The Ritualization of Strategy WorkshopsGerry Johnson, Shameen Prashantham, Steven W. Floydand Nicole Bourque

Abstract

Despite the widespread use of strategy workshops in organizations, few empirical studiesexamine this phenomenon. The limited research that exists also lacks a theoretical basisfor explaining why some workshops achieve their espoused purpose while others do not.We offer a theoretical model of strategy workshop dynamics and outcomes by drawingon theories of ritual and ritualization. Our central argument is that variations in charac-teristics of ritualization such as the degree of removal, the use of liturgy and the role ofspecialists influence behavioural dynamics within workshops and thereby the extent towhich their purpose is achieved. This perspective extends research on the episodic natureof strategy development and contributes to a theoretically informed view of strategy practices.

Keywords: strategy workshops, strategy episodes, ritualization, strategy practices

Introduction

‘I really do think once these processes start, you get on and it’s very difficultto get off.’ (Strategy workshop participant)

Strategy workshops (or ‘away days’) are episodes, often within a wider strategyprocess, where executives set aside typically one or two days, frequently off-site,to consider strategic issues. In so doing, they may employ strategy concepts,analytical tools and specialist facilitators (e.g. Mezias et al. 2001; Frisch andChandler 2006) to review and develop strategy or plan its implementation.Though employed widely by organizations (Hodgkinson et al. 2006), they havereceived little research attention. We have identified only four papers based onempirical research on strategy workshops. Bowman (1995) draws on, but doesnot make explicit, theories of cognitive psychology to explain problems of trans-lating discussions in strategy workshops into organizational action. Bürgi et al.(2005) build on three theoretical perspectives, physiology, learning and socialconstruction, to show the benefits of a ‘hands on’ approach to strategizing inworkshops. Hodgkinson and Wright (2002) offer conflict theory (Janis andMann 1977) as an explanation of defensive routines employed by participants ina failed scenario-planning workshop, and MacIntosh et al. (forthcoming) trackedseveral series of workshops to explain the extent to which their outcomes translatesuccessfully to organizational action. While these provide useful insights, there

article title

OrganizationStudies31(12): 1589–1618ISSN 0170–8406Copyright © TheAuthor(s), 2010.Reprints andpermissions:http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav

Gerry JohnsonUniversity ofLancasterManagement School,UK

ShameenPrashanthamUniversity ofGlasgow, UK

Steven W. FloydUniversity ofVirginia, USA

Nicole BourqueUniversity ofGlasgow, UK

www.egosnet.org/os DOI: 10.1177/0170840610376146

remains no theoretical framework by which to explain the consequences of thestructural elements of such workshops. It is this challenge we seek to address.

Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2008) show how the structure of meetings influencesstrategy debate and the strategy agenda. Consistent with Hendry and Seidl’s(2003) conceptualization of episodes, they argue that strategy episodes arebounded temporally — they have a beginning and an end — involve somedegree of removal from everyday organizational processes and can be charac-terized by a structure that influences conduct. These characteristics are also dis-tinguishing properties of rituals (Van Gennep 1960 [1909]) and ritualization(Bell 1992). Prior work has not, however, considered how the ritualized natureof strategy episodes influences behaviour within, or the outcomes of thoseepisodes. This paper is therefore motivated both by the need for more researchon strategizing episodes in general and the need for theory to help advance ourunderstanding of strategy practice (Johnson et al. 2003, 2007; Jarzabkowskiet al. 2007) in such contexts.

Our argument begins with the premise that all strategy episodes are more orless ritualized. The purpose and contribution of the paper is then twofold. First,we show the relevance of theories of ritual and ritualization in explaining strat-egy workshops: in particular, how variations in characteristics of ritualizationaffect the dynamics of such episodes. Second, we offer an explanation of howthe practices associated with ritualized strategy workshops influence whether ornot such workshops achieve their intended purpose. This extends research onstrategy practices by providing further insight into the structure of strategyepisodes (Hendry and Seidl 2003; Jarzabkowski and Seidl 2008) and offeringanother explanation for why such episodes sometimes fail (Hodgkinson andWright 2002; Whittington 2006). Using the ritual lens to understand strategyworkshops also contributes to the broader strategy process literature, in particu-lar by providing a new way to account for the inconsistencies in the empiricalliterature about the effects of strategic planning (Miller and Cardinal 1994;Ketokivi and Castaner 2004).

