Dealing with revered past: Historical identity statements and strategic change in Japanese family firms

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3065
• Author: Josip Kotlar,Innan Sasaki,Eero Vaara,Davide Ravasi
• Date: 01 March 2020
• Published date: 01 March 2020

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Dealing with revered past: Historical identity

statements and strategic change in Japanese family

firms

Innan Sasaki

1,2

| Josip Kotlar

3

| Davide Ravasi

4

| Eero Vaara

5,6

1

Lancaster University Management School,

Lancaster, UK

2

Warwick Business School, Coventry, UK

3

Politecnico di Milano School of

Management, Milan, Italy

4

UCL School of Management, University

College London, London, UK

5

Aalto University School of Business,

Helsinki, Finland

6

Lancaster University Management School,

Lancaster, UK

Correspondence

Davide Ravasi, UCL School of

Management, University College London,

One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London

E14 5AB, UK.

Email: d.ravasi@ucl.ac.uk

Funding information

Lancaster University

Abstract

Research Summary: This paper examines how strategy-

makers attempt to reconcile change initiatives with organi-

zational values and principles laid out long before, still

encased in strategic identity statements such as corporate

mottos and philosophies. It reveals three discursive strate-

gies that strategy-makers use to establish a sense of conti-

nuity in time of change: elaborating (transferring part of

the content of the historical statement into a new one),

recovering (forging a new statement based on the retrieval

and re-use of historical references), and decoupling (all-

owing the co-existence of the historical statement and a

contemporary one). By so doing, our study advances

research on uses of the past, establishes important linkages

between identity and strategy research, and enhances our

understanding of the intergenerational transfer of values in

family firms.

Managerial Summary: Crafting a new corporate philoso-

phy or mission statement can help implement strategic

change, but can also be experienced as a disruption in peo-

ple's sense of “who we are”as an organization. This paper

reveals a variety of strategies that managers can use to

deal with the tension between promoting change and

maintaining a sense of continuity with a distant, revered

past. By doing so, it helps managers confronting these

issues deal with the enabling and constraining effects of

the past. While this is a more general challenge for organi-

zations with historical legacies, it is a particularly delicate

Received: 30 September 2017 Revised: 23 May 2019 Accepted: 29 May 2019 Published on: 12 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/smj.3065

590 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat Mgmt J. 2020;41:590–623.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smj

issue for family firms grappling with the need to transfer

values from one generation to the next, while retaining

flexibility to change and adapt over time.

KEYWORDS

historical embeddedness, organizational identity, strategic change,

strategic identity statements, strategy practices

INTRODUCTION

Strategy scholars have only recently begun to examine the influence of history on strategy making

(Vaara & Lamberg, 2016; Whittington, Cailluet, & Yakis-Douglas, 2011). This new “historical turn”

is part of a broader revived interest in history in management and organization studies (Bucheli &

Wadhwani, 2014; Godfrey, Hassard, O'Connor, Rowlinson, & Ruef, 2016; Kipping & Üsdiken,

2014; Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). In particular, a growing line of inquiry on the use of

the past has drawn attention to how organizational history is periodically re-constructed in light of

present-day concerns and future plans (Foster, Coraiola, Suddaby, Kroezen, & Chandler, 2017).

Collectively, these studies have offered a view of the past as relatively malleable—a rhetorical

resource to be used by organizational leaders to further their strategic agendas (Kroeze & Keulen,

2013; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010). Recent work, however, suggests that the past may be less

pliable than assumed (Brunninge, 2009; Ravasi, Rindova, & Stigliani, in press; Ybema, 2014).

Long-lived firms, family-owned ones in particular, may be reluctant to abandon their traditions, and

rather seek opportunities to leverage a cherished past (De Massis, Frattini, Kotlar, Petruzzelli, &

Wright, 2016; Erdogan, Rondi, & De Massis, 2019). The infusion of historical events or artifacts

with particular significance may restrict the capacity of strategists to revise historical narratives or

depart from historical trajectories (Sasaki, Ravasi, & Micelotta, 2019; Schultz & Hernes, 2013). Yet,

we know little about how strategists deal with revered past, which cannot be easily ignored or

revisited to accommodate strategic change.

