Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Organization Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0170840606067989v1
28/2/155    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sillince, J.
Right arrow Articles by Mueller, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Switching Strategic Perspective: The Reframing of Accounts of Responsibility

John Sillince

Aston University, UK

Frank Mueller

University of St Andrews, UK

We provide an empirical study of the reframing of accounts of responsibility for strategy. We found that top management ambivalence about strategy provided a middle management team with wide scope for interpretation of responsibility for developing and implementing a strategic initiative. In the early stage, responsibility as well as expectations about the strategy’s successful outcome were ‘talked up’. In the later stage, when it was considered that the strategic initiative was failing, the middle management implementation team engaged in ‘talking down’ of expectations. We show that reframing from initial duty to capability to later accountability shaped and reflected actors’ changing goals. By focusing on responsibility we increase understanding of the division of labour in the actual practice of strategizing, including where and how strategizing is done. Most important, we show how protagonists’ goals drive the framing and reframing of strategic agendas, and how linguistic devices such as disclaimers and self-handicapping influence this process.

Key Words: strategy-as-practice • implementation • responsibility • reframing • accounts • failure • time • ambivalence

This version was published on February 1, 2007

Organization Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, 155-176 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0170840606067989


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Human RelationsHome page
J. A.A. Sillince and A. D. Brown
Multiple organizational identities and legitimacy: The rhetoric of police websites
Human Relations, December 1, 2009; 62(12): 1829 - 1856.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of ManagementHome page
B. Wooldridge, T. Schmid, and S. W. Floyd
The Middle Management Perspective on Strategy Process: Contributions, Synthesis, and Future Research
Journal of Management, December 1, 2008; 34(6): 1190 - 1221.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Management Communication QuarterlyHome page
E. J. Hartelius and L. D. Browning
The Application of Rhetorical Theory in Managerial Research: A Literature Review
Management Communication Quarterly, August 1, 2008; 22(1): 13 - 39.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Management Communication QuarterlyHome page
A. Whittle, F. Mueller, and A. Mangan
In Search of Subtlety: Discursive Devices and Rhetorical Competence
Management Communication Quarterly, August 1, 2008; 22(1): 99 - 122.
[Abstract] [PDF]