Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A growing number of organizations open their strategy processes by including a more diverse set of actors. This has drawn scholarly interest and led to a field of research known as open strategy. In this paper, we problematize how open strategy research deploys diversity and inclusion without engaging with the diversity and inclusion literature that offers a more differentiated understanding of these concepts. We build on this literature to elucidate how most open strategy studies follow a business case approach wherein inclusion, and implicitly also diversity, are theorized based on their impact on strategy outcomes. We show how engaging with the diversity and inclusion literature allows open strategy scholars to move from the business case towards an alternative, equity-based approach. Adopting an equity-based approach widens the themes addressed in open strategy research to the reproduction of power relations and sustained inequalities in strategy making and thus contributes to a more societally meaningful and relevant understanding of diversity and inclusion in the strategy field.

Keywords

business case diversity equity-based approach inclusion open strategy

Introduction

In line with societal demands for greater representativity and equal opportunities, a growing number of organizations open their strategy processes (Dobusch et al., 2019; Splitter et al., 2023; Whittington & Yakis-Douglas, 2020). This has attracted scholarly attention and led to a field of research known as open strategy (Seidl et al., 2019). Open strategy research focuses on how a more heterogeneous set of actors within and beyond organizational boundaries are included in strategy making and how strategy making is made more transparent (Hautz et al., 2017; Whittington, 2019). While inclusion, and implicitly also diversity, can be considered key concepts within this emerging field, open strategy scholars have not engaged with the literature on diversity and inclusion (see e.g. Adamson et al., 2021; Hellerstedt et al., 2024; Nkomo et al., 2019; Zanoni et al., 2010). The field of open strategy research thus remains largely unaware of different ways of conceptualizing diversity and inclusion and their implications for theory development (cf. Shore et al., 2011).

The literature on diversity and inclusion proposes different approaches to conceptualize the focal concepts. The ‘‘business case’’ approach is based on the tenet that diversity and inclusion can be utilized to improve organizational performance, and thus follows an outcome-oriented, utilitarian logic to its subject of inquiry (see e.g. Ferdman & Deane, 2014; Mensi-Klarbach, 2012; Robinson & Dechant, 1997; Van Dijk et al., 2012). Challenging this logic, the diversity and inclusion literature puts forth an alternative, ‘‘equity-based’’ approach.¹ This approach problematizes the business case and its focus on organizational performance-related outcomes at the expense of considering inequalities and the marginalization of minorities in organizations and society (cf. Adamson et al., 2021; Zanoni et al., 2010). Crucially, it questions the distribution of power in terms of control over the deployment of diversity and inclusion, and the reproduction of power relations through such deployment (Ahonen et al., 2014).

Drawing on the diversity and inclusion literature, we show how existing open strategy research mainly aligns with the business case approach. It typically argues that traditional strategy actors such as the board, top management and strategy officers decide to include more heterogeneous or diverse strategy actors to improve strategy outcomes, for example, in terms of better-informed decision making and more effective strategy implementation (Hautz et al., 2019; Stadler et al., 2021). New actors included in strategy making are expected to contribute to these outcomes based on specific diversity categories, such as their organizational backgrounds, knowledge, skills and perspectives, thereby justifying their inclusion. In line with the business case, diversity thus refers to new strategy actors’ heterogeneity as defined by traditional strategy actors, while inclusion refers to the consultation of these new actors in strategy making.

While adopting the business case has allowed open strategy scholars to advance understandings of diversity and inclusion in terms of strategy outcomes, we argue that the business case contributes to the reproduction of established power relations and thus to sustained inequalities in strategy making. Drawing on a critique of the business case, we propose, as mentioned, an alternative, equity-based conceptualization of diversity and inclusion in open strategy that aims at increasing representativity and promoting equal opportunities in strategy making. In line with the equity-based approach, diversity can be conceptualized in terms of strategy actors’ self-identified heterogeneity, while inclusion refers to all strategy actors’ contribution to the strategy process. These equity-based conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion allow open strategy scholars to explore themes that have been left unattended by the business case approach. It draws attention to the dominance of the ‘norm’ (see e.g. Ghorashi & Sabelis, 2013; Johansson et al., 2023; Ostendorp & Steyaert, 2009; Prasad & Mills, 1997), i.e. the traditional strategy actors and their control over the selection and inclusion of new strategy actors. The equity-based approach also allows scholars to explore related ‘normalizing effects’ (cf. Zanoni & Janssens, 2007), such as the ways in which new strategy actors comply with strategy practices determined by the norm. By focusing on these novel themes, an equity-based approach allows scholars to shift the focus from a utilitarian logic to an egalitarian one and thereby to adopt an understanding of diversity and inclusion that, when factored into strategy making, is more likely to respond to societal demands for greater representativity and equal opportunities.

By engaging with the diversity and inclusion literature, we contribute to extant theorizing on open strategy in two main ways. First, while the open strategy literature typically argues that the diversity of new strategy actors is a main motivation for opening the strategy process and improving strategy outcomes (Hautz et al., 2019; Whittington, 2019), it has thus far not engaged with the concept of diversity as such. Accordingly, scholars have called for an explicit consideration of this concept to advance open strategy theorizing (Vaara et al., 2019). We respond to this call by providing two approaches to engage with this concept. Each approach is based on a different research stance and thus includes different conceptualizations of diversity that lead to different research agendas for open strategy. An explicit consideration of diversity and distinguishing it from inclusion also allows open strategy scholars to critically question the prevailing assumption that inclusion and diversity are positively and inextricably linked.

Second, by showing that current open strategy research mainly follows the business case in its conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion, we provide an explanation for why open strategy often fails to meet the societal demands for greater representativity and equal opportunities (Dobusch et al., 2019; Splitter et al., 2023; Whittington & Yakis-Douglas, 2020). By introducing an equity-based approach as an alternative to the predominant business case approach for theorizing diversity and inclusion, we offer an opportunity for open strategy scholars to shift their focus and study new themes to make their research more societally meaningful and relevant.

Theorizing Inclusion in Open Strategy: The Dominant Business Case Approach

In open strategy research, the inclusion of new strategy actors within and beyond organizational boundaries is presented as a key dimension of openness (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007; Whittington, 2019). Inclusion is conceptualized as the internal or external consultation of new strategy actors to provide ‘information, views and proposals intended to shape the continued evolution of an organization’s strategy’ (Whittington et al., 2011, p. 536). The literature refers to ‘new strategy actors’ as those who are traditionally excluded from participation in strategy formulation, such as frontline employees, customers, competitors, or the wider public (Dobusch & Kapeller, 2018; Malhotra et al., 2017; Splitter et al., 2021). In contrast, ‘traditional strategy actors’ such as the board, top management and strategy officers are those who are formally recognized as strategists because they are officially charged with formulating the strategic plan and making strategic decisions in the organization (Whittington, 2019).

Given its roots in the field of strategic management, most open strategy research focuses on how increased inclusion can lead to the improvement of different strategy outcomes (Cai & Canales, 2022; Hautz et al., 2019; Vaara et al., 2019). In their seminal article, Whittington et al. (2011, p. 535) point to the ‘clear net benefits’ that the inclusion of new strategy actors can offer. Mainly based on studies conducted in Europe and North America, scholars have shown that increased inclusion can provide, for example, better informed decision making and more effective strategy implementation (Hautz et al., 2019; Stadler et al., 2021) as well as a better understanding of and increased commitment to strategy outcomes (Splitter et al., 2021; van der Steen, 2017). Increasing inclusion can also lead to favourable impression management to increase the legitimacy of strategy outcomes in the public sphere (Gegenhuber & Dobusch, 2017).

