Strategy creation and 100 Ys
implementation
workshops
participation
Strategy
with wider

Strategy processes and

Table 1.

investigated
workshops
MD First-order quotes Second-order dimensions Third-order themes

Data of what affects trust in strategy Dimension 1 influencing Theme 1 influencing trust in strategy
workshops trust workshops
Dimension 2 influencing
trust
Dimension 3 influencing Theme 2 influencing trust in strategy
trust workshops
Dimension 4 influencing
trust
Dimension 5 influencing Theme n influencing trust in strategy
trust workshops
Table 2. Dimension n influencing
Coding structure trust

(4) Efea and Gedea are both public sector companies, with uniformed staff making up
most of the workforce. Efea has only 60 employees and serves a small region and
Gedea, with 2,000 employees, serves a larger one. Strategizing had previously been
the perquisite of management.
(5) Hallea is partly publicly owned and works to connect different organizations to
promote tourism in a specific region.
(6) Ivea is a technical/IT consultancy. Inviting all 200 employees in strategy work was
highly unusual in their context.
(7) Kafea is an architecture firm. Employees were used to getting invited to different
forums but collectively discussing strategy was new.

Findings
The empirical data are discussed in detail in the Discussion section. The different themes are
(1) opening up the conversation in the meeting, (2) clarity of the participative process and (3)
delivering upon an honest intent. We here mention some of the effects of wider participation
on the overall outcome.

Effects of broader participation on overall outcome

Inviting participants both from the management team and from outside had advantages and
disadvantages. Workshop outcome proved unpredictable when inviting a broader range to
participate. An executive manager from Hallea said: “It is a bit scary to let go of the control.
You can’t decide what people decide to put out there. And once it is out, it is out, affecting us
whether we want to or not.” At Ivea, the workshop ended with the comment: “We will never be
able to unite, never be able to create a common strategy,” hence not reaching an outcome in
terms of creating a direction. This sense of not moving forward was confirmed by other
workshop participants as well. However, the strategy workshops considered crucial for
future success were actually those with a wide range of participants. Danea and Gedea both
expressed how the strategy workshops and contributions of nonmanagement participants
were key to finding the best solution and direction moving forward. Gedea, for instance, was
going through a shift of focus due to a legislative change. The key obstacle was related to the
organizational structure and two front-line employees produced a solution in one of the
workshops. This was included in the strategy and the proposed organizational structure was
soon executed. Other processes and workshops confirmed the important role of broad
participation for creating direction. At Betea, the vision was cocreated with all 20 employees, Strategy
as some of the top management ideas for strategic tasks were challenged and changed. In workshops
sum, when successfully inviting people from outside the management team to strategy
workshops, a broader range of participants supported the creation of solutions to advance the
with wider
strategic direction. Therefore, although being a difficult and sometimes hindering progress, a participation
wider circle of participants could establish a new path for the organization.

