The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Strategy and PowerPoint: An Inquiry into the Epistemic Culture and Machinery of Strategy Making
Open accessAbstract
PowerPoint has come to dominate organizational life in general and strategy making in particular. The technology is lauded by its proponents as a powerful tool for communication and excoriated by its critics as dangerously simplifying. This study takes a deeper look into how PowerPoint is mobilized in strategy making through an ethnographic study inside one organization. It treats PowerPoint as a technology embedded in the discursive practices of strategic knowledge production and suggests that these practices make up the epistemic or knowledge culture of the organization. Conceptualizing culture as composed of practices foregrounds the “machineries” of knowing. Results from a genre analysis of PowerPoint use suggest that it should not be characterized simply as effective or ineffective, as current PowerPoint controversies do. Instead, I show how the affordances of PowerPoint enabled the difficult task of collaborating to negotiate meaning in an uncertain environment, creating spaces for discussion, making recombinations possible, allowing for adjustments as ideas evolved, and providing access to a wide range of actors. These affordances also facilitated cartographic efforts to draw boundaries around the scope of a strategy by certifying certain ideas and allowing document owners to include or exclude certain slides or participants. These discursive practices—collaboration and cartography—are part of the “epistemic machinery” of strategy culture. This analysis demonstrates that strategy making is not only about analysis of industry structure, competitive positioning, or resources, as assumed in content-based strategy research, but it is also about how the production and use of PowerPoint documents that shape these ideas.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840607081138 · Cited by 3,248
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20786060 · Cited by 1,973
Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2007) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v12i4.1772 · Cited by 1,647 · cited 6×
“Instead, it is worth examining how people act with technology, where the relationship between people and artifacts is one of mediation (Kaptelinin and Nardi 2006; Orlikowski 2007).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
Humans and Technology: Forms of Conjoined Agency in Organizations
Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0186 · Cited by 518
Anthony, C. (2021) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392211016755 · Cited by 191
Anthony, C. (2018) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2016.0334 · Cited by 84
Barley, W. C. (2015) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2015.1012 · Cited by 74
Moving off the Map: How Knowledge of Organizational Operations Empowers and Alienates
Huising, R. (2019) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2018.1277 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaplan, S.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 320-346
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W3125221005
- Cited by
- 474
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 34.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.