While inclusion is sometimes referred to as ‘democratizing’ strategy (Adobor, 2020; Stieger et al., 2012), open strategy studies show that traditional strategy actors tend to maintain control over who is included and in what way (Belmondo & Sargis-Roussel, 2023). In this sense, the open strategy literature speaks of ‘managed’ inclusion to explore how openness can be managed to reap its benefits (Stjerne et al., 2022; Whittington & Yakis-Douglas, 2020). Vaara et al. (2019) and distinguish between limited and deep, or unrestricted, inclusion to demarcate the extent to which traditional strategy actors manage the inclusion of new strategy actors. To reach better-informed and higher-quality strategic decisions, new strategy actors can be engaged through limited inclusion. Inclusion may be limited because actors are asked to provide ideas for strategy development, but they are excluded from developing strategic options, from crafting strategy documents and, generally, from strategic decision making (Trapp, 2014; van der Steen, 2017). More rarely, decision makers decide to engage new strategy actors in deep inclusion, where traditional and newly included actors jointly co-create strategies across all phases of the strategy process (Vaara et al., 2019). Traditional strategy actors typically decide to include actors ‘deeply’ to increase their commitment to strategic decisions and, ultimately, to ensure the effectiveness of strategy implementation (Doeleman et al., 2022; Gast & Zanini, 2012; Stieger et al., 2012).

Our review of the open strategy literature thus indicates that the dominant understanding of inclusion in open strategy research aligns with what the diversity and inclusion literature refers to as the ‘business case approach’, where inclusion concerns the promotion of organizational members’ ‘rights, access, and privileges’ to maximize organizational outcomes (Combs et al., 2019, p. 279). This utilitarian research stance has enabled open strategy scholars to provide insights into how inclusion can contribute to the improvement of different strategy outcomes (Hautz et al., 2019) and to explain how traditional strategy actors can manage the inclusion of new strategy actors in accordance with the intended benefits (Belmondo & Sargis-Roussel, 2023; Clegg et al., 2019). In line with the business case approach, open strategy has also mainly examined inclusion from a Western point of view and considered such understandings as universally applicable (Adobor, 2021; Dobusch et al., 2021; Vaara et al., 2019).

While adopting the business case approach to inclusion has allowed open strategy scholars to enhance our understanding of inclusion in strategy making, the literature on diversity and inclusion offers an alternative approach that draws on ideals of social justice and is generally critical of the utilitarian logic of the business case approach (cf. Hellerstedt et al., 2024). This alternative is based on an egalitarian (as opposed to a utilitarian) research stance, and thus promotes more equity in organizational processes and practices (Zanoni et al., 2010). We thus call this the ‘equity-based approach’. In the following, we offer our interpretation of how it can be used for theorizing inclusion in open strategy research.

Theorizing Inclusion in Open Strategy Research: The Equity-Based Approach

The equity-based approach focuses on how inclusion can answer to the demands that societies put on companies and other organizations (cf. Adamson et al., 2021; Hellerstedt et al., 2024), such as the demand for equal opportunities in strategy making identified in the open strategy literature (Splitter et al., 2023). The equity-based approach is critical of the business case’s focus on how inclusion can be managed to gain its expected benefits, at the expense of understanding why increased inclusion often does not meet societal demands. According to the equity-based approach, a key reason for unequal opportunities is the reproduction of power relations through managing inclusion. The equity-based approach thus suggests exploring the ‘norm’, i.e. those who exercise power by managing inclusion in line with their own interests (cf. Ostendorp & Steyaert, 2009). The norm contributes to reproducing power relations through inclusion and ultimately sustains rather than reduces inequalities (see e.g. Johansson et al., 2023). In this way, the equity-based approach problematizes that not all actors are able to shape and contribute to the process of inclusion equally, which reinforces the marginalization of minority groups in organizations.

Viewed through the equity-based approach, the business case’s lack of consideration of the norm to make sense of sustained inequalities has another problematic implication. The dominance of traditionally powerful actors implies that included actors are persuaded or forced to serve the rationale of the norm (cf. Carrillo Arciniega, 2021). Included actors are expected to comply and contribute something that those doing the including, i.e. the norm, deem to be of value (see e.g. Johansson et al., 2023). The value of inclusion can thus be co-opted and commodified as an organizational resource (Tyler & Vachhani, 2021). In contrast to the business case’s focus on the benefits of included actors for organizational outcomes, the equity-based approach takes seriously the lived experience of those included and what that represents (Adamson et al., 2021).

Apart from the equity-based focus on the norm in managing inclusion and the lived experience of the included actors, this approach also offers a more critical context-sensitive understanding of inclusion (cf. Dobusch et al., 2021). It is argued that the business case fails to recognize that inclusion can have different meanings depending on the context in which it is deployed. As such, studies based on the business case provide a limited understanding of what inclusion means, to whom, in specific settings (Dobusch, 2017). According to the equity-based approach, there is no universal understanding of inclusion, even within transnational or multinational organizations as policies crafted at the headquarters can be resisted in the subsidiaries (cf. Sippola & Smale, 2007). Accordingly, the equity-based approach calls for more contextualized understandings of inclusion that consider societal and socio-cultural settings and conditions of its deployment. Such contextualized understandings also include addressing the potential contradictions between inclusion as discourse or ways of presenting the organization as inclusive and inclusion as practice or organizational efforts to be inclusive (Ortlieb & Sieben, 2014) as well as more generally the relations between inclusion and exclusion (Dobusch, 2014).

Applying the equity-based approach to open strategy, inclusion can be conceptualized as the contribution of all strategy actors to strategy making. Such a conceptualization extends the open strategy research agenda towards themes related to equal opportunities in strategy making. It focuses on (1) normalizing through traditional strategy actors’ control over inclusion, (2) normalizing through new strategy actors’ compliance with strategy norms, and (3) contextual understandings of inclusion. In the following, we elaborate on these themes and show how they connect to and extend theorizing of open strategy. For each theme, we provide novel theoretical perspectives for open strategy research that have proved useful in studying these themes in the diversity and inclusion literature. The list of theories is neither exhaustive nor exclusive as there may be other, equally relevant theories that could be used to study the themes raised by the equity-based research agenda.

Normalizing through traditional strategy actors’ control over inclusion

Without explicitly referring to the concept of the norm, some open strategy studies have considered the dominant role of traditional strategy actors by, for example, setting technical, cultural and linguistic barriers to participation, thereby limiting new actors’ ability to contribute to strategy making (Dobusch & Dobusch, 2019; Plotnikova et al., 2021; Whittington, 2019). It has also been elucidated how traditional actors can determine the depth of inclusion based on their own interests (Belmondo & Sargis-Roussel, 2023; Dobusch et al., 2019; Luedicke et al., 2017). Further, it has been shown that traditional actors tend to maintain their own powerful roles when strategy making is opened (Langenmayr et al., 2024; Splitter et al., 2021).

Although these studies have pointed to the continued dominance of majority groups in open strategy making, engaging with the equity-based approach would imply critically exploring the normalizing effects of this dominance. In particular, the equity-based approach suggests that traditional strategy actors sustain their power position to reproduce established ways and norms of strategy making, which allows them to push their own agendas despite the inclusion of new strategy actors. Thereby, traditional strategy actors’ control over inclusion limits new strategy actors’ opportunities to engage equally in strategy making. Adopting an equity-based approach would thus allow open strategy scholars to explore the relation between traditional actors’ dominance and control over inclusion and the reproduction of inequalities. They could seek to understand why increased inclusion in strategy making may not align with the societal demands for increased representativity and equal opportunities.