Themes for creating trust

The empirical data are structured in three themes, depending on how it relates to the creation
of trust. The analysis is summarized in Table 3 and each theme is then elaborated upon in
more detail.
Opening up the conversation in the meeting. How to make the most of the combined
creativity in strategy workshops came up in all investigated processes. The main difficulty
was getting the participants to voice their opinions and ideas, as indicated by both
management and nonmanagement participants. From a nonmanagement perspective,
another issue was how to get management to truly listen and reflect upon the ideas.
Regarding the climate and openness of the strategy meetings, the CEO of Ivea said “Too
many of our workshops have turned out to be world championship in clever statements” and
the HR manager of Danea, “the probability of us daring to voice something really critical,
really new or really risky is low.” Many participants expressed that they were unsure about
how their opinions were viewed and handled, which could be a way of expressing distrust.
In a few cases, the management team planning the workshops addressed the quality of the
conversations and of the environment of trust. Almost all meetings were planned, with clear
agendas, and most workshops were based on rational analytic tools, such as SWOT,
PESTLE, statistics and financial information. As the CEO of Ivea said, “We are taught that
we are efficient when we are clever, analytical and rational.” However, how to engage people,
conduct group discussions, formulate questions and collect answers were not prioritized.
That is, ensuring the right content rather than the best conversation was prioritized. In some
workshops, this mindset was rectified by introducing participatory tools and encouraging
members to work with the setting, rules and guidelines for conversation and educate the chair
of the meetings. In such workshops, both the participants and the meeting chair noticed a
difference in the atmosphere, quality of ideas and, ultimately, the quality of strategy created:
“Just by being aware of principles for conversations I realize that we didn’t have any real
thinking together at all before. What we had didn’t have potential of building new ideas”
(Head of Department, Gedea). Hence, measures for the quality of conversation made a
difference.
Clarity of the participative process. In nine strategy processes, how the workshop output
would contribute to the strategy came up. Invited participants were dissatisfied with the
clarity of the process. Especially after the workshops, many participants did not see how and
when their collective efforts and contributions were to be used in the next phase of strategic
work. This had a negative impact on the level of trust toward the entire strategy process. One
participant from Ivea said: “I thought I was going to be a part of the strategy making, but they
[management team] just listened a lot and then I never heard back from them.” On the same
note, a participant from Kafea said: “I would have liked to know about the next step and I
would have liked to be invited to something more, not only to the presentation of the finished
document. I would have wanted . . . anything. A thank you would have been nice.”
By contrast, the management team was often surprised by such discontent. Some
managers considered that they had done their job of engaging people by inviting participants
to a workshop, indicating that they considered these strategy workshops an anchoring
process rather than a cocreating one. Others were of the perception that the workshop output
 MD

Table 3.
Analysis of data
First-order: examples of quotes Second-order dimensions Third-order themes

“Too many of our workshops have turned out to be world championship in clever Focus on rules for conversation Opening up the conversation
statements”—CEO of Ivea Honest conversations about important in the meeting
“The probability of us daring to voice something really critical, really new or really risky is issues
low”—HR manager, Danea Focus on facilitation of conversation
“Just by being aware of principles for conversations I realize that we didn’t have any real
thinking together at all before. What we had didn’t have potential of building new
ideas”—Head of departure, Gedea
“It became a completely different meeting, in a positive sense, when we realized that the
facilitator would not allow one or two persons to dominate as usual—HR manager, Gedea
“I thought I was going to be a part of the strategy making, but they [management team] just Clarity about strategy process Clarity of participative
listened a lot and then I never heard back from them.”—participant, Ivea Clarity about meeting structure process
I would have liked to know about the next step and I would have liked to be invited to Communication about process for
something more, not only to the presentation of the finished document. I would have wanted. . . decision
anything. A thank you would have been nice—participant, Kafea
“I realized after a while that the participants though they were a part of an extended executive
team, making decisions. That was never my intention”—CE of Kafea
“To me it was very strong when the CEO showed us what was in the red zone and not up for Questions discussed still open for Delivering upon an honest
discussion and what was in the green zone and where every idea was welcome”—Participant, exploration intent
Ivea Perception that decision-makers are
“Why am I here? It is ok if they want to decide everything in the management team, but don’t ready to be influenced
waste my time”—participant, Ivea Outcome of workshop used in further
“I am sure not formal decisions were made but I think many in the workshop knew where we work
were going – before discussing it”—HR manager, Danea
“It is hard, we did use a lot of the material and ideas from the workshops. Still they [non-
management participants] don
t see it”—CEO, Kafea
and ideas, although perhaps modified, had been used and incorporated into the final strategy. Strategy
The CEO of Kafea said: “It is hard, we did use a lot of the material and ideas from the workshops
workshops. Still they [non-management participants] don’t see it.” However, the participants
from Kafea were not clear what parts of the final strategy contained their input and did not
with wider
perceive themselves or their nonmanagement peers to be getting any credit. participation
When presenting the processes, not only in terms of activities but also of method,
discontent was removed. In many (but not all) strategy processes, creating, preparing and
executing the strategy were well outlined. However, few processes emphasized participation.
Therefore, whom, when and in what way would participate was not clearly presented.
Similarly, how contributions would be collected, evaluated and incorporated into the strategy
work was not clearly communicated. Additionally, a frequent source of frustration for
nonmanagement participants was the disappointment that their individual ideas did not
come through in the final strategy. However, when emphasizing that the workshop was not
for decision-making but for collective thinking, as in processes 1, 3, 4 and 6, frustration did
not occur.
Delivering upon honest intent. The most severe distrust occurred when there was a
perceived lack of honest intent from the management. In four-strategy processes, the
participants expressed that they felt manipulated or even deceived or lied to. While the
invitation was for participating in strategy creation, some perceived that the strategic
direction was already set. One participant at Ivea said: “Why am I here? It is ok if they want to
decide everything in the management team, but don’t waste my time.” This idea was shared
by several participants in the four-strategy processes where participants perceived
manipulation.
When discussing intent transparency and honesty with leaders, few admitted to having a
hidden agenda. When investigating how external facilitators of the strategy processes
perceived this, some saw a hidden agenda as usual. One consultant working with Ivea said:
“They asked me to come up with a certain result and make everyone feel like it was their
own.” This, of course, indicates intentional manipulation. However, in most cases, the
manipulation was unintentional. A few leaders admitted having a clear picture of where they
thought and wanted the workshop to end up. Most stood by having a direction in mind but
also regretted how the invitation to participate was formulated and realized the wording and
tone might have been misleading. When a formal decision did not exist but the participants
felt that the CEO or top management team had already made up their mind, participants
expressed their trust decreased and even turned into distrust. The CEO of Gedea said:
“Maybe I could have been more open about my current thinking, I could have been more
transparent about my own thought process.”
When leaders were transparent about the open issues that and those on which a formal or
informal decision had been made, most employees accepted it. The fact that the leaders had
the authority and obligation to make decisions was not in question, but the dissatisfaction
came more from the failure to follow through on set expectations.

