Bridging practice and process research to study transient manifestations of strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Summary : At the intersection of Strategy Process (SP) and Strategy‐as‐Practice (SAP) research lies the focal phenomenon they share—strategy, which manifests itself in a variety of ways: intended, realized, deliberate, emergent, unrealized, and ephemeral strategy. We present a methodology comprised of three stages that, when integrated in the manner we suggest, permit a rich operationalization and tracking of strategy content for all manifestations. We illustrate the utility of our methodology for bridging SP and SAP research by theorizing practices that are more likely to give rise to unrealized and ephemeral strategy, identifying their likely consequences, and presenting a research agenda for studying these transient manifestations. Managerial Summary : Managers know well that, sometimes for good reasons and other times with negative consequences for organizations, not all aspects of strategic plans are implemented with fidelity, resulting in unrealized strategy; and not all bottom‐up projects receive the middle‐management support they need to become realized, resulting in ephemeral strategy making. Surprisingly, however, these transient manifestations of strategy receive little attention in the scholarly literature. Our paper addresses this gap by presenting a methodology for tracking all six manifestations of strategy (intended, realized, deliberate, emergent, unrealized, and ephemeral strategy), highlighting the interdependent relations among them. It also describes strategy making practices that are likely to give rise to the two transient manifestations, i.e., unrealized and ephemeral strategy, as well as their consequences for subsequent strategy making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".