To explore normalizing through traditional strategy actors’ control over inclusion, we suggest drawing on discourse analytical traditions (cf. Meriläinen et al., 2009; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007, 2018). Norman Fairclough’s (1989) critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a particular case in point. While discourse theoretical approaches as such are not new to open strategy research (Heracleous, 2019; Langenmayr et al., 2024), CDA has not been explicitly applied in the field of open strategy. CDA is suitable for exploring the normalizing effects of traditional actors’ control because it is concerned with how power operates through language use that is a crucial part of any strategy making (Vaara, 2010; Vaara & Fritsch, 2022). In the context of open strategy, CDA would allow researchers to analyse the dominance of traditional strategy actors in terms of how their language use determines how inclusion is enacted in open strategy processes, rendering their language use taken for granted and ‘normal’. How traditional strategy actors speak and write about openness becomes conventionalized within the dominant strategy discourse, rendering established power relations natural and unquestioned. The (language) norms drawn on by powerful actors thus help establish and maintain power relations, influencing how issues can (or cannot) be framed and understood. CDA can help open strategy scholars to understand these normalizing effects through the hegemony of traditional strategy actors’ language use in open strategy and, thus, how traditional strategy actors maintain control over who gets included and excluded. As CDA is a theory of social change (Fairclough, 1992), uncovering how power operates in and through language may also contribute to uncovering the mechanisms that can potentially lead to more representativity and equal opportunities in strategy making.

Normalizing through new strategy actors’ compliance with strategy norms

Another theme emerging from the equity-based approach concerns new strategy actors’ contribution to normalizing. While not considering normalizing effects of strategy making, some open strategy studies have provided insights into new strategy actors’ compliance with traditional strategy norms. For example, Mount et al. (2020) find that new strategy actors tend to comply with existing strategy norms and, more recently, Splitter et al. (2024) show how new strategy actors over time align their ideas to traditional strategy actors’ ways of developing ideas in attempts to ‘get heard’. Open strategy research has also demonstrated how new strategy actors may withdraw their participation if they do not feel competent enough to comply with the expectations put on them by traditional strategy actors (Brielmaier & Friesl, 2023; Friesl et al., 2023; Tavella, 2021). Although these studies highlight new strategy actors’ compliance with traditional strategy actors’ ways of strategy making, they tend to explain this normalizing by referring to new strategy actors’ (lack of) motivation to improve strategy outcomes. The equity-based approach offers a different understanding of new strategy actors’ compliance with strategy norms that is rooted in actors’ social need to feel recognized, acknowledged and accepted.

According to the equity-based approach, actors’ social need to feel recognized would imply studying the lived experience of new strategy actors. This would allow open strategy scholars to develop new ways to theorize new actors’ compliance with traditional actors’ control of inclusion and to acknowledge the implications of such normalizing. In particular, the equity-based approach would draw attention to how new strategy actors’ compliance with reproduced strategy norms and power relations restricts their self-determination and right to be included on their own terms (rather than contributing something that those doing the including deem to be of value). In adopting the equity-based approach, then, open strategy scholars could problematize how new strategy actors are not able to shape and contribute to strategy making on their own terms, which may paradoxically lead to both sustained inequalities and less satisfactory improvements of strategy outcomes.

To understand the normalizing effects of new strategy actors’ compliance with strategy norms and how they experience their inclusion, open strategy scholars could draw on insights from feminist theorizing. While Laine et al. (2023) have discussed the relevance of feminist theories for strategy research in working towards more inclusive discourses and practices of strategy making, we suggest that Judith Butler’s (2000, 2015) work offers a particularly fruitful lens for exploring new strategy actors’ lived experience of inclusion and (non-)recognition in open strategy. According to Butler, people feel genuinely included only if their social relations are characterized by recognition, such as affirmation, validation and acknowledgement, rather than mis- or non-recognition (Benjamin, 1990). By contrast, actors can feel oppressed and subjugated when recognition is based on the condition of conforming to ‘established norms of recognizability’ (Butler & Athanasiou, 2013, p. 36). In the context of open strategy, this implies that new strategy actors comply with established norms of recognizability, such as contributing something that is only considered valuable by traditional strategy actors to gain recognition, thus contributing to their own subjugation. By conforming to established norms, new strategy actors can experience misrecognition or non-recognition and exclusion despite being formally included (cf. Harding et al., 2013; Johansson et al., 2023; Tyler, 2019; Tyler & Vachhani, 2021). Achieving equal opportunities in strategy making would thus imply mutual recognition, acknowledgement and acceptance by new and traditional strategy actors. Focusing on (lack of) recognition allows open strategy scholars to examine inclusion in terms of the lived expression of being included and recognized rather than inclusion being a descriptive marker determined by those doing the including (Tyler, 2019; Tyler & Vachhani, 2021).

Contextual understandings of inclusion

The equity-based approach draws our attention to the context-dependent nature of inclusion and to sensitivity regarding socio-cultural differences (Umeh et al., 2023). Due to open strategy research’s focus on empirically examining organizations in Europe and North America (cf. Hautz et al., 2019), other societal and socio-cultural contexts have not been considered in their own terms, leading to a predominantly Western view on open strategy and a seemingly homogeneous, culturally universal understanding of inclusion. As Vaara et al. (2019, pp. 36–37) point out, ‘Open strategy tends to reflect Western values and practices, whereas the views of inclusion might be very different in other . . . contexts.’ Applying an equity-based approach would allow open strategy scholars to question dominant Western understandings of inclusion and authority over determining what inclusion means (cf. Dobusch et al., 2021), and to develop theoretical understandings of inclusion that are more sensitive to socio-cultural specificities and differences and to how these are produced. Such a contextual understanding of inclusion would further allow open strategy scholars to identify and problematize potential mismatches between different culturally shaped understandings of inclusion and seemingly universal understandings of it. This becomes relevant, for example, when globally operating organizations invite actors from across the world to participate in strategy making (Splitter et al., 2021).

To this end, open strategy scholars may usefully draw on post-colonial, decolonial and intersectional theories to problematize contextual meanings of diversity and inclusion. Studies on inclusion that draw on post-colonial theories argue that contextual understandings relate not only to how inclusion is understood differently in different contexts or how it is affected by socio-culturally different ways of knowing (Dobusch et al., 2021), but also to how knowledge on it is produced (cf. Greedharry et al., 2020; Kalonaityte, 2010). Post-colonial theorizing offers in effect an epistemic critique of producing knowledge based on the authority of the West (Said, 1978) and proposes that enduring forms of colonial logic influence, organize and structure knowledge on inclusion as well as diversity (see e.g. Greedharry et al., 2020). Drawing on decolonial theorizing could also help open strategy scholars to study the contextual embodied experiences of those who become subjects of inclusion in organizations that are blind to colonial differences and appreciates how their selves may be torn by ‘colonial wounds and scars’ (see e.g. Jammulamadaka & Faria, 2023; cf. Anzaldúa, 2009). Likewise, intersectional theorizing, with its origins in Black American feminism (Crenshaw, 1991), could be drawn on in open strategy work on inclusion. While intersectional theorizing travels and develops, it centres around race (and racialization or ‘race-ing’) and how it matters in different ways in different contexts when intersecting with gender and social class (Crenshaw, 2011; Hvenegård-Lassen et al., 2020). All these bodies of knowledge offer ways to theorize how systems of inequality are reproduced (Benschop, 2021), for example, in and through inclusion in organizational strategy making. They help us to understand the misrecognition of contextual meanings of inclusion in open strategy practice and research, and to rethink what this means for those who are ‘included’. These strands of research can thus be mobilized to uncover what is problematic about open strategy research that is based on Western values and practices (Vaara et al., 2019).

