Renate Kratochvil

In Strategy as Practice, process research methods have been integral to both data collection, analysis and subsequent theorizing. To explore this interconnectedness, we introduce three perspectives on process research and discuss them in relation to the Strategy as Practice perspective. We further present three examples to demonstrate how process methods provide a richer understanding of how strategic practices are embedded in ongoing, temporally evolving trajectories of activity. Finally, we suggest future directions for process research in Strategy as Practice.

Understanding what impedes and facilitates radical innovation is crucial. This study introduces a process perspective on managerial cognition into the strategic leadership literature to elucidate the dynamics that contribute to idea erosion during the development of radical innovation. Employing a framing perspective and utilizing longitudinal data from a single case, this study presents a process model of strategic leaders' framing-induced idea erosion. At the heart of this process are two dynamics. First is a dynamic consisting of the anticipation of innovation that fails to account for the necessary iterative process, leading to a growing mismatch between expectations and activities. Second is a dynamic consisting of cognitive processes, where strategic leaders frame this mismatch as a failure, this intensifying over time. This study shows that strategic leaders tend to favor incremental over radical innovation, not due to a shortage of ideas but because they frame their activities as failures.
•Incremental innovation is due not to a lack of ideas for radical innovation but to leaders’ framing of their innovation activities as failures.•Failure framing (unintentionally) reduces the resources needed for radical innovation, ultimately eroding the ideas.•Avoiding these pitfalls can mean the difference between success and failure for strategic leaders of incumbents.•Despite the setback, this study underscores the pivotal role of strategic leaders in anticipating radical innovations.

Using 'simple rules' may enable managers to take organizational decisions more rapidly. While prior research presents advantages of simple rule use during strategy formation, we lack insights into how firms can deliberately create simple rules and mitigate the challenges during strategy implementation. This is particularly interesting for established firms struggling to leverage their wealth of experience. We explore how managers of a multinational corporation deliberately create and use simple rules to implement the firm's growth strategy. Drawing on interviews and secondary data, we reveal the activities through which managers ensure the relevance and legitimacy of codified simple rules, yet also establish causality between simple rules and outcomes. Simple rule creation is accomplished via bottom-up identification and lateral validation, its use via consistent top-down guiding and timely adaptation. Our findings contribute to the growing body of research on the evolution of simple rules and aspects of strategy implementation more generally.