Managing history: How New Zealand's Gallagher Group used rhetorical narratives to reprioritize and modify imprinted strategic guideposts

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3037
• Date: 01 March 2020
• Author: James G. Combs,Jenny Gibb,Paresha N. Sinha,Peter Jaskiewicz
• Published date: 01 March 2020

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Managing history: How New Zealand's Gallagher

Group used rhetorical narratives to reprioritize

and modify imprinted strategic guideposts

Paresha N. Sinha

1

| Peter Jaskiewicz

2

| Jenny Gibb

1

|

James G. Combs

3,4

1

School of Management & Marketing,

Waikato Management School, University of

Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

2

University Research Chair in Enduring

Entrepreneurship, Telfer School of

Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada

3

Della Phillips Martha Schenck Chair of

American Private Enterprise, College of

Business, University of Central Florida,

Orlando, Florida

4

Telfer School of Management, University

of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence

Paresha N. Sinha, School of Management &

Marketing, Waikato Management School,

University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105,

Hamilton 3240, New Zealand

Email: paresha.sinha@waikato.ac.nz

Paresha N. Sinha and Peter Jaskiewicz

contributed equally to this study.

Abstract

Research Summary:Imprinting theory predicts that orga-

nizations are imprinted with multiple intersecting imprints

that persist. Evidence suggests, however, that imprints are

sometimes reprioritized or modified, implying that they

can be strategically managed. We draw upon rhetorical

history research and an in-depth historical case study of

New Zealand's Gallagher Group to describe how one firm

managed its imprints. Our inductive theorizing links

historically imprinted strategic guideposts to decision-

making via two rearranging processes—that is, prioritiz-

ing and suspending—wherein managers use narratives to

rearrange guideposts' influence and two scope modifying

processes—that is, constraining and expanding—wherein

managers change where guideposts apply. As a first expla-

nation of how imprints are managed, these processes add

nuance to existing theory and open new research avenues

regarding additional processes and boundary conditions.

Managerial Summary:Imprints are elements of culture,

strategy, structure, or decision-making that emerge when

the firm is founded or during times of turmoil. Imprints

resist change and make organizational adaptation difficult.

This study explains one way that managers manipulate

imprinted decision-making rules so that organizations

can adapt. Using an in-depth historical case study of

New Zealand's Gallagher Group from 1938 to 2015, we

Received: 30 September 2017 Revised: 4 January 2019 Accepted: 1 February 2019 Published on: 8 May 2019

DOI: 10.1002/smj.3037

Strat Mgmt J. 2020;41:557–589. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smj © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 557

follow four imprinted decision-making rules that we call

strategic guideposts and show how managers rhetorically

revised these rules to adapt organizational decision-

making to changing environments. Managers prioritized

some decision-making rules while deemphasizing others

or they changed their claims about the kinds of decisions

where a decision-rule applied. Knowing these rhetorical

processes can help managers leverage their organization's

history to facilitate necessary organizational change.

KEYWORDS

imprinting theory, qualitative study, rhetorical history, strategic

guideposts

The means for advancing a fruitful partnership between organizational and historical scholarship

have recently been described (e.g., Godfrey, Hassard, O'Connor, Rowlinson, & Ruef, 2016; Maclean,

Harvey, & Clegg, 2017; Suddaby & Foster, 2017; Vaara & Lamberg, 2016). Imprinting theory is

important to these efforts because it “takes history seriously”(Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013, p. 194). Mar-

quis and Tilcsik (2013), p. 201) define imprinting “as a process whereby, during a brief period of

susceptibility, a focal entity develops characteristics that reflect prominent features of the environ-

ment, and these characteristics continue to persist despite significant environmental changes in subse-

quent periods.”The theory explains how characteristics such as strategy (e.g., Boeker, 1989),

structure (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977), culture (e.g., Ogbonna & Harris, 2001), and decision-making

rules (Pieper, Smith, Kudlats, & Astrachan, 2015) are embedded in organizations during sensitive

periods and persist despite subsequent environmental change. Imprinting theory thus offers a source

of much-needed “theoretical fluency”to advance the emerging field of historical organizational stud-

ies (Maclean, Harvey, & Clegg, 2016, p. 618).

Most imprinting research, however, adopts theoretical mechanisms such as inertia (Hannan & Freeman,

1989), instituti onal izat ion (D iMag gio & Po well , 1983), and path dependence (Schreyögg & Sydow,

2011) that de-emphasize managers, which is a challenge for strategic management researchers'

assertion that “managers matter”(e.g., Adner & Helfat, 2003; Elenkov, Judge, & Wright, 2005).