To summarize, we have shown that the dominant business case approach allows open strategy scholars to examine how inclusion can be managed to reach intended benefits in terms of strategy outcomes. However, the business case approach falls short in its understanding and theorizing of the reasons why increased inclusion often does not translate into more representativity and equal opportunities in strategy making. To address this limitation, we have introduced the equity-based approach as an alternative way of theorizing inclusion in open strategy, which shifts the focus from strategy outcomes to equity concerns. Next, we do the same for the concept of diversity.

Theorizing Diversity in Open Strategy: The Implicit Business Case Approach

While inclusion is an established dimension of open strategy, diversity has, as already mentioned, not been explicitly considered as a distinct concept in open strategy research. Referred to only implicitly, diversity is understood as the heterogeneity of newly included strategy actors (Hautz et al., 2019; Plotnikova et al., 2021). At the same time, open strategy research seems to assume that increasing inclusion automatically leads to increasing diversity. Based on this assumption, the motivation to increase diversity remains the same as for inclusion: to improve strategic outcomes in organizations. While not conceptualizing diversity explicitly, various open strategy studies have discussed how increased heterogeneity of new strategy actors leads to improving different kinds of strategy outcomes. A more diverse pool of strategy actors is assumed to provide broader legitimization of strategic decisions (Gegenhuber & Dobusch, 2017; Stadler et al., 2021), better-informed and higher-quality strategic decisions and more effective strategy implementation (Doeleman et al., 2022; Hautz et al., 2019). Open strategy studies also suggest that including a more diverse group of actors is beneficial because they can share and contribute knowledge that complements that of traditional strategy actors, thereby supporting them in gathering a variety of opinions on strategic initiatives (Hutter et al., 2017; Luedicke et al., 2017; Mack & Szulanski, 2017) as well as different interpretations of potential solutions to specific strategic issues (von Krogh & Geilinger, 2019).

Aiming to achieve these improvements in strategy outcomes, new strategy actors are typically selected based on specific diversity criteria. They are categorized based on their organizational backgrounds as well as their assumed knowledge, skills and perspectives (Radomska et al., 2023; Splitter et al., 2021). Regarding their organizational background, the open strategy literature typically distinguishes between new strategy actors from within or outside organizational boundaries. Employees are often presented as new intra-organizational actors to be included in strategy making (van der Steen, 2017; Whittington, 2019). Beyond organizational boundaries, new strategy actors include customers, suppliers, competitors and even the wider public (Aten & Thomas, 2016; Dobusch & Kapeller, 2018; Malhotra et al., 2017). Regarding their categorization in terms of knowledge and skills, new strategy actors are supposed to contribute technical expertise (Appleyard & Chesbrough, 2017), operational perspectives (Baptista et al., 2017) and industry-specific knowledge to strategy making (Seidl & Werle, 2018), or access to the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ (Dobusch & Kapeller, 2018; Malhotra et al., 2017).

Our review of open strategy research suggests that diversity in terms of new strategy actors’ heterogeneous backgrounds and knowledge is often considered in terms of their utility for various strategic outcomes. Similarly to the predominant understanding of inclusion, then, we find that the (implicit) understanding of diversity within the open strategy literature follows the utilitarian logic of the business case approach. While also considering a broader range of diversity markers, from gender, race and sexual orientation to age (Hellerstedt et al., 2024), diversity studies following the business case share with the open strategy literature a universal and objective understanding of diversity and the use of diversity categories as a proxy for measuring specific outcomes (cf. Page, 2007; van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016). In this way, open strategy’s adoption of the business case approach provides some insights into how increased diversity is linked to the improvement of different strategy outcomes (Gegenhuber & Dobusch, 2017; Stadler et al., 2021; von Krogh & Geilinger, 2019) and how new strategy actors should be selected based on their expected contribution (Seidl & Werle, 2018; Splitter et al., 2024).

The equity-based approach again provides an alternative to the utilitarian logic of the business case. Importantly, it suggests a way to theorize diversity towards increased representativity and equal opportunities in strategy making, which we discuss in the following section.

Theorizing Diversity in Open Strategy research: The Equity-Based Approach

Similarly to the criticism of the business case approach to inclusion, proponents of the equity-based approach argue that a focus on the expected benefits of increasing diversity prevents scholars from understanding why increased diversity does not necessarily translate into increased representativity. To respond to this concern, the equity-based approach focuses on the role of traditionally powerful actors in managing diversity (see e.g. Carrillo Arciniega, 2021; Kaufmann & Derry, 2023). It shows how these actors tend to identify, categorize, calculate and monitor differences in line with their own interests, thereby reproducing power relations and inequalities in organizations (Ahonen & Tienari, 2015).

The equity-based approach draws further attention to the effects of managing diversity, taking the standpoint of the ‘diverse’ who are to be included and managed. When diversity is controlled by traditionally powerful actors, it becomes a mirror in which ‘diverse’ actors need to see themselves based on the categories that are forced upon them. To be considered significant, ‘diverse’ actors need to comply with these imposed categories (Ahonen & Tienari, 2015) even if they feel misrepresented or not recognized (Johansson et al., 2023). If they fail to see their reflection, they are considered to lack something that the ‘norm’, i.e. the traditionally powerful actors, considers significant (Ahmed, 2012; Louvrier, 2013). In this way, the equity-based approach urges us to critically scrutinize any categorization to increase ‘true’ representativity of actors that is not based on their own senses of self or self-identities (see e.g. Essers & Benschop, 2007; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). The equity-based approach proposes nuanced contextual understandings of diversity in terms of self-identified understandings of the ‘diverse’. As such, it helps to further theorize what diversity means to whom and why in different societal and socio-cultural settings.

Applying these insights to open strategy research, we propose an alternative conceptualization. In line with the equity-based approach, diversity can be conceptualized as all strategy actors’ self-identified heterogeneity. This extends the open strategy research agenda towards more representativity in strategy making by focusing on (1) reproducing power relations through traditional strategy actors’ control over managing diversity, (2) new strategy actors’ need to comply with imposed diversity categories, and (3) developing an understanding of diversity based on all strategy actors’ self-identification. While some of these themes appear similar to those identified in an equity-based understanding of inclusion, they assume different qualities in relation to diversity. In the following, we elaborate on each theme and show how they connect to and extend existing open strategy research. We again propose novel theoretical perspectives for open strategy scholars that have proved useful for studying these themes in the diversity and inclusion literature.

Reproducing power relations through managing diversity

Open strategy studies show that traditional strategy actors manage diversity by setting up selection criteria to identify suitable new strategy actors in line with the intended benefits of increased diversity (Friesl et al., 2023; Splitter et al., 2021, 2024). Even when strategy processes are seemingly opened to an unrestricted crowd, without a tight selection process, the distinction between traditional and new strategy actors is typically maintained, leading to different rights and responsibilities for the respective actor groups (Dobusch et al., 2019; Langenmayr et al., 2024; Luedicke et al., 2017). While the open strategy literature has provided insights regarding how heterogeneous strategy actors can be categorized to serve intended strategy outcomes, we know little about the reproduction of power relations through traditional strategy actors’ control and management of diversity.

The equity-based approach would allow open strategy scholars to study how traditional strategy actors leverage the categorization and selection of new strategy actors according to pre-defined diversity criteria to fulfil their own interests and how this, in turn, contributes to the reproduction of power relations and the continued marginalization of the ‘diverse’. Scholars could critically explore through which means traditional strategy actors enact control and authority over managing diversity, and how the sustained distinction between traditional and new strategy actors tends to reproduce power relations in strategy making. Examining the reproduction of power relations in this way would allow open strategy scholars to critically question why traditional strategy actors’ dominance over defining diversity in open strategy prevents the enhancement of representativity and equal opportunities in strategy making.