Discussion
The need for interplay on strategy issues between the organizational top and bottom is
indisputable (Jarzabkowski, 2005). Furthermore, Sull (2004), Hautz et al. (2017), Liedtka (2010),
Liedtka and Rosenblum (1996), Burgelman (1991) and others highlight the importance of
bringing in the thinking of different stakeholders in strategizing. Strategy workshops’ central
role as a strategizing activity (Hodgkinson et al., 2006) thus makes them especially relevant.
The data indicate that the workshops perceived as most successful were the ones where
the organizational community was invited to participate in strategizing. However, there were
also cases where the opposite occurred. Hence, bringing in nonmanagement participants
MD seems somewhat risky. To make the most of the collective thinking of the participants,
enhance creativity and increase the likelihood of a successful outcome, an environment of
trust (Newell and Swan, 2000; Isaacs, 1999; Dodgson, 1993; Lieberman, 2013; Lee et al., 2003)
should be created. Three main themes or high-level factors supporting the creation of trust in
strategy workshops were identified, whereas their absence reduced trust and the quality of
the output. These factors are opening up the conversation in the meeting, clarity of participative
process and delivering upon an honest intent, as shown in Figure 2.
These factors are pivotal, since they all contributed to creating trust as discussed below in
relation to previous research.

Opening up the conversation in the meeting

Previous work has discussed the importance of honest conversations (Beer and Eisenstat,
2004), creating a container of trust (Schein, 1993; Isaacs, 1999), psychological safety
(Edmondson and Lei, 2014), as well as the difficulty in speaking up (Detert and Burris, 2016).
Focusing not only on the outcome but also on the quality of the conversation is an underused
tool to create trust. The data indicate that a clear plan for how thoughts should be
encouraged, collected and used does not only provide more ideas but also create positive
emotions and trust, which could in turn enhance creativity (Fredrickson, 2003; Rock, 2008;
Lee et al., 2003). The most successful strategic thinking comes from using both analytical/
rational and emotional/social thinking (Robertson et al., 2007). However, strategy workshops
rely heavily on analytical methods (Hodgkinson et al., 2006), which were apparent from the
empirical data. Although analytical frameworks are useful, they will not necessarily be
helpful in providing the participants with a safe environment of trust.
Creating the prerequisites for open conversation could make the difference between
successful and failed strategy workshops, as both affective and cognitive trust are needed for
full interpersonal trust (Mayer, 1995; Morrow Jr et al., 2004). The data suggest that the
creation of affective trust is underdeveloped, with the HR manager of Danea pointing to the
unlikeliness of anyone daring to say something critical and truly new, as well as other
participants expressing uncertainty on how their input would be viewed and handled. To
what extent cognitive trust was in place is not fully investigated here. However, a wider range
of participants from outside the management team could possibly lower the general cognitive
trust. Such trust is developed through a cognitive process and it will be more difficult for
everyone to assess each other’s ability and trustworthiness in a larger group, as he/she is
unfamiliar with each other and has different levels of competence. Cognitive trust is thus an