To elucidate this conundrum, we investigated a unique setting that reveals the challenges that

strategists encounter when contending with an illustrious distant past: how strategy-makers in long-

lived Japanese firms attempt to reconcile change initiatives with organizational values and guidelines

laid out by long gone predecessors but still revered in the present day. In Japan, these values and

guidelines are known as ka-kun, which can be loosely translated as “family mottos,”and include

principles, rules and instructions left by past leaders (including founders) to their successors. In many

Japanese firms, foundational ka-kun have remained relevant for decades, or even centuries, trans-

ferred though oral and/or written memory to the present day (Mito, 1991; Yoshida, 2010). Examples

of similar practices in Western companies include the Johnson & Johnson Credo (dating back to

1943), the McKnight's Principles at 3M (dating back to 1948), and the Golden Words at Carlsberg

(dating back to 1892; see Schultz & Hernes, n.d.).

Theoretically, ka-kun can be viewed as strategic identity statements—strategy documents espous-

ing the mission, values, or philosophy of the organization. It is not uncommon for organizational

leaders to craft formal statements about “who we are as an organization”that aim to convey what

they view as core and distinctive attributes of the organization (Whetten, 2006). Prior research has

shown that over time such statements tend to become emotionally-laden symbols of historical

SASAKI ET AL.591

commitments that, when used effectively, can create a shared sense of purpose (Carton, 2018) and

mobilize collective action (Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006).

Our study combined archival research with contemporary documents and interview data to inves-

tigate how 25 Japanese companies engaged with the revered and significant part of their history

embodied in their ka-kun, in the face of strategic change. In addition to cases of clear-cut remember-

ing or replacing, we identified three discursive strategies that can be used to establish a sense of con-

tinuity in times of change: elaborating (transferring part of the content of the historical statement

into a new one, and articulating its implications for the current context), recovering (forging a new

statement, different from the historical one, but based on the retrieval and re-use of historical refer-

ences), and decoupling (allowing the co-existence of the historical statement and a contemporary

one, serving complementary purposes). A comparative analysis revealed specific contextual condi-

tions that tended to be associated with the use of each strategy.

1|THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

1.1 |Uses of the past in strategy making

Historical analysis has been central to the early development of strategic management research

(Chandler, 1962, 1977), and longitudinal case studies by strategy scholars and other social scientists

have played a central role in strategy process studies (Burgelman, 1983; Pettigrew, 1985). History

and strategy, however, have subsequently remained essentially separate areas of inquiry (Kipping &

Üsdiken, 2014; Rowlinson et al., 2014). Only recently have scholars rediscovered an interest at

exploring intersections between the two (Kahl, Silverman, & Cusumano, 2012; Vaara & Lamberg,

2016; Whittington et al., 2011).

An interesting trajectory of this body of work focuses on how organizations “use”history as a

resource, and—most important for our purposes—how present-day managers use the past for strategy

making (Suddaby et al., 2010; Wadhwani, Suddaby, Mordhorst, & Popp, 2018). The antecedents of

this stream of research can be found in philosophical and historical analyses that have offered

insights into how accounts of the past are retrospective reconstructions (Ricoeur, 2000; White,

1987), or how our interpretations or narratives are not neutral but politically charged (Foucault,

1972, 1980). Business historians have in turn pointed out how specific narratives become dominant,

and discussed the implications thereof (Hansen, 2012; Mordhorst, 2014). This work has also led to a

sophisticated discussion about the role of alternative narratives (Boje, 1995) and the production of

counter-narratives (Mordhorst, 2008) to complement the hegemonic views of specific historical

processes.

Increasing interest in uses of the past has generated a rich body of work elaborating on the various

ways in which past events, knowledge or constructions are used for present-day purposes (Suddaby

et al., 2010; Wadhwani et al., 2018; Zundel, Holt, & Popp, 2016). Early studies advanced a rather

critical view of the use of the past in organizations, arguing that top managers tend to manipulate his-

tory to serve their particular interests, selectively representing history to legitimize current manage-

ment practices (Rowlinson and Hassard, 1993). Other studies suggest that rhetorical uses of past

corporate speeches, reports, press releases and corporate biographies are primarily driven by power

and legitimacy motivations (Kroeze & Keulen, 2013) and historical reconstructions in corporate

museums can be manipulated to shape internal and external perceptions of the organization

(Nissley & Casey, 2002).

592 SASAKI ET AL.