Following the diversity and inclusion literature, we suggest building on the work of Michel Foucault to examine this theme (see e.g. Ahonen & Tienari, 2009, 2015; Ahonen et al., 2014; Brewis, 2019; Spaaij et al., 2020; Ye, 2021). While the relevance of Foucault’s work is not new to open strategy scholarship (Splitter et al., 2019), we argue that his seminal work Discipline and Punish (1979)[C&M: keep the book and the year together] is fruitful for examining how traditional strategy actors exert disciplinary power by managing diversity. We also suggest applying Foucault’s (1980) concept of the ‘power/knowledge’ nexus, which would allow open strategy scholars to focus on how the production of knowledge about diversity, including the definition of diversity categories, is connected to power relations in organizations and society. As such, knowledge (about diversity, for example) is not a reflection of an objective reality but constructed by those vested with power who get to define what is considered ‘truth’ in a specific place and time or context (for a detailed discussion of Foucault’s work and diversity research, see e.g. Ahonen & Tienari, 2015; Ahonen et al., 2014). In open strategy, Foucault’s theorizing of power/knowledge would be of importance to explore how traditional strategy actors’ power position grants them control over the definition of who and what is considered diverse in strategy making. This allows them to influence what is considered legitimate knowledge or contributions provided by new strategy actors, and thus who and what kind of knowledge is included and excluded in strategy making. In this way, power/knowledge helps us to understand how power relations are reproduced through defining diversity and what is considered strategic and legitimate (and what is not) in strategy making.

New strategy actors’ need to comply with imposed diversity categories

Open strategy studies have not explicitly dealt with new strategy actors’ perceived need to align to predefined diversity categories. It is mostly seen as unproblematic that new strategy actors are expected to comply with the categories forced on them (Splitter et al., 2024), irrespective of whether these categories are implicit or explicit (Friesl et al., 2023). In this sense, open strategy studies that analyse the involvement of new strategy actors over the course of strategy processes have found that they simply comply with these expectations (Langenmayr et al., 2024; Splitter et al., 2024). The equity-based approach would allow open strategy scholars to problematize that new strategy actors may not identify with the diversity categories imposed on them, thereby drawing attention to the discrepancies between imposed diversity categories and new strategy actors’ self-identified specificity and difference. Such discrepancies may result in new strategy actors feeling misrepresented. Open strategy scholars can thus seek to understand how managing diversity can lead to misrepresentation of newly included actors rather than increased representativity in strategy making.

To uncover discrepancies between the imposed categorization of ‘diverse’ actors and their lived experience, open strategy studies could draw on identity work theories as applied in diversity studies (see e.g. Essers & Benschop, 2007; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). While identity work as a concept has not been picked up by open strategy scholars, its relevance for strategy research more broadly has been discussed (e.g. Basque & Langley, 2018; Bojovic et al., 2020; Ravasi et al., 2020). The diversity and inclusion literature has engaged with identity work to show how ‘diverse’ actors experience the need to align their self-identities to the diversity categories constructed and imposed upon them by dominant actors (Essers & Benschop, 2007). It has offered a way to theorize the potentially conflicting identities that contribute to their lived experience. If diverse actors fail to align with the imposed identity, the resulting identity ‘gap’ may lead to frustration and emotional instability (Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). Focusing on how people seek to form a sense of coherence in their self-understandings (Snow & Anderson, 1987), identity work theory has helped diversity scholars to show how the alignment of self-identities with imposed categories regulates and disciplines the behaviour of ‘diverse’ actors in organizations. Drawing on identity work theory would thus allow open strategy scholars to consider how and why newly included actors may struggle to align their self-identities to the identities imposed on them by traditional strategy actors. This can help to understand how conflicting identities disrupt the lived experience of new strategy actors who are expected to engage in processes of aligning their self-understanding to imposed diversity categories in open strategy.

Developing an understanding of diversity based on self-identities

As described above, the open strategy literature (implicitly) understands diversity as a universal and homogeneous concept, which can be captured through objective categories. Diversity is assumed to increase when actors with a wider range of organizational backgrounds, knowledge, skills, and perspectives are included in strategy making (Whittington, 2019). However, according to the equity-based approach this view is simplistic and leads to unintended consequences, including the misrepresentation of strategy actors and the normalization of their behavior. Drawing on the equity-based approach, and by conceptualizing diversity based on the self-identified heterogeneity of all involved strategy actors, allows open strategy scholars to study how diversity is experienced differently among actors, as well as the consequences of their different experiences of strategy making. In particular, the equity-based approach suggests focusing on the language and ‘doing’ of diversity (see e.g. Ahmed, 2007, 2012; Ahmed & Swan, 2006). Such focus helps us to zoom in on how diversity language can be used as ‘window dressing’ and mask inequalities (Swan, 2010), or as language of seemingly increasing representativity that is meant to sustain the status quo rather than lead to change (Stierncreutz & Tienari, 2023).

To critically assess how diversity language is used, open strategy scholars could again draw on discourse analytical traditions (cf. Meriläinen et al., 2009; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007, 2018). Similarly to their use in the context of inclusion, a discursive lens would allow open strategy scholars to critique the language of diversity categorizations, and to draw on the equity-based understanding of diversity where all actors are considered and respected for who they are without predetermined expectations towards their contribution. Accordingly, open strategy scholars could explore representativity in strategy making, acknowledging that it is based on strategy actors’ self-identified heterogeneity. This does not imply that open strategy processes are harmonious. Rather, it provides new critical understandings of tensions and frictions when strategy making is opened to a more heterogeneous or ‘diverse’ group of actors.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our point of departure in this paper was the argument that the concepts of diversity and inclusion have been deployed in the open strategy literature without consideration of how they are theorized elsewhere. This has led to their somewhat uninformed and restricted application. We have sought to create awareness for alternative ways of theorizing these concepts by engaging with the literature on diversity and inclusion. We have argued that this is important because this literature shows how diversity and inclusion can be conceptualized in line with the business case or with what we call the equity-based approach. These approaches have different implications for open strategy research and potential theoretical contributions. Table 1 highlights the fundamental differences between the approaches in terms of research stance, assumptions, conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion, and the respective agendas in the field of open strategy.

Table 1.

Contrasting approaches to diversity and inclusion in open strategy research.

		Business case approach	Equity-based approach
	Research stance	• Utilitarian	• Egalitarian
Inclusion in open strategy research	Conceptual-ization	• Traditional strategy actors’ consultation of new strategy actors to improve strategy outcomes	• Contribution of all strategy actors to strategy making to increase equal opportunities
	Assumptions	• Inclusion can be managed• Meaning of inclusion is universal	• Inclusion can lead to reproducing established norms• Meaning of inclusion is context sensitive
	Research agenda	• Examining management of inclusion by traditional strategy actors (e.g. through defining the included and depth of inclusion)• Explaining improvement of strategy outcomes based on (managing) increased inclusion	• Exploring normalizing effects of traditional strategy actors’ control over inclusion• Understanding new strategy actors’ compliance with strategy norms and their lived experience of inclusion
Diversity in open strategy research	Conceptual-ization	• Traditional strategy actors’ definition of new strategy actors’ heterogeneity to improve strategy outcomes	• All strategy actors’ self-identified heterogeneity to increase representativity in strategy making
	Assumptions	• Diversity categories are objective, and diversity is measurable• Meaning of diversity is universal	• Diversity categories are determined by powerful actors• Meaning of diversity is dependent on actors and their self-identities
	Research agenda	• Examining selection of new strategy actors who are supposed to contribute to strategy outcomes• Explaining benefits of increased heterogeneity (diversity) for strategy outcomes	• Exploring reproduction of power relations through traditional strategy actors’ control over defining who is diverse (and why)• Understanding new strategy actors’ lived experience of (mis-)alignment to the imposed diversity categories

An awareness of different approaches allows open strategy scholars to become more reflective in their orientation towards diversity and inclusion and to make more informed choices in adopting a specific approach in their studies. As Table 1 shows, such choices determine which themes related to diversity and inclusion come into view and, perhaps even more importantly, which themes do not. For example, while the business case may allow open strategy scholars to examine the effects of increased diversity and inclusion for strategy outcomes, it lacks an understanding of the normalizing effects of traditional strategy actors and the lived experiences of new strategy actors. Making explicit choices between approaches is important for theory development so that related research can be identified, built upon and challenged. Different approaches within open strategy research could thus be developed in conversation with each other, with identified points of connection as well as disagreement.

Engaging with the diversity and inclusion literature, this paper offers two main insights for open strategy research. First, we extend open strategy theorizing by articulating a conceptual distinction between diversity and inclusion. Open strategy literature has dealt extensively with inclusion as a main dimension of openness, alongside transparency (Seidl et al., 2019; Whittington et al., 2011). Diversity, by contrast, has been referred to only implicitly in terms of the heterogeneity of organizational background, knowledge, skills and perspectives of newly included strategy actors. Drawing on the diversity and inclusion literature, we encourage open strategy scholars to engage with the concept of diversity, too. To this end, we have offered alternative conceptualizations that open strategy scholars can adopt based on their research stance and design. When applying the business case approach, open strategy scholars can draw on the diversity and inclusion literature to consider a wider range of markers of diversity for both new and traditional strategy actors, such as gender, race, sexual orientation and age. The multiple effects of diversity markers and their intersections on strategy making and its outcomes could thus be explored in new ways, developing new theoretical understandings of openness. In pursuing the equity-based approach, open strategy scholars could consider the self-identified heterogeneity of all strategy actors, allowing them to study themes that remain unaddressed by the business case approach.

The conceptual distinction between diversity and inclusion not only provides open strategy scholars with different ways to theorize diversity, but it also allows them to conceptualize diversity independently from inclusion. The latter point is important for questioning the implicit assumption that inclusion and diversity are necessarily and positively connected. While openness in strategy making is studied through different degrees of inclusion (Hautz et al., 2017; Seidl et al., 2019; Vaara et al., 2019), these may be independent of an increase or decrease of diversity in strategy making. Thus, distinguishing between diversity and inclusion helps to understand that organizations might not be able to increase diversity by merely including more actors in strategy making. For open strategy research, then, an engagement with the literature on diversity and inclusion implies that the differences between the (unintended) effects of openness on inclusion and the (unintended) effects of openness for increasing diversity are acknowledged and theorized independently.

Second, we have shown that open strategy research is mainly based on the utilitarian logic of the business case approach when addressing questions of diversity and inclusion. This has allowed scholars to explain how changing practices and processes of strategy making can contribute to a variety of outcomes (Hautz et al., 2019; Seidl et al., 2019). Drawing on the literature on diversity and inclusion, we have introduced the equity-based approach as an alternative way of theorizing diversity and inclusion in open strategy. An awareness of this approach can help scholars to avoid unknowingly reproducing power relations and social inequalities in their conceptualizations of inclusion and diversity. It thus allows us to question the problematic assumptions and consequences related to the dominant utilitarian view.

Due to the dominance of the business case, it is unlikely that open strategy research will be able to respond to societal demands for increased representativity and equal opportunities. Some recent open strategy studies have pondered whether and in what way open strategy can meet these societal demands (Vaara et al., 2019; Whittington & Yakis-Douglas, 2020). We extend this discussion by detailing how open strategy research can take an egalitarian stance in scrutinizing whether increased openness in strategy making leads to representativity and equal opportunities in strategy making. For example, adopting the equity-based approach reveals that open strategy might not just reproduce power relations (Dobusch et al., 2019; Langenmayr et al., 2024; Splitter et al., 2021) but that the reproduction of power relations implies (normalizing) effects that also contribute to the reproduction of social inequalities more broadly.

Adopting an equity-based approach to diversity and inclusion in open strategy not only helps us to develop new ways to theorize how and why strategy making is opened. It also offers a way to reflect on the societal consequences of why openness does (not) lead to more equal opportunities and representativity. A shift towards an egalitarian understanding of diversity and inclusion would thus imply adopting a wider societal perspective on open strategy, rather than a sole focus on organizations. Based on the equity-based approach, open strategy scholars could position themselves as critics of the status quo, or even as activists, to increase representativity and equal opportunities in society at large. The shift towards the equity-based approach is thus in line with calls for a ‘new strategy paradigm’ (Bansal et al., 2024) that focuses on broader societal and global issues and the associated contestation and struggles in devising possible solutions.

More research is needed to show whether such a re-orientation towards broader societal issues can be reconciled with the prevalent business case approach in (open) strategy research. A gradual shift towards new understandings of diversity and inclusion may be possible, for example, by retaining the business case as a part of a greater acknowledgement of an alternative, equity-based approach. Yet, at the same time, taking the societal-level consequences of open strategy seriously comes with a challenge to the hegemonic and default position of the business case for open strategy making (cf. Alvesson et al., 2008). Such as problematization, as we have offered here, may be challenging to strategy scholars but the reward may be more meaningful and relevant research that has the potential to contribute to a more ‘desirable future’ (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2024).

Footnotes

We would like to thank Editor Joep Cornelissen for his invaluable guidance and the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article. Financial support provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation [Grant 100013_207612] is gratefully acknowledged.

ORCID iD

Theresa Langenmayr

Supplemental material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Author biographies

Theresa Langenmayr is a postdoctoral researcher at the Chair of Organization and Management at the University of Zurich. Her research focuses on Open Strategy,DEI in strategy making,interorganizational strategizing,and sustainability.

Violetta Splitter is an Associate Professor in Strategy at Said Business School,University of Oxford. Her research focuses on Strategy as Practice and Open Strategy,mainly from a practice-theoretical and attention-based view.

Janne Tienari is Professor of Management and Organization at Hanken School of Economics,Finland. His research and teaching interests include strategy work,gender and diversity,feminist theory,people and AI,branding,media,and social media,and changing academia from a critical perspective.

Mikko Vesa is an Associate Professor of Management and Organization at Hanken School of Economics,Finland. With a critical and practice-informed eye,he works with technological and organizational change musing on topics such as gamification,artificial intelligence,strategy and the human amidst it all.

References

Adamson

Kelan

Lewis

Sliwa

Rumens

(2021). Introduction: Critically interrogating inclusion in organisations. Organization, 28, 211–227.

Adobor

(2020). Open strategy: Role of organizational democracy. Journal of Strategy and Management, 13, 310–331.

Adobor

(2021). Open strategy: What is the impact of national culture? Management Research Review, 44, 1277–1297.

Ahmed

(2007). The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30, 235–256.

Ahmed

(2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press.

Ahmed

Swan

(2006). Doing diversity. Policy Futures in Education, 4, 99–100.

Ahonen

Tienari

(2009). United in diversity? Disciplinary normalization in an EU project. Organization, 16, 655–679.

Ahonen

Tienari

(2015). Ethico-politics of diversity and its production. In Pullen

Rhodes

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to ethics, politics and organizations (pp. 271–287). Routledge.

Ahonen

Tienari

Meriläinen

Pullen

(2014). Hidden contexts and invisible power relations: A Foucauldian reading of diversity research. Human Relations, 67, 263–286.

10.

Alvesson

Hardy

Harley

(2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 480–501.

11.

Anzaldúa

(2009). The Gloria Anzaldúa reader. Duke University Press.

12.

Appleyard

M. M.

Chesbrough

H. W.

(2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50, 310–321.

13.

Aten

Thomas

G. F.

(2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication, 53, 148–180.

14.