Figure 2.
Pivoting factors
supporting trust in
strategy workshops
with wider
participation
important feature to consider, since affective trust is hard to develop if cognitive trust is Strategy
missing (McAllister, 1995). workshops
with wider
Clarity of the participative process participation
This study indicates a need for the clarity of the context and process for the workshop t to
avoid frustration and support trust. According to Rock (2008), perceived clarity affects the
ability of individuals to assess a space as safe and thereby open up for collaboration and
creativity, whereas a threat response is evoked in the opposite case. The empirical findings
show that a plan for how participants’ thoughts and ideas were to be collected, presented,
evaluated and incorporated into the strategic work was lacking in several cases, while the
more general strategy process was usually in place, as suggested by Beckhard and Harris
(1987). The management stated that they had used the material created in the workshops in
most cases. However, the participants not involved in decision-making did not recognize their
ideas in the final strategy. Heracleous et al. (2018) point toward a tension in open strategy
practices due to the difference in logic between new open practices and traditional controlled
ones. Perhaps, the conflict regarding the clarity of the participative process can somewhat be
attributed to the tension suggested by Heracleous et al. (2018) as the expectations were not
aligned between some management teams and the participants.
The clear context and process could be connected to the vulnerability inherent in
interpersonal trust, as per the definitions of Rousseau et al. (1998) and Lewicki et al. (1998). In a
creative workshop at its best, participants open up and share their ideas, reflections and
criticism, thus making themselves vulnerable and perhaps sensitive to how their
contributions are handled. Hence, although the vertical communication between
management and the organization (Beer and Eisenstat, 2004, 2000; Beer et al., 2011;
Jarzabkowski, 2005) was done through the strategy workshop, it was not evident how this
conversation influenced the strategy. This left participants with a sense of wasted time and
broken promises, the workshops thus being perceived as a breach of trust. For maintaining
trust in the strategic process, honest conversations are not enough, but the outcome must be
carefully handled and used in strategizing. Moreover, the data suggest that the plan for
handling the outcomes of the workshops has to be public and communicated in advance.

Delivering upon honest intent

Moreover, when management was perceived to not to have an honest and transparent intent, it
caused frustration, that is, when staff members were invited to give input to questions where a
decision was already made. This left the participants, especially nonmanagement ones, with a
sense of being manipulated instead of chosen to contribute and was perceived as a trust
violation, where the trust vanished and turned to frustration. According to Lewicki and
Tomlinson (2003), a trust violation is perceived as more severe when connected to affective
parameters such as benevolence rather than cognitive ones correlating with ability, leaving
the participants willing to terminate their engagement. This is also consistent with previous
research suggesting that open communication (Senge, 1990), fairness (Rock, 2008) and positive
emotions (Fredrickson, 2003) are essential for the ability to create and collaborate.
However, the failure to deliver upon an honest intent was mostly unintentional. Although
some external facilitators were asked to come up with a certain result in the creative
workshops, those cases were not the norm. This underestimates the importance of trustful
relationships and the emotional aspects of strategizing while overemphasizing the rational
and analytical parts of strategizing, as per Robertson et al. (2007). Additionally, the data
suggest that fairly simple actions, such as clearly establishing how, when and who will make
decisions and being clear (and honest) about what questions that really are up for discussion,
made a big difference and created a mutual sense of trust and transparency. Hence, where
MD there was an honest intent that did not come across, there were simple measures that could
be taken to enhance the interpersonal trust.