Imprinting scholars acknowledge an important role for founders in setting up the original array of

imprints (e.g., Boeker, 1989; Johnson, 2007). During subsequent periods of sensitivity

(e.g., Cooper, Rose, Greenwood, & Hinings, 2000; Narayanan, Colwell, and Douglas, 2009) new

layers of coexisting imprints are added, but “as the traces of old layers are not swept away when

new layers form…those layers that are deposited during sensitive periods are especially resistant

to erosion”(Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013, p. 224), leaving managers largely impotent with respect to

existing imprints.

More recently, however, a series of imprinting studies indicate that managers can prioritize

imprints (e.g., Erçek & Günçavdı, 2016; Sullivan, Tang, & Marquis, 2014) or modify them to serve

new purposes (e.g., Ferriani, Garnsey, & Lorenzoni, 2012; Kriauciunas & Kale, 2006; Marquis &

Huang, 2010), offering “a moderate view that organizations are both inertial and adaptive”

(Bamford, Dean, & McDougall, 2000, p. 261). By reporting cases where managers matter with

558 SINHA ET AL.

respect to managing imprints, these studies offer a promising departure from the view that imprinting

is an “ecological force devoid of agency”(Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013, p. 222). However, showing that

imprints are managed raises questions about how. What processes do organizational leaders use to

strategically manage imprints as environmental conditions and strategic goals change? This yet-

unaddressed question is important because articulating the “how”of human agency should spur new

theorizing that fully embraces the interplay between ecological and human forces with respect to

imprints.

One way founders and subsequent generations of managers produce and imbed imprints is

through narratives (e.g., Harris & Ogbonna, 1999; Jaskiewicz, Combs, & Rau, 2015). Thus, we draw

on rhetorical history research to inform how managers strategically use narratives to manage

imprints. Rhetorical history is a conceptual framework that describes the “strategic use of the past as

a persuasive strategy to manage key stakeholders”(Suddaby, Foster, & Quinn-Trank, 2010, p. 157).

According to the framework, historical narratives are subjective and malleable interpretations of his-

tory that can be purposefully reinvented to match present organizational needs. Many studies draw

directly or indirectly on rhetorical history to describe how organizations construct and even invent

historical narratives to enhance organizational legitimacy (e.g., Suddaby et al., 2010), foster or

impede strategic change (e.g., Ybema, 2014), and shape organizational identity (e.g., Anteby & Mol-

nar, 2012). Although the rhetorical history framework implies that organizations develop versions of

history that best suit current needs, the framework has not yet been applied to develop theory regard-

ing the role of human agency in managing imprints.

As a first step toward explaining how managers use rhetorical history to manage imprints, we

engage in inductive theory building based on an in-depth historical case study of New Zealand's

80-year old Gallagher Group. Our theorizing introduces the concept of strategic guideposts as histor-

ically grounded decision-making imprints that are managed via rhetorical history processes. We also

identify specific rhetorical history processes that Gallagher's managers used to shape strategic guide-

posts: (a) two rearranging processes—that is, prioritizing and suspending—wherein managers use

narratives to rearrange guideposts' relative influence, and (b) two scope modifying processes—that

is, constraining and expanding—wherein managers use narratives to adjust where guideposts apply.

Understanding how organizations adapt to environmental change is a central theme of strategic

management research (Venkatraman, 1989), and our contributions—that is, introducing the strategic

guidepost concept and an initial set of rhetorical processes for managing them—describe previously

unknown ways managers leverage rhetorical history to adapt organizational imprints to changing

environments. Strategic guideposts are important because they are neither the immovable imprints

described in prior imprinting research (for a review, see Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013) nor the invented

histories described by rhetorical history research (Suddaby et al., 2010). As imprints that are mallea-

ble to managerial effort but still grounded in past events, guideposts fit between these extremes. The

new rhetorical processes we describe are important because they add nuance to rhetorical history and

imprinting research. Rearranging processes imply that imprints can be temporarily suspended, which

adds nuance to the concepts of strategic forgetting from rhetorical history (e.g., Anteby & Molnar,

2012) and decay from imprinting research (e.g., Beckman, Burton, & O'Reilly, 2007; Kriauciunas &

Kale, 2006). Scope modifying processes imply that imprints can be changed, which moves beyond

the ecological processes of amplification and decay described in prior imprinting research (for a

review, see Simsek, Fox, & Heavey, 2015). These new processes also help explain how managers

reconcile coexisting imprints that conflict, and they open new avenues of inquiry to capture the full

range of available processes, the boundary conditions around what kinds of imprints can be managed

and under what conditions, and the cognitive processes through which managers become aware of

SINHA ET AL.559