Bansal

Durand

Kreutzer

Kunisch

McGahan

A. M.

(2024), Strategy can no longer ignore planetary boundaries: A call for tackling strategy’s ecological fallacy. Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13088

15.

Baptista

Wilson

A. D.

Galliers

R. D.

Bynghall

(2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50, 322–336.

16.

Basque

Langley

(2018). Invoking Alphonse: The founder figure as a historical resource for organizational identity work. Organization Studies, 39, 1685–1708.

17.

Belmondo

Sargis-Roussel

(2023). The political dynamics of opening participation in strategy: The role of strategy specialists’ legitimacy and disposition to openness. Organization Studies, 44, 613–635.

18.

Benjamin

(1990). An outline of intersubjectivity: The development of recognition. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 7(S), 33.

19.

Benschop

(2021). Grand challenges, feminist answers. Organization Theory, 2(3), 1–19.

20.

Bojovic

Sabatier

Coblence

(2020). Becoming through doing: How experimental spaces enable organizational identity work. Strategic Organization, 18, 20–49.

21.

Brewis

D. N.

(2019). Duality and fallibility in practices of the self: The ‘inclusive subject’ in diversity training. Organization Studies, 40, 93–114.

22.

Brielmaier

Friesl

(2023). Pulled in all directions: Open strategy participation as an attention contest. Strategic Organization, 21, 709–720.

23.

Butler

(2000). Longing for recognition: Commentary on the work or Jessica Benjamin. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 1, 271–290.

24.

Butler

(2015). Notes toward a performative theory of assembly. Harvard University Press.

25.

Butler

Athanasiou

(2013). Dispossession: The performative in the political. John Wiley & Sons.

26.

Cai

Canales

J. I.

(2022). Dual strategy process in open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 55, 102177.

27.

Carrillo Arciniega

. (2021). Selling diversity to white men: How disentangling economics from morality is a racial and gendered performance. Organization, 28, 228–246.

28.

Chesbrough

H. W.

Appleyard

M. M.

(2007). Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50, 57–76.

29.

Clegg

S. R.

van Rijmenam

M. H.

Schweitzer

(2019). The politics of openness. In Seidl

von Krogh

Whittington

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of open strategy. Cambridge University Press.

30.

Combs

G. M.

Milosevic

Bilimoria

(2019). Introduction to the special topic forum: Critical discourse: Envisioning the place and future of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26, 277–286.

31.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.

32.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(2011). Postscript. In Lutz

Herrera Vivar

M. T.

Supik

(Eds.), Framing intersectionality: Debates on a multi-faceted concept in gender studies (pp. 221–233). Ashgate.

33.

Dobusch

(2014). How exclusive are inclusive organisations?’ Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 33, 220–234.

34.

Dobusch

(2017). Gender, dis-/ability and diversity management: Unequal dynamics of inclusion? Gender, Work & Organization, 24, 487–505.

35.

Dobusch

(2019). The relation between openness and closure in open strategy: Programmatic and constitutive approaches to openness. In Seidl

von Krogh

Whittington

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 326–336). Cambridge University Press.

36.

Dobusch

Müller-Seitz

(2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40, 343–370.

37.

Dobusch

Holck

Muhr

S. L.

(2021). The im-/possibility of hybrid inclusion: Disrupting the ‘happy inclusion’ story with the case of the Greenlandic Police Force. Organization, 28, 311–333.

38.

Dobusch

Kapeller

(2018). Open strategy-making with crowds and communities: Comparing Wikimedia and Creative Commons. Long Range Planning, 51, 561–579.

39.

Doeleman

H. J.

van Dun

D. H.

Wilderom

C. P. M.

(2022). Leading open strategizing practices for effective strategy implementation. Journal of Strategy and Management, 15, 54–75.

40.

Essers

Benschop

(2007). Enterprising identities: Female entrepreneurs of Moroccan or Turkish origin in the Netherlands. Organization Studies, 28, 49–69.

41.

Fairclough

(1989). Language and power. Longman.

42.

Fairclough

(1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3, 193–217.

43.

Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(2014). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. Jossey-Bass.

44.

Foucault

(1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.

45.

Foucault

(1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 ( Gordon

Ed. C.

, Trans.). Pantheon Books.

46.

Friesl

Brielmaier

Dobusch

(2023). Taking individual choices seriously: A process perspective of self-selection in strategy work. Organization Theory, 4(2), 26317877231183986.

47.

Gast

Zanini

(2012). The social side of strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 82–93.

48.

Gegenhuber

Dobusch

(2017). Making an impression through openness: How open strategy-making practices change in the evolution of new ventures. Long Range Planning, 50, 337–354.

49.

Ghorashi

Sabelis

(2013). Juggling difference and sameness: Rethinking strategies for diversity in organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 78–86.

50.

Greedharry

Ahonen

Tienari

(2020). Colonialism as context in diversity research. In Nørholm Just

Risberg

Villesèche

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational diversity research methods (pp. 13–23). Routledge.

51.

Gümüsay

A. A.

Reinecke

(2024). Imagining desirable futures: A call for prospective theorizing with speculative rigour. Organization Theory, 5(1).

52.

Harding

Ford

Fotaki

(2013). Is the ‘F’-word still dirty? A past, present and future of/for feminist and gender studies in Organization. Organization, 20, 51–65.

53.

Hautz

Hutter

Sutter

Füller

(2019). Practices of inclusion in open strategy. In Seidl

von Krogh

Whittington

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 87–105). Cambridge University Press.

54.

Hautz

Seidl

Whittington

(2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50, 298–309.

55.

Hellerstedt

Umur

Wennberg

(2024). Fooled by diversity? When diversity initiatives exacerbate rather than mitigate bias and inequality. Academy of Management Perspectives, 38, 23–42.

56.

Heracleous

(2019). A dialogic perspective on open strategy. In Seidl

von Krogh

Whittington

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 259–271). Cambridge University Press.

57.

Hutter

Nketia

B. A.

Füller

(2017). Falling short with participation: Different effects of ideation, commenting, and evaluating behavior on open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 50, 355–370.

58.

Hvenegård-Lassen

Staunæs

Lund

(2020). Intersectionality, yes, but how? Approaches and conceptualizations in Nordic feminist research and activism. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 28, 173–182.

59.

Jammulamadaka

Faria

(2023). Decolonizing inclusion in performing academia: Trans-inclusion as phronetic border thinking/doing praxis. Gender, Work and Organization, 30, 431–456.

60.

Johansson

Tienari

Wickström

(2023). The power and burden of representing diversity in a performing arts organization: A recognition-based approach. Gender, Work & Organization, 30, 2014–2032.

61.

Kalonaityte

(2010). The case of vanishing borders: Theorizing diversity management as internal border control. Organization, 17, 31–52.

62.

Kaufmann

Derry

(2023). On valuing women: Advancing an intersectional theory of gender diversity in organizations. Academy of Management Review.

63.

Laine

P.-M

Meriläinen

Moisander

Tienari

(2023). Feminist perspectives on doing strategy as practice research. In Golsorkhi

Rouleau

Vaara

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 505–524). Cambridge University Press.

64.

Langenmayr

Seidl

Splitter

(2024). Interdiscursive struggles: Managing the co-existence of the conventional and open strategy discourse. Strategic Management Journal, 45(9), 1696–1730.

65.

Louvrier

(2013). Diversity, difference and diversity management: A contextual and interview study of managers and ethnic minority employees in Finland and France. Hanken School of Economics, Economics and Society 259.

66.

Luedicke

M. K.

Husemann

K. C.

Furnari

Ladstaetter

(2017). Radically open strategizing: How the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50, 371–384.

67.

Mack

D. Z.

Szulanski

(2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50, 385–396.

68.