Conclusion trust as enabler

A strategy workshop with wider participation has special characteristics, the stakes are high,
and it is a costly and time-consuming process (Hodgkinson et al., 2006). Still, it is beneficial to
bring in a wider range of participants to create strategy and execute the change agenda
(Lines, 2004; Mantere and Vaara, 2008; Liedtka and Rosenblum, 1996; Sull, 2004). For this,
people need to feel safe (Rock, 2008) in an environment of trust. However, since strategy
workshop participants are commonly not part of a stable group, trust was harder to build.
This is consistent with previous findings in that the stability of relations is important
(McAllister, 1995; Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003). Furthermore, this study suggests that it can
be challenging to develop both affective and cognitive trust during workshops, thus
contributing to the practices for developing affective trust.
If failing to create trust, or by creating distrust, in strategy workshops, the downside could
be just as important as having trust would be. Simply inviting a wider circle of participants is
not enough. However, a forward shift in focus toward trust building activities could make a
difference. Additionally, trust is an important prerequisite for honest conversations to occur.
Simultaneously, a successful honest and open conversation, where participants at all levels
perceive honesty and transparency regarding how their contribution will be handled and
used, enhances perceived trust. Therefore, trust seems to have a circular dependency with the
process itself.
There are many strategic practices that could serve as the link between organization, top
management and strategy (Jarzabkowski, 2005; Beer et al., 2011; Liedtka, 2010, Liedtka and
Rosenblum, 1996). However, few other strategizing activities are as well suited as strategy
workshops with wider participation for honest conversation about the things that matter
(Beer and Eisenstat, 2004), solving the problem with vertical communication (Beer and
Eisenstat, 2000) and discussing organizational future among multiple stakeholders (Liedtka
and Rosenblum, 1996). Creating trust regarding strategically important issues in a wide
circle of participants could potentially help build the mandate for strategy execution
(Nielson, 2008) and change (Lines, 2004; Beer and Eisenstat, 2000, 2004). Moreover, since
strategy workshops are already part of the formal strategizing framework (Hodgkinson
et al., 2006), using their full potential and including trust building activities in practice can
increase openness.

Contribution
Contributions to theory
Although trust is widely discussed (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998), its role in
strategy workshops in general and in strategy workshops with broad participation in
particular is not widely discussed. Hence, this paper contributes the field of strategy-as-
practice (Jarzabkowski, 2005; Hodgkinson et al., 2006) through suggesting that general trust
and especially affective trust is an underused area of focus when planning and executing
workshops. This could add to a conversation around of openness and transparency in
strategizing (Hautz et al., 2017), by discussing relational prerequisites.
Strategy workshops could be an efficient tool to create the necessary interplay between
top and bottom in the organization (Jarzabkowski, 2005; Beer and Eisenstat, 2004), if properly
prepared and communicated. The findings in this paper indicate that measures to enhance
the level of trust would enhance the possibilities to take advantage of a wider participation
when creating and executing strategy. This paper contributes to the strategy-as-practice field
by emphasizing the three factors that potentially could leverage the practice of inviting many Strategy
participants to think together about strategy, as suggested by Liedtka and Rosenblum (1996). workshops
The three suggested factors influencing trust in strategy workshops would benefit from
further investigation. How actions should be designed, however, pose as an interesting next
with wider
step in research. participation
Additionally, practices to enhance trust in wide participation workshops could help
strategy execution (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000; Neilson et al., 2008) and support planned change
(Dunphy and Stace, 1993). According to Beckhard and Harris (1987), the costs of change—
primarily emotional and relational resistance to change—could be outweighed by a clear
vision, clear process and dissatisfaction with the current state. If strategy workshops with
wider participation could open a safe space for honest conversation (Beer and Eisenstat, 2004)
about strategically important issues, perhaps the clarity of both vision and process and the
motivation for change could increase. The connection between wider participation in strategy
workshops and change could also contribute to the research around participatory and
dialogic approaches to change (Lines, 2004; Senge, 1990; Beer and Eisenstat, 2004).

Contributions to practice
Strategy workshops are part of almost every strategy process (Hodgkinson et al., 2006).
Moreover, participation from outside the management team is potentially enhancing strategy
quality and creativity (Sull, 2004; Sarasvathy, 2001; Dodgson, 1993). Therefore, the
advantage of such workshops should be of managerial interest. Moreover, there is a
growing interest in inviting members of the organization from different levels to take part in
strategizing. This paper encourages the use of practices to make that broader invitation
successful by providing relevant actors (e.g. leaders, consultants) with actionable knowledge
about what needs to be in place in a strategy process with wider participation. Although no
specific tools or methods are suggested, an agenda for discussion when planning a
participative strategy process is useful. For managers, this paper calls for focusing on
rational content in strategy workshops (Hodgkinson et al., 2006) with the more relational aim
of creating trust.
The evidence implies that broader participation demands consideration, preparation and
actionable knowledge about the importance of creating a safe space and trust through a clear
context, a transparent intent and a focus on the quality of conversation. If explored and
developed, this could help managers have a return for their strategy workshop investment.
Moreover, strategy workshops with broad participation, rightly handled, could not only
create better strategies but also increase trust in the organization, as an upward spiral, a filter
through which actions are interpreted. However, it is important to manage it carefully as
broken trust or a trust violation (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003) can instead create a
downward spiral.

