Relating microprocesses to macro‐outcomes in qualitative strategy process and practice research

• Date: 01 March 2018
• Published date: 01 March 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2726

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Relating microprocesses to macro-outcomes in

qualitative strategy process and practice research

Saouré Kouamé

1

| Ann Langley

2

1

Telfer School of Management, University of

Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

2

Department of Management, HEC Montréal,

Montréal, Québec, Canada

Correspondence

Ann Langley, Department of Management, HEC

Montréal, 3000, Côte-Ste.-Catherine Rd.,

Montréal, QC H3T 2A7, Canada.

Email: ann.langley@hec.ca

Research Summary: A common challenge among quali-

tative Strategy Process and Strategy-as-Practice scholars

concerns the need to link micro-level processes and prac-

tices to organizational-level outcomes in order to make

their research more managerially relevant. In this method-

ological article, we explore and evaluate different ways

of addressing this challenge. We draw on a corpus of

qualitative process and practice studies to develop and

illustrate three micro–macro linking strategies associated

with these perspectives: correlation, progression, and

instantiation. The strengths and weaknesses of the differ-

ent linking strategies are discussed, and opportunities for

complementarity, combination, and development are pro-

posed. The article reveals the distinctive but complemen-

tary contributions of Strategy Process and Strategy-as-

Practice strands of scholarship to understanding how

microprocesses affect macro-outcomes.

Managerial Summary: Managers engage in a variety of

strategic management processes and practices in order to

develop and implement better strategies, achieve commit-

ment to them from organization members, and ultimately

improve organizational outcomes such as financial perfor-

mance and competitive advantage. Qualitative research

on these processes and practices is valuable because it

can capture the detail and richness of strategic manage-

ment as it is practiced in real organizations over time.

Yet, it may not always be easy to see how this kind of

research can derive useful knowledge about how these

processes and practices actually affect outcomes. This

article addresses this issue, identifying three methodologi-

cal approaches (correlation; progression; instantiation)

that can help scholars and managers understand these

linkages, outlining their strengths and limitations.

Received: 31 August 2015 Revised: 2 March 2017 Accepted: 7 March 2017 Published on: 26 December 2017

DOI: 10.1002/smj.2726

Strat Mgmt J. 2018;39:559–581. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smj Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 559

KEYWORDS

microprocesses, organizational outcomes, qualitative

research, Strategy Process, Strategy-as-Practice

1|INTRODUCTION

Despite some distinctions, Strategy Process and Strategy-as-Practice scholars share a concern with a

broadly similar empirical phenomenon: the “how”of strategy, whether expressed in terms of “for-

mulation”and “implementation”as in the classic process school (Bourgeois, 1980; Chakravarthy &

Doz, 1992; Van de Ven, 1992) or in terms of “activities”and “practices,”as proposed by practice

scholars (Johnson, Melin, & Whittington, 2003; Whittington, 2007).

Moreover, many Strategy Process and Practice scholars also share a belief in the value of qualitative

field research methods to capture processes and practices. For example, Chakravarthy and Doz (1992,

p. 6) commented that key questions about Strategy Process “cannot be satisfactorily answered at arm's

length from the firm. The proverbial 'black box,' the firm, has to be opened and studied from within.”

Many seminal contributors to the Strategy Process literature (e.g., Burgelman, 2011; Eisenhardt, 1989a;

Mintzberg, 1979; Pettigrew, 1990; Van de Ven, 1992) have adopted qualitative methods themselves

and have also offered methodological insight into their use and potential. Similarly, several proponents

of a Strategy-as-Practice perspective have also written about qualitative methods and favored them in

their own research (Balogun, Huff, & Johnson, 2003; Jarzabkowski, Bednarek, & Lê, 2014; Johnson,

Langley, Melin, & Whittington, 2007). The taste for and prevalence of qualitative research in this field

is not justified only on the basis that theorizing is in its “early stages.”Rather, the phenomena studied

(complex strategic management processes and practices at multiple levels spread out over time) appear

to be particularly suitable in themselves for in-depth longitudinal or intense qualitative inquiry

(Chakravarthy & Doz, 1992; Graebner, Martin, & Roundy, 2012; Langley, 1999).

At the same time, there has been concern in some of the literature that Strategy Process and Practice

research will remain only marginally valuable for scholars and practitioners if it cannot offer stronger

insight into how lower-level processes and practices engaged in by individuals and groups connect to

broader organizational-level processes and outcomes including strategy, organizational capabilities, and

performance (Johnson et al., 2007; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001; Szulanski, Porac, & Doz,

2005). Making these connections might appear all the more challenging for qualitative studies since

small samples and idiosyncratic contexts can signal fragile claims and limited statistical generalizability

(Szulanski et al., 2005), even though alternative criteria may be more appropriate in evaluating such

studies (Tsoukas, 2009). Overall, the need to reach beyond description to link micro-level processes

and practices with more macro-level outcomes is a common concern and a recognized challenge. For

example, from a process perspective, Pettigrew et al. (2001) deplored the relative timidity of many pro-

cess researchers in relating change processes to performance outcomes. And in a personal conclusion to

a collective book on Strategy-as-Practice, Johnson wrote:

Like others interested in Strategy-as-Practice I believe that, if we are to understand the

doing of strategy, we have to be prepared to engage with levels of analysis that take us

into the micro aspects of strategizing (…) Pragmatically, however, we have to ask if

560 KOUAMÉ AND LANGLEY