Malhotra

Majchrzak

Niemiec

R. M.

(2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50, 397–410.

69.

Mensi-Klarbach

(2012). Diversity management: The business and moral cases. In Danowitz

M. A.

Hanappi-Egger

Mensi-Klarbach

(Eds.), Diversity in organizations: Concepts & practices (pp. 63–89). Palgrave Macmillan.

70.

Meriläinen

Tienari

Katila

Benschop

(2009). Diversity management versus gender equality: The Finnish case. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26, 230–243.

71.

Mount

Clegg

Pitsis

(2020). Conceptualizing the de-materializing characteristics of internal inclusion in crowdsourced open strategy. Long Range Planning, 53, 101986.

72.

Nkomo

S. M.

Bell

M. P.

Roberts

L. M.

Joshi

Thatcher

S. M.

(2019). Diversity at a critical juncture: New theories for a complex phenomenon. Academy of Management Review, 44, 498–517.

73.

Nkomo

S. M.

Hoobler

J. M.

(2014). A historical perspective on diversity ideologies in the United States: Reflections on human resource management research and practice. Human Resource Management Review, 24, 245–257.

74.

Ortlieb

Sieben

(2014). The making of inclusion as structuration: Empirical evidence of a multinational company. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 33, 235–248.

75.

Ostendorp

Steyaert

(2009). How different can differences be(come)? Interpretive repertoires of diversity concepts in Swiss-based organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 374–384.

76.

Oswick

Noon

(2014). Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: Trenchant formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management, 25, 23–39.

77.

Page

S. E.

(2007). Making the difference: Applying the logic of diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 6–20.

78.

Plotnikova

Pandza

Sales-Cavalcante

(2021). How strategy professionals develop and sustain an online strategy community: The lessons from Ericsson. Long Range Planning, 54, 102015.

79.

Prasad

Mills

A. J.

(1997). Showcase to shadow: Understanding the dilemmas of managing workplace diversity. In Prasad

Mills

A. J.

Elmes

Prasad

(Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity (pp. 3–27). Sage.

80.

Radomska

Szpulak

Wołczek

(2023). A multi-item scale for open strategy measurement. Decision, 50(1), 51–71.

81.

Ravasi

Tripsas

Langley

(2020). Exploring the strategy–identity nexus. Strategic Organization, 18(1), 5–19.

82.

Robinson

Dechant

(1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives, 11, 21–31.

83.

Said

E. W.

(1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.

84.

Seidl

von Krogh

Whittington

(2019). Defining open strategy: Dimensions, practices, impacts, and perspectives. In Seidl

von Krogh

Whittington

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 9–26). Cambridge University Press.

85.

Seidl

Werle

(2018). Inter-organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic meta-problems: Requisite variety and dynamics of participation. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 830–858.

86.

Shore

L. M.

Randel

A. E.

Chung

B. G.

Dean

M. A.

Holcombe Ehrhart

Singh

(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262–1289.

87.

Sippola

Smale

(2007). The global integration of diversity management: A longitudinal case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1895–1916.

88.

Snow

Anderson

(1987). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1336–1371.

89.

Spaaij

Knoppers

Jeanes

(2020). ‘We want more diversity but. . .’: Resisting diversity in recreational sports clubs. Sport Management Review, 23, 363–373.

90.

Splitter

Dobusch

von Krogh

Whittington

Walgenbach

(2023). Openness as organizing principle: Introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 44, 7–27.

91.

Splitter

Jarzabkowski

Seidl

(2021). Middle managers’ struggle over their subject position in open strategy processes. Journal of Management Studies, 60, 1884–1923.

92.

Splitter

Seidl

Whittington

(2024). Getting heard? How employees learn to gain senior management attention in inclusive strategy processes. Strategic Management Journal.

93.

Splitter

Seidl

Whittington

von Krogh

(2019). Practice-theoretical perspectives on open strategy: Implications of a strong programme. In Seidl

von Krogh

Whittington

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 221–240). Cambridge University Press.

94.

Stadler

Hautz

Matzler

von den Eichen

S. F.

(2021). Open strategy: Mastering disruption from outside the C-Suite. The MIT Press.

95.

Stjerne

Geraldi

Wenzel

(2022). Strategic practice drift: How open strategy infiltrates the strategy process. Journal of Management Studies, 61, 820–856.

96.

Stieger

Matzler

Chatterjee

Ladstaetter-Fussenegger

(2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54, 44–68.

97.

Stierncreutz

Tienari

(2023). Shaped by resistance: Discursive politics in gender equality work. Gender, Work & Organization, 30(4), 1178–1198.

98.

Swan

(2010). Commodity diversity: Smiling faces as a strategy of containment. Organization, 17, 77–100.

99.

Tavella

(2021). The discursive construction of participation: Assigning and justifying responsibility in management meetings. Strategic Organization, 19, 579–607.

100.

Trapp

N. L.

(2014). Stakeholder involvement in CSR strategy-making? Clues from sixteen Danish companies. Public Relations Review, 40, 42–49.

101.

Tyler

(2019). Reassembling difference? Rethinking inclusion through/as embodied ethics. Human Relations, 72, 48–68.

102.

Tyler

Vachhani

(2021). Chasing rainbows? A recognition-based critique of Primark’s precarious commitment to inclusion. Organization, 28, 247–265.

103.

Umeh

Cornelius

Wallace

(2023). Exploring equality, diversity, and inclusion in multiethnic settings: A context-sensitive approach. Human Resource Management Journal, 33, 148–169.

104.

Vaara

(2010). Critical discourse analysis as a methodology in strategy as practice research. In Golsorkhi

Rouleau

Vaara

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice. Cambridge University Press, 217–229.

105.

Vaara

Fritsch

(2022). Strategy as language and communication: Theoretical and methodological advances and avenues for the future in strategy process and practice research. Strategic Management Journal, 43, 1170–1181.

106.

Vaara

Rantakari

Holstein

(2019). Participation research and open strategy. In Seidl

von Krogh

Whittington

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 27–40). Cambridge University Press.

107.

Van der Steen

. (2017). Managing bottom up strategizing: Collective sensemaking of strategic issues in a Dutch bank. Long Range Planning, 50, 766–781.

108.

Van Dijk

van Engen

Paauwe

. (2012). Reframing the business case for diversity: A values and virtues perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 73–84.

109.

Van Knippenberg

Mell

J. N

. (2016). Past, present, and potential future of team diversity research: From compositional diversity to emergent diversity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 135–145.

110.

Von Krogh

Geilinger

. (2019). Open strategy and open innovation: Epistemic and design dimensions. In Seidl

von Krogh

Whittington

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of open strategy (pp. 41–58). Cambridge University Press.

111.

Whittington

(2019). Opening strategy: Professional strategists and practice change, 1960 to today. Oxford University Press.

112.

Whittington

Cailluet

Yakis-Douglas

(2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22, 531–544.

113.

Whittington

Yakis-Douglas

(2020). The grand challenge of corporate control: Opening strategy to the normative pressures of networked professionals. Organization Theory, 1, 1–19.

114.

(2021). Ordering diversity: Co-producing the pandemic and the migrant in Singapore during Covid-19. Antipode, 53, 1895–1920.

115.

Zanoni

Janssens

(2007). Minority employees engaging with (diversity) management: An analysis of control, agency, and micro-emancipation. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1371–1397.

116.

Zanoni

Janssens

(2018). Theorizing diversity and (in)equality through the lens of critical discourse analysis. In Booysen

L. A. E.

Bendl

Pringle

J. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in diversity management, equality and inclusion at work (p. 171). Edward Elgar Publishing.

117.

Zanoni

Janssens

Benschop

Nkomo

(2010). Editorial: Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17, 9–29.