References
Adler, N., Shani, A.B.R. and Styhre, A. (Eds.) (2003), Collaborative Research in Organizations: Enabling
Change, Learning and Theory Development, Sage, New York, NY.
Appleyard, M.M. and Chesbrough, H.W. (2017), “The dynamics of open strategy: from adoption to
reversion”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 50, pp. 310-320.
Argyris, C. (1977), “Double loop learning in organizations”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55 No. 5,
pp. 115-129.
Argyris, C. (1993), Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and McLain Smith, D. (1995), Action Science, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
MD Beckhard, R. and Harris, R.T. (1987), Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change, 2nd ed.,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Beer, M. (2009), High Commitment, High Performance: How to Build a Resilient Organization for
Sustained Advantage, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R. (2000), “The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 29-40.
Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R. (2004), “How to have an honest conversation about your business strategy”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 82-89.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., Foote, N., Fredberg, T. and Norrgren, F. (2011), Higher Ambition: How Great
Leaders Create Economic and Social Value, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge.
Birkinshaw, J. (2017), “Reflections on open strategy”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 423-426.
Burgelman, R. (1991), “Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation:
theory and field research”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 239-262.
Coghlan, D. and Shani, A.B.R. (2014), “Creating action research quality in organization
development: rigorous, reflective and relevant”, Systemic Practice and Action Research,
Vol. 27, pp. 523-536.
Denzin, N. (2006), Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook, 5th ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2011), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed., SAGE
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. (2016), “Can your employees really speak freely?”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 94 Nos 1-2, pp. 80-87.
Dodgson, M. (1993), “Learning, trust and technological collaboration”, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 77-95.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2002), “Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 553-560.
Dunphy, D. and Stace, D. (1993), “The strategic management of corporate change”, Human Relations,
Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 905-920.
Edmondson, A. and Lei, Z. (2014), “Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an
interpersonal construct”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 23-43.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2003), “Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations”, in Cameron, K.S.,
Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundation of a New
Discipline, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 163-175.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1994), “Linking organizational context and managerial action: the
dimensions of quality of management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 91-112.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2012), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
notes on the Gioia methodology”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-31.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hautz, J. (2017), “Opening up the strategy process—a network perspective”, Management Decision,
Vol. 55, pp. 1956-1983.
Hautz, J., Seidl, D. and Whittington, R. (2017), “Open strategy: dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics”, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 50, pp. 298-309.
Heracleous, L., G€oßwein, J. and Beaudette, P. (2018), “Open strategy-making at the Wikimedia
foundation: a dialogic perspective”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 5-35.
Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 12, pp. 1280-1300.
Hodgkinson, G.P. and Sparrow, P.R. (2002), The Competent Organization: A Psychological Analysis of Strategy
the Strategic Management Process, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
workshops
Hodgkinson, G.P., Whittington, R., Johnson, G. and Schwartz, M. (2006), “The role of strategy
workshops in strategy development processes: formality, communication, co-ordination and
with wider
inclusion”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 479-496. participation
uller, J. (2017), “Falling short with participation—different effects of
Hutter, K., Nketia, B.A. and F€
ideation, commenting, and evaluating behavior on open strategizing”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 50, pp. 355-370.
Isaacs, W. (1999), Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together, Doublebay, a division of Random House,
New York.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2005), Strategy as Practice: An Activity Based Approach, Sage Publications, Gateshead.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), “Leading change”, Harvard Business Review, March–April, available at: https://
eoeleadership.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/leading_change_why_transformation_efforts_fail.
pdf (accessed 05 July 2019).
Kyl
en, S. (1999), Interaktionsm€onster i arbetsgrupper: Offensiva och defensiva handlingsrutiner,
Gothenburg University, Gothenburg.
Lee, F., Caza, A., Edmondson, A. and Thomke, S. (2003), “New knowledge creation in organizations”,
in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship:
Foundation of a New Discipline, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Lewicki, R.J. and Tomlinson, E. (2003), “Trust and trust building”, in Burgess, G. and Burgess, H.
(Eds), Beyond Intractability, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, available at: http://www.
beyondintractability.org/essay/trust-building (accessed 17 May 2019).
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. and Bies, R.J. (1998), “Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 438-458.
Lieberman, M. (2013), Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect, Random House, New York.
Liedtka, J. (2010), “Beyond strategic thinking: strategy as experienced and embodied”, in Manu, A.
(Ed.), Disruptive Business: Desire, Innovation and the Re-design of Business, Routledge, New
York, pp. 153-170.
Liedtka, J. and Rosenblum, J.W. (1996), “Shaping conversations: making strategy, managing change”,
California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 141-157.
Lines, R. (2004), “Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational commitment
and change goal achievement”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 193-215.
Luedicke, M.K., Husemann, K.C., Furnari, S. and Ladstaetter, F. (2017), “Radically open strategizing:
how the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 50, pp. 371-384.
Mantere, S. and Vaara, E. (2008), “On the problem of participation in strategy: a critical discursive
perspective”, Organization Science, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 341-358.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect-based and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
Morrow, J.L. Jr, Hansen, M.H. and Pearson, A.W. (2004), “The cognitive and affective antecedents of general
trust within cooperative organizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 48-64.
Neilson, G., Martin, K. and Powers, E. (2008), “The secrets to successful strategy execution”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 86, pp. 60-70.
Newell, S. and Swan, J. (2000), “Trust and inter-organizational networking”, Human Relations, Vol. 53
No. 10, pp. 1287-1328.
MD Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S. (2001), “Studying organizational change and
development: challenges for future research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 697-713.
Prahalad, C.K. (2011), “Can relevance and rigor coexist?”, in Mohrman, S.A. and Lawler, E.E. (Eds),
Useful Research: Advancing Theory and Practice, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco,
CA, pp. 137-146.
Robertson, D., Snarey, J., Ousley, O., Harenski, K., DuBois Bowman, F., Gilkey, R. and Kilts, C. (2007),
“The neural processing of moral sensitivity to issues of justice and care”, Neuropsychologica,
Vol. 45, pp. 755-766.
Rock, D. (2008), “Scarf—a brain based model for collaborating with and influencing others”,
NeuroLeadership Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 44-52.
Rothbauer, P. (2008), “Triangulation”, in Given, L. (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative
Research Methods, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 892-894.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-
disciplinary view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001), “Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 243-263.
Schein, E.H. (1987), The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Schein, E.H. (1993), “On dialogue, culture and organizational learning”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 40-51.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday,
New York, NY.
Senge, P.M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B. and Smith, B.J. (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:
Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Shani, A.B.R., Mohrman, S., Pasmore, W.A., Stymne, B.A. and Adler, N. (2007), Handbook of
Collaborative Management Research, Sage, New York, NY.
Sull, D. (2004), “Disciplined entrepreneurship”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 71-77.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2007), Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Westley, F. (1990), “Middle managers and strategy: microdynamics of inclusion”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 337-351.
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L. and Yakis-Douglas, L. (2011), “Opening strategy: evolution of a precarious
profession”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 22, pp. 531-544.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Corresponding author
Johanna E. Pregmark can be contacted at: pregmark@chalmers.se

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com