Abstract
This study examines how pluralistic organizations confronting fundamental differences in values can proceed with strategic change. By drawing on a longitudinal case analysis of strategic change in a Nordic city organization, we show how the proponents and challengers play a “rhetorical game” in which they simultaneously promote their own value-based interests and ideas and seek ways to enable change. In particular, we identify a pattern in which the discussion moved from initial contestation through gradual convergence to increasing agreement. In addition, we elaborate on four rhetorical practices used in this rhetorical game: voicing own arguments, appropriation of others’ arguments, consensus argumentation, and collective we argumentation. By so doing, our study contributes to research on strategic change in pluralistic organizations by offering a nuanced account of the use of rhetoric when moving from contestation to convergence and partial agreement. Furthermore, by detailing specific types of rhetorical practices that play a crucial role in strategy making, our study advances research on the role of rhetoric in strategy process and practice research more generally.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Peer-reviewed scientific journal | Organization Science |
Volume | 31 |
Issue number | 4 |
Pages (from-to) | 839-864 |
Number of pages | 26 |
ISSN | 1047-7039 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 12.03.2020 |
MoE publication type | A1 Journal article - refereed |
Keywords
- 512 Business and Management
- change
- pluralistic organization
- rhetoric
- strategic change
- strategy
- strategy as practice
- strategy process