The paper is structured as follows. First, we provide a short overview of theo-ries of ritual and ritualization. We then explain the methodology employed in thestudy and describe four research sites and seven case studies of workshops thatform the empirical basis of the study. Drawing on the case data, we explain howthe characteristics of ritualization apply to workshops. Then, based on an analy-sis of variations in the ritual structure of workshops, we develop propositions out-lining how the antecedents of ritual influence the behaviour of participants duringthe workshop and how this may lead to outcomes related to strategy. We close byhighlighting how we see this analysis contributing to previous research on strategyepisodes and to the wider literature on strategic planning.

Ritual Theory and Strategy Workshops

The Relevance of Ritual Theory

Several scholars have suggested that strategy is ritualized. Strategic planninghas been described as a ‘calendar-driven ritual’ (Hamel 1996: 70) and ‘ritualistic’

1590 Organization Studies 31(12)

(Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Mintzberg 1994; Mintzberg and Lampel 1999).Researchers have not, however, used ritual theory systematically to explainstrategy processes and practices. Instead, for most, ‘ritual’ implies a lack of sig-nificance: being ritualized is equated with having little impact or influence. Wecontend, however, that research in anthropology and micro-sociology shows thatrituals are important in social structuring and in explaining behavioural dynam-ics. As such, they are relevant to and valuable in understanding strategy episodessuch as strategy workshops.

There are parallels between strategy workshops, the purpose of which is toemphasize and focus on strategic issues by temporarily removing a select groupfrom their everyday work routines, and ritual as ‘a performance, planned orimprovised, that effects a transition from everyday life to an alternative contextwithin which the everyday is transformed’ (Alexander 1997:139). Indeed, manyeveryday organizational activities such as meetings have ‘ritual significance’and ‘ritualistic qualities’ (Schwartzman 1986: 250–251) in that they ‘do honourto that which is socially valued’ (Collins 2004: 25). Since what is socially val-ued is context-specific, however, the form and nature of rituals differ. Some aremore formal and planned while others are more common and improvisational.To put it another way, the extent of ritualization differs. We will show that strat-egy workshops are more or less ritualized episodes of organizational life, corre-sponding to what Bell (1992) refers to as episodes of ‘privileged differentiation’,and that this ritualization has important consequences for those involved.

Ritual and Ritualization

Some anthropologists argue for less attention to be paid to ritual as a distinctivetype of event in favour of a concern with ritualization: how some social processesare differentiated and privileged over others (Bell 1992: ix). The extent of suchritualization can be explained in terms of some key characteristics; in particular,removal, the use of liturgy and the involvement of ritual specialists.Removal from the everyday may be in terms of geographic distance, symbolic

change, activity differentiation, cognitive contextualization and social informal-ity (Bowie 2000: 163). It is usually accompanied by restricted access among des-ignated participants, which heightens the symbolic significance of the episode’spurpose. Removal may be accompanied by the symbolic homogenization ofsocial status that Goffman (1961) refers to as ‘levelling and stripping’. Liturgy isthe prescribed form of a ritual (Bowker 2003) that leads participants to think andact in ways that are distinct from the everyday (Bell 1992; Humphrey andLaidlaw 1994; Keane 1997). This may be formalized, as in the liturgy of a churchservice, or customary as in informal social engagements that nonetheless pre-scribe behaviour. The involvement of ritual specialists is especially salient interms of their engagement with a liturgy and/or their role in legitimizing it.

Together, removal, liturgy and the role of specialists contribute to the extentof ‘privileging’ (Bell 1992). This relates to Durkheim’s (1954 [1912]) concept ofthe sacredness of ritual in two respects. First, participation in a strategy work-shop is based on the principle of restricted access to a place or space deemed tobe different — and removed — from the more quotidian interactions of organi-zational life. Second, the person leading or facilitating a workshop may be

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1591

deemed to have special understanding of the language and artefacts of strategythat make up the liturgy. In the language of anthropology, then, to the extent thatthere is restricted access to an event with distinct and special meaning, strategyworkshops may be akin to what Durkheim (1954 [1912]) means by ‘sacred’ andBell (1992) means by ‘privileged’. Workshops differ, however, in the extent towhich they are privileged. There may be workshops with low levels of removal,liturgy and specialist involvement, where day-to-day concerns and organiza-tional roles and structure persist. In Bell’s terms, these are less ‘privileged’ or, inan organizational context, such workshops are more ‘grounded’.

The effects of removal and liturgy give rise to a state of liminality, where par-ticipants are distanced from their everyday experiences to engage with moreprivileged activities, knowing they will return to their everyday world. As such,they: ‘pass through a period and area of ambiguity, a sort of social limbo’(Turner 1982: 24) which, of itself, provides a context in which behaviours arelikely to differ from the everyday. Turner emphasizes two behavioural patternsthat are seen in the liminal state: communitas and anti-structure.

Communitas is the group relatedness (Bowie 2000:16) sometimes associatedwith descriptors such as ‘openness’, ‘potentiality’ and ‘cathartic experience’ (Bell1992: 172). Collins (2004) refers to this as ‘emotional energy’, by which he meansa feeling of confidence, elation, enthusiasm and initiative in taking action. In thecontext of a strategy workshop, communitas is the communal commitment of theparticipants to its purpose, not just intellectually, but emotionally. However, com-munitas may be a temporary state restricted to the ritual itself (Bell 1992).

Anti-structure within the liminal state refers to a temporary suspension of par-ticipants’ normal social status. Within a state of anti-structure, some structuresdo exist, such as the difference between a ritual specialist and people undergo-ing an initiation ritual. However, structural differences between the initiatesthemselves are dissolved so that there is a levelling effect. In the context of astrategy workshop, we see anti-structure operating when participants feelenabled to participate without the constraints of normal organizational structureand hierarchy. In some instances, this may go beyond levelling to a situationwhere roles are reversed. Anti-structure, linked to communitas, can then signif-icantly reduce normative organizational constraints, producing behavioural,cognitive and emotional differences.

The influence of these antecedents and effects of liminality on social out-comes varies. For example, there are rituals where the purpose is to challenge orchange the order of things, as with rites of passage (Van Gennep 1960 [1909]).Here the liturgy associated with the liminal state quite specifically relates tochange. There are, however, also rituals that emphasize tradition or continuity.Here the emphasis is more likely to be on formalization that ‘produces a form ofauthority, “tradition authority”, rooted in the appeal to the past’ (Bell 1992: 120).These outcomes are consistent with the purposes of many strategy workshops,including those intended to review and implement an existing strategy and thosewhere the purpose is to challenge and/or question the strategic status quo.

In sum, strategy workshops have been the focus of limited prior research andlittle theorizing. Practices within strategy workshops remain largely unspecified.We argue that theories of ritual and ritualization offer a means for developing

1592 Organization Studies 31(12)

such explanation. Given this, we use the ritual lens to facilitate the inductivedevelopment of a practice theory of strategy episodes. The next section describesthe data collection and analysis methods employed.

Methodology

Case Selection

All the workshops we studied were sponsored by the chief executives of theorganizations and concerned with strategic issues. In terms of ritualization, theyall had two characteristics in common: they were held within delineated timeand space and they involved a select group of individuals. However, there werealso variations in characteristics of ritualization across the workshops in termsof a) the extent and nature of removal from the everyday; b) the extent of useand the nature of formal liturgy or prescribed way of doing things (including theuse of strategy tools and concepts); and c) the extent and use of specialists suchas workshop facilitators and/or strategy experts. Such variations permitted us toexamine the influence of these antecedents on the behavioural dynamics withinthe workshop episode.

Table 1 provides a summary of workshop participants, duration and venues,together with our data sources, explained in the next section below. The case-firms represent a range of industries and sizes. We interviewed the participantsin two workshops of a mid-sized hotel group (‘Hotelco’), where the purpose wasto reconsider the management structure of the firm. We observed a series ofthree strategy workshops in a defence services business (‘Defenceco’) over ninemonths, as managers considered its strategic direction in a context of industryrestructuring. We also observed a workshop in an oil services business (‘Oilco’),the purpose of which was to review ongoing strategies and in a non-govern-mental organization (‘Charity’) that was intended to change the strategy.

Data Collection

Data were gathered initially from retrospective group interviews of workshopparticipants from one organization (Hotelco) and then from direct observations ofworkshops in the three other organizations. This two-stage process helped usdevelop our understanding of the relevance of ritual theory to the study. Althoughwe understood the basic characteristics of ritualization, we did not know howthese would manifest in workshop settings or how they would affect behaviours.In order to take maximum advantage of the rare opportunities to observe strategyworkshops, therefore, we used the analysis of the group interview data to refineour conceptual lens: we were then able to confirm, disconfirm and furtherdevelop our understanding on the basis of the observation of actual workshops.

Data for the two Hotelco workshops were collected in the form of 60–90 minutetape-recorded group interviews in which participants explained the circumstancesleading up to the workshops and what happened within them. The interviewquestions were not structured around ritual theory because we wished to avoid

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1593

leading interviewees to providing data ordered in terms of these constructs.Instead, we used simple, open-ended questions to prompt participant descriptions,such as ‘What was the purpose of the workshop?’ and ‘What happened in theworkshop?’with follow-up questions when necessary. Interviews were conductedby members of the research team with the group of participants taking part in eachworkshop, corresponding to focus group interviews (Morgan 1997). The researchteam separately interviewed the consultant who facilitated both workshops.

The workshops we observed were typically full-day events and, in each case,there were two researchers present as observers. Since we had learned from theinitial interviews that we needed detailed data to capture the dynamics of work-shop behaviour, we combined notes taken during and after our observations withtape recordings of the workshops. We also interviewed participants where eventswere unclear to us from the workshop itself, e.g. in terms of background contextor the rationale behind the design of the workshop.

1594 Organization Studies 31(12)

Table 1.Overview of theCase-firms

Organization Workshop(s) Participants Data collection

HotelcoA small hotel group whichhad experienced rapid growthfollowing recent acquisitionsand was hence revisiting itsstrategy

Hotelco 1:1.5 daysLuxury hotel

Four directors andfacilitator

Interviews– The four directors– Facilitator

Hotelco 2:1.5 daysOwn hotel

Four directors, sevenmanagers andfacilitator

Interviews– The four directors– Facilitator– 4 of 7 managers

DefencecoThe defence services businessdivision of a multinationalcompany which was facing aturbulent environment

Defenceco 1:1 dayDowntown hotel

CEO, four directorsand facilitator

Interview(pre-workshop)– DirectorObservation by researchteam

Defenceco 2:1 dayDowntown hotel

CEO and fourdirectors

Observation by researchteam

Defenceco 3:1 dayDowntown hotel

CEO and fourdirectors

Observation by researchteamInterviews (post-workshops)– CEO– Director

OilcoThe logistics division of amultinational company thathad recently been restructuredthrough the merger of twocountry-divisions

Oilco:1.5 daysIn-house facility

Business head, eightmanagers andfacilitator

Observation by researchteamInterviews (post-workshop)– Business head– Facilitator– 2 participants

CharityA large charity with a missionof alleviating poverty

Charity:1 dayHead office

Chief executive, fourdirectors and board oftrustees

Observation by researchteamInterviews (post-workshop)– Chief executive– Faciilitator– 2 participants

We determined the espoused purpose of each workshop based on what thesponsor conveyed in writing (e.g. in a briefing or agenda) and/or orally at theworkshop. We assessed the participants’ perceived purpose of each workshopbased upon (1) participants’ visible behaviours in the workshop, (2) participants’discussion during the event and (3), in the absence of clarity on the basis of 1and 2, interviews with participants. As Table 2 shows, some of the workshopswere concerned with reviewing or improving the existing strategic direction,while others were about questioning or changing it. In addition, participants per-ceived some workshops to have achieved their purpose (within the workshop)and others not to have done so. These differences in purpose and achievementallowed us to consider explanations for why the workshops were seen to be moreor less successful.

We assessed the outcome (i.e. whether or not the purpose was achieved) ofeach workshop using similar criteria: (1) manifestation of the purpose within theworkshop (e.g. participants preparing slides to articulate the strategy they hadagreed); (2) visible evidence of behaviours in line with the stated purpose (e.g.brainstorming in a workshop oriented towards changing strategy); and (3) whatwas communicated to us in post-event interviews.

Data Analysis

Our approach to the analysis of data applied principles of induction but builtupon existing (ritual) theory. It corresponded to what Orton (1997) describes asiterative theory-building or what anthropologists refer to as an ‘iterative-inductive’ approach (e.g. O’Reilly 2005) in that we ‘cycle(d) back and forthbetween theory and data’ (Orton 1997: 419). More specifically, we began with aphenomenon of interest: strategy workshops. In discussing authors’ past experi-ence of such episodes and informed by our initial interviews, we concluded thatritual theory was usefully relevant. We therefore informed ourselves more fullyof ritual theory and added an anthropologist with a special interest in it to theteam. We then observed the other workshops and, in between episodes of obser-vation, sought to make sense of the data. In so doing, we found other elementsof ritual theory that helped us further interpret the data.

The same analytical protocol was followed in analysing both the interviewand observational data. One researcher undertook a formal coding of the inter-views, tape recordings and notes a) to establish the extent to which participants’accounts of events corresponded to what could be expected on the basis of rit-ual theory (e.g. whether communitas and anti-structure were represented in thedata) and b) to identify questions arising from data analysis that required furthertheoretical explanation. This initial coding was followed by independent codingby two other members of the research team. These analyses were compared withthe initial coding to determine the extent to which there was agreement.Variations in the results of the coding were examined by the research team toclarify the interpretation of the data and inform further discussion of how ritual-ization influenced workshop behaviour. This system of coding provides the basisof the findings presented in this paper.

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1595

Explaining the Behavioural Dynamics and Outcomesof Strategy Workshops

In this section we analyse data from all seven workshops in Table 1 to demon-strate how the characteristics of ritual and ritualization may influence a) thebehavioural dynamics within strategy workshops and b) the outcomes of work-shops in terms of the extent to which their purposes were met. In so doing, weseek to develop ritual theory as a lens to explain strategy workshops. Since it isnot possible in the space of a paper to provide detailed accounts of all the work-shops, we rely on the summaries in Tables 2–6 to supplement our explanation ofsupporting evidence for our arguments in the text.

1596 Organization Studies 31(12)

Table 2.Variations in thePurposes of StrategyWorkshops

WorkshopEspoused purpose (changevs continuity)

Clarity of purpose toparticipants

Outcome(success vs. failure)

Hotelco 1 ChangeNeed to take stock of ‘whatwe are’ and ‘where we aregoing’ given rapidexpansion. The purpose wasa) to reflect on core valuesand how to keep them alive;and b) to rethinkmanagement structure interms of devolving power tothe next tier.

HighParticipants engagedenergetically in a discussionof values. The espousedrestructuring purpose alsoperceived by participants: oneobserved: ‘We thought wewere ... handing everythingover to these people.’

SuccessfulCEO: ‘I will agree itwas very successful.We found our values,we understood ourvalues. Weunderstood whatstructures we neededgoing forward withinreason.’

Hotelco 2 ChangePurpose espoused by CEO:to introduce changes inmanagement structure.However, between Hotelco1and Hotelco2 the directorsbacktracked on theircommitments to devolvepower. So espoused purposeunclear.

LowPurpose initially perceived bywider participants: tointroduce changes inmanagement structureresulting in devolution ofpower. One participant saidshe felt ‘honoured’ to beincluded in the workshop.

However once the workshopcommenced, the participants‘were showing themselves to bescattered on crucial decisions’in the words of the facilitator.

UnsuccessfulCEO: ‘This was acomplete and utterbloody disaster …We ended up withsome peoplesidelined and it wasthe biggest disasterwe have everachieved.’

Defenceco 1 ChangeTo generate ideas onchanges to current strategyin order to protect, growand diversify the business inresponse to call tocontribute to corporate-levelplan.Explicitly distinguishedfrom monthly operationalmeetings. The CEO statedin introductory comments:‘Operational stuff has creptin at monthly meetings; thisis about strategy.’

HighEspoused purpose perceivedby participants (though oneparticipant felt that thestrategy ought not to bechanged).

Clarity of purpose was evidentfrom the active andfreewheeling brainstormingactivities which involveddiscussion and noting of a setof wide-ranging businessideas.

SuccessfulCEO: ‘I wanted toknow whether therewas sufficient broadcommonality ofpurpose and I thinkwhat it told me wasthat the pressure fortransformation wasconsistent across theteam.’

(Continued)

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1597

WorkshopEspoused purpose (changevs continuity)

Clarity of purpose toparticipants

Outcome(success vs. failure)

Defenceco 2 ContinuityTo consolidate strategy inlight of industryrestructuring and potentialtakeover.

The CEO stated he was‘seeking to coalesce around“here’s what we’re actuallygoing to do rather thanhere’s what we might do”’.

HighEspoused purpose perceivedby participants as indicated byobservable behaviours such asdeveloping a set of slides thatsummarized the confirmedstrategy.

SuccessfulCEO: ‘So we kind ofanswered the “whatis it we’re here todo?” … theconclusion we cameto was our corebusiness isengineering servicerelated. There is nopoint in trying to findalternative businesssectors becauseactually the barriers toentry are either high orwe lack the skill sets.’

Defenceco 3 ContinuityTo revisit and confirm therecently agreed strategy TheCEO asked: ‘Does ourstrategy still hold?’ in thecontext of likely industryconsolidation throughmergers and acquisitions ofkey players.

LowParticipants seemed to beconfused on the focus of themeeting and were unsurewhat purpose this eventserved.

One participant commented:‘We were going through themotions.’

UnsuccessfulDirector: ‘We wouldhave been better offstaying in the office.’

Oilco ContinuityCEO’s purpose: to confirmstrategy and agreeperformance targets for thefour sub-divisions in thecontext of recentrestructuring that hadexpanded its size and remit.(The CEO also knew hemight be moving jobs and,in this context, saw theworkshop as an importantstrategy review. But thiswas not known toparticipants.)

MixedPurpose perceived byparticipants: to agreeperformance targets. Theywere unaware of the CEO’sbroader strategic agenda.

While one participantcommented that the workshopwas consistent with theagenda, another said thiscould have been done in half-a-day, suggesting he wasunaware of the CEO’s broaderagenda.

SuccessfulCEO: ‘This wentpretty much to plan.’

Charity ChangeThis workshop built on aprevious strategy-buildingexercise (referred to as‘Focus for Change’).The CEO’s espousedpurpose: to revisit oneelement of existing strategy.Hitherto the Charity hadcarried out most activitiesalone. The primary purposehere was to considerengaging with partnerNGOs in other parts of theworld.

HighEspoused purpose perceivedby participants.

Clarity of purpose appearedaided by the extensivepaperwork including minutesof previous meetings anddetailed agenda for theworkshop.

SuccessfulChairman: ‘Thisexercise shows weneed to build on butexpand our corecompetences.’

Table 2.(Continued)

The Characteristics of Ritualized Strategy Workshops

Characteristics of ritualization were found in the workshops we observed,though the form they took varied between workshops. As with other forms of rit-ual, strategy workshops have a purpose, which may be more or less explicit andclear to participants. As Table 2 shows, the purposes differed. The espoused pur-pose for both Hotelco workshops was to rethink and change the managementstructure of the business, though in the second workshop this purpose becameconfused and unclear to participants. The first of the Defenceco workshops wasalso about considering changes to the existing strategy, with a view to fosteringgrowth in revenue sources. The Charity workshop also addressed change,namely the prospect of engaging with partner organizations. By contrast, theOilco workshop and the other two Defenceco workshops were concerned withreviewing or consolidating existing strategy. It became clear, however, that per-ceived clarity of purpose among participants differed. The purpose was clear toparticipants in Hotelco 1, Defenceco 1 and 2 and the Charity workshops. Thepurpose of the third Defenceco workshop was unclear to participants. The pur-pose of the second Hotelco workshop became confused as its events unfolded —some participants thinking it was about radical restructuring and others aboutconfirming an amended status quo. The CEO of Oilco was clear that his purposewas to review and assess the progress of strategy given pending top-managementchanges. The participants were, however, not aware of these changes so, forthem, it was more of an operational review. Moreover, the extent to which thebehaviour of workshop participants was directed to the achievement of anexplicit purpose varied and is a matter we discuss below.

While removal is a defining characteristic of ritualization, as Tables 3 and 4show, the nature and extent of removal may vary considerably. Table 3 depictsthe change workshops. The first Hotelco workshop was an example of signifi-cantly ‘privileged’ removal, both geographically and also psychologically, fur-ther emphasized by its restricted access to just the four directors and a facilitator.The first Defenceco workshop was held in a city-centre hotel, justified in termsof ‘getting away from the office’, to reduce interruptions and distractions and getparticipants to highlight and focus on important issues. While the Charity work-shop was held in its offices, this was not an everyday location for 15 of the 20participants who were attending from overseas or were non-executive trustees.The second Hotelco workshop took place in one of the group’s own hotels, sothere was much less removal than in the first.

Table 4 depicts the continuity workshops.As with the first workshop, Defenceco2 and 3 were held in a city-centre hotel. The Oilco workshop was carried out intraining facilities owned by the company local to its offices and frequently usedby managers who attended the workshop. Removal was, therefore, relativelylow, both geographically and psychologically.

As seen in Tables 3 and 4, in all but one workshop (Defenceco 3), there wasan ordering of activities corresponding to a liturgy. This could involve the useof formal strategy models, as in two of the change workshops (Defenceco 1 andthe Charity workshop) and in one of the continuity workshops (Defenceco 2).Liturgy can also involve the way a workshop is conducted, such as the sequencing

1598 Organization Studies 31(12)

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1599

Workshop/outcome Removal Liturgy and SpecialistsLegitimacy of Liturgyand Specialists

Hotelco 1Successful

Very highA luxurious hotel venue inrural south of Englandlater considered verymemorable.Geographically, butespecially psychologically,distant from companyoffices in industrialScotland. Seen asnecessary to focus onstrategy. As one directorsaid, ‘We didn’t want tohave it in one of ourhotels ... We could wanderout and look out at theThames, it wasinspirational ... I think itfreed up the mind.’

HighA consultant, asfacilitator, led adiscussion ofemployees’ perceptionsof core values, based ona report of hisinterviews with staff,which highlightedperceptions of Hotelco’s‘aims’ and ‘vision’.Then he facilitated adiscussion onrestructuring. Groundrules were agreed toensure everyone’sparticipation.

HighProcess seen asvaluable andlegitimate. TheCEO:‘I think what he[the facilitator] did ...was make us focus onthe things we neededto discuss rather thanjust what the weatherwas like.’

Defenceco 1Successful

ModerateIn a city-centre hotelapprox. 40 miles fromoffices. The CEO: ‘Thefact that this is heldoff-site, the fact we’rewearing casual clothes,we are trying to create anenvironment where webreak the routine patternsof thought that peoplehave when they’re in theworkplace wearing suitsand sitting around ameeting room. Theywould have taken a farmore structured viewand … it would haveconstrained the answer atthe outset.’

HighLed by CEO who hadasked participants todraw up views on howthey would run thebusiness in his[hypothetical] absence.Each director presentedhis/her action plan.

A consultant thenprovided a recap ofconcepts on competitivestrategy and prompted adiscussion of strategiccompetences fromwhich strategic optionsarose.

HighParticipants werecomfortable withstrategy ‘language’,with which they werefamiliar from anin-companymanagementdevelopment course.

CharitySuccessful

MixedHeld at the head office inLondon. For executivesthis was minimal removalfrom the officeenvironment. But for the15 trustee participants itwas outside the everyday,particularly for three fromCanada, Kenya and thePhilippines.

HighThe workshopfacilitated by a trusteewith extensivemanagementconsultancy experience,including runningworkshops. He used thevalue chain toencourage discussion ofwhich activities shouldbe carried out in-houseand which might beoutsourced orundertaken inpartnership.

HighParticipants appearedat ease andrecognized thefacilitator’sexperience andknowledge of thevalue chain – thelegitimacy of whichthe facilitator soughtto establish byextolling the virtuesof its creator, viz.Michael Porter.

Table 3.Variation in theRitualCharacteristicsof ChangeWorkshops

(Continued)

1600 Organization Studies 31(12)

Workshop/outcome Removal Liturgy and SpecialistsLegitimacy of Liturgyand Specialists

Hotelco 2Unsuccessful

LowIn company’s own hotel,so limited physicaldistance and lesspsychological distancefrom regular workplace.One of the seven directreports commented, ‘Wespend a day a week there(laughter). It was likehome from home.’ Thefacilitator: ‘It was likebeing in someone’scompany office.’

HighThe intention was thatthe seven direct reportswere to be exposed tothe same documentsthat the directors hadseen at the first meetingand to reflect on thefindings.Apart from discussionof the documents and aproposed new structure,the facilitator used anexercise where eachparticipant had toidentify their role in thecentre of a ‘sunflower’in relation to other keyroles (the ‘petals’) andcompare with theothers’ role perceptions.

LowFacilitator seen astrying to imposesolutions even whenthings went awry. Thefacilitator admittedthat, at this stage, ‘Iwasn’t sure what Iwas doing.’As theevent progressed, itwas not seen aslegitimate. Aparticipant said that‘I felt the rug hadbeen pulled fromunder my feet.’

Table 3.(Continued)

Workshop/outcome Removal Liturgy and SpecialistsLegitimacy of Liturgyand Specialists

Defenceco 2Successful

ModerateIn the same city-centrehotel as above.

HighLed by CEO. His openingpresentation highlighted aPorter strategy frameworkbecause of the ‘constantneed to get people todelineate betweenoperational effectivenessand strategy’. Participantsthen created, together,PowerPoint slidesarticulating the strategy tofeed into a presentationby the CEO to thecorporate parent.

HighParticipants stuck tothe liturgy; adhered toit willingly and saw itas legitimate. TheCEO built on themanagementdevelopment expertiseacquired by the topmanagement team andin particularhighlighted MichaelPorter as a ‘guru’ whowas to be takenseriously.

OilcoSuccessful

Very lowAt in-house conferencefacility near its officeswith wireless access tothe corporate intranet.Many participantsarrived late, during theworkshop checked emailon laptops and keptmobiles on (oneparticipant answered hiscell phone in the middleof his presentation!).Thus relatively littlephysical or psychologicalremoval evident.

HighExternal facilitator used aprocess framework,presenting an issue on abrown paper board as acontinuum, invitingparticipants to affix aPost-it at a point on thecontinuum. To illustrate,he wrote: ‘We are the bestlogistics team in the oiland gas business’ with‘kidding’ at one end and‘no doubt’ at the other.He then brokereddiscussion to arrive at aconsensual view.

HighParticipants familiarand comfortable withthe liturgy; so seen aslegitimate. Oneparticipant noted thecommonality of thisapproach in thatcompany across theworld.

Table 4.Variation in theRitualCharacteristics ofContinuityWorkshops

(Continued)

of activities, agenda-setting and process frameworks like those employed in theHotelco and Oilco workshops.

Additionally, in all but one workshop, there was either a consultant orspecialist facilitator whose role helped legitimize the liturgy being followed. Asseen in Table 3, both Hotelco workshops used an external facilitator. At the first,he organized the discussion around the core values of Hotelco on the basis of areport of interviews with staff. At the second, in addition to presenting thisreport, he employed a device referred to as the ‘sunflower’, where participantscompared their perceptions of their role with those of their colleagues. The CEOof Defenceco led their three workshops. In workshop 1, his intent was a free-wheeling discussion of strategic ideas. This involved notionally positioning par-ticipants as taking over in his absence. Later, in the same workshop, he alsoinvolved a consultant to facilitate a competence analysis and prompt discussionsaround this, which galvanized ideas about diversification. However, followingthe workshop, participants deemed that such ideas of diversification were notrealistic. One of the trustees, a former management consultant, led the Charityworkshop. He used Porter’s (1985) value chain analysis, previously agreed withthe workshop sponsor and leader, as a basis for participants to think through themerits and demerits of partnering with other organizations.

As shown in Table 4, in Defenceco’s second workshop, which was prompted byexternal forces of potential industry consolidation, the CEO employed a frame-work for identifying business strategy by Porter (1996) to legitimize the need forgreater clarity on the components of existing strategy. A consultant was used tofacilitate the sessions in the Oilco workshop, using a process framework to orderdiscussion and capture participants’ views. The framework used was on the basisof prior agreement with the CEO and participants’ familiarity with it. The onlyworkshop without a clear liturgical device was the third Defenceco workshop.

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1601

Workshop/outcome Removal Liturgy and SpecialistsLegitimacy of Liturgyand Specialists

Little strategy languageused. Discussion entailedtechnical or company-specific jargon (e.g.references to corporateprojects using internalcode-names) whichfacilitated exchange ofviews.

Defenceco 3Unsuccessful

Moderate to lowIn a different, but notdissimilar, downtownhotel which appeared tobe chosen forconvenience andfunctionