Sub-theme 38: Open Strategy: Exploring Different Contexts, Actors, and Domains
Call for Papers
Call for short
papers (pdf)
Over the past decade, Open Strategy (OS) has turned into a flourishing field of strategy research
that transcends the traditional boundaries of strategic management (Whittington, 2019). In its ‘germination’ phase, OS focused
primarily on clarifying the concept of openness by cultivating its constructs of inclusion and transparency while differentiating
itself from other domains (Hautz et al., 2016; Whittington et al., 2011). Now, OS has transitioned into its ‘blossoming’ phase,
focusing on deepening our understanding of the phenomenon by elaborating on its core dimensions, exploring its multi-faceted
nature, diversifying it into various contexts, and investigating its relations to other research phenomena; thereby seeking
to expand the boundaries of OS.
With this sub-theme, we aim to cover the greater breadth and depth of OS
by encouraging research that (1) deepens our understanding of existing dimensions and (2) broadens its horizons by addressing
new contexts, domains, and actors.
- Deepening our understanding of OS
In recent years, research has significantly advanced the scholarship of OS. With inclusion and transparency at its core, OS continues to evolve, branching into new sub-fields of interest. For instance, recent studies have explored different forms of participation (Mack & Szulanski, 2017; Plotnikova et al., 2021; Vaara et al., 2019), decision-making rights (Dobusch et al., 2019; Splitter et al., 2023), and equity (Langenmayr et al., 2023), expanding the dimensions and issues for OS. For this sub-theme, we invite research that explores inclusion and transparency in greater depth and advances these dimensions in new and promising directions.
- Broadening the horizons of OS: Exploring contexts, actors, and domains
Contexts:
As OS continues to diversify, there is a growing need to examine how its principles are applied across varied geographical,
cultural, and industrial contexts (Dobusch & Kapeller, 2017). For instance, extending OS research into non-Western settings
or extreme contexts, such as crisis scenarios or resource-scarce environments, can reveal how OS principles unfold differently
across contexts and organizational forms.
Potential questions for expanding on contexts in OS include:
How do different geographical, socio-economic, cultural, and political contexts influence the adoption, enactment, and outcomes of OS?
What contextual factors mediate participants’ perceptions of openness and their engagement in OS processes?
Actors:
OS increasingly acknowledges a broader range of actors in strategy-making processes. Beyond human participants, non-human
actors – such as artificial intelligence (AI), digital platforms, or material artefacts – are emerging as influential actors
shaping strategy processes and decisions (Ortner et al., 2025; Tavakoli et al., 2017). This expansion introduces new complexities
for inclusion and raises critical questions about agency, power, and accountability in OS.
Potential questions
for expanding on actors in OS might include:
How can OS effectively integrate non-human actors, such as AI, social media, or ecological systems, into strategy-making?
How do hybrid forms of agency (e.g., human-AI collaboration) reshape inclusion, decision-making, and accountability in OS?
Domains:
OS presents significant potential for addressing grand societal challenges, such as climate change, inequality,
and social justice, by enabling innovative and inclusive approaches to strategy-making. At the same time, OS itself raises
ethical dilemmas, such as balancing business-case justifications with normative considerations of inclusion and transparency.
Investigating how OS can drive systemic change while navigating competing demands represents a key avenue for future
research.
Potential questions for expanding on domains in OS might include:
How can OS be effectively leveraged to design and implement strategies that address broader societal and organizational challenges?
What ethical dilemmas and practical barriers limit the applicability of OS to complex societal challenges, and how can they be overcome?
For this sub-theme, we invite conceptual, methodological, and empirical papers that contribute to
advancing our understanding and the boundaries of OS. Given the shared dimensions of openness, we also encourage submissions
regarding adjacent phenomena, such as Open Organizing (Splitter et al., 2023), Open Innovation (von Krogh & Geilinger,
2019), Open Theorizing (Leone et al., 2021), Open Social Innovation (Gegenhuber & Mair, 2024), or Open Platforms (Boudreau,
2010).
References
Boudreau, K. (2010): “Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control.” Management Science, 56 (10), 1849–1872.
Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2019): “Closing for the Benefit of Openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process.” Organization Studies, 40 (3), 343–370.
Dobusch, L., & Kapeller, J. (2017): “Open strategy-making with crowds and communities: Comparing Wikimedia and Creative Commons.” Long Range Planning, 51 (4), 561–579.
Gegenhuber, T., & Mair, J. (2024): “Open social innovation: Taking stock and moving forward.” Industry and Innovation, 31 (1), 130–157.
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2016): “Open Strategy: Dimensions, Dilemmas, Dynamics.” Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 298–309.
Langenmayr, T., Seidl, D., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2023): “Participatory Strategy Making as Dual Sensemaking Process.” Academy of Management Proceedings, published online on July 24, 2023, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.116bp.
Leone, P.V., Mantere, S., & Faraj, S. (2021): “Open Theorizing in Management and Organization Studies.” Academy of Management Review, 46 (4), 725–749.
Mack, D.Z., & Szulanski, G. (2017): “Opening Up: How Centralization Affects Participation and Inclusion in Strategy Making.” Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 385–396.
Ocasio, W., Laamanen, T., & Vaara, E. (2018): “Communication and attention dynamics: An attention‐based view of strategic change.” Strategic Management Journal, 39 (1), 155–167.
Ortner, T., Hautz, J., Stadler, C., & Matzler, K. (2025): “Open strategy and digital transformation: A framework and future research agenda.” International Journal of Management Reviews, 27 (3), 324–345.
Plotnikova, A., Pandza, K., & Sales-Cavalcante, H. (2021): “How strategy professionals develop and sustain an online strategy community – The lessons from Ericsson.” Long Range Planning, 54 (5), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102015.
Splitter, V., Dobusch, L., von Krogh, G., Whittington, R., & Walgenbach, P. (2023): “Openness as Organizing Principle: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Organization Studies, 44 (1), 7–27.
Tavakoli, A., Schlagwein, D., & Schoder, D. (2017): “Open strategy: Literature review, re-analysis of cases and conceptualisation as a practice.” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(3), 163–184.
Vaara, E., Rantakari, A., & Holstein, J. (2019): “Participation Research and Open Strategy.” In: D. Seidl, R. Whittington, & G. von Krogh (eds.): Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27–40.
von Krogh, G., & Geilinger, N. (2019): “Open Innovation and Open Strategy: Epistemic and Design Dimensions.” In: D. Seidl, R. Whittington, & G. von Krogh (eds.): Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–58.
- Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011): “Opening Strategy: Evolution of a Precarious Profession.” British Journal of Management, 22 (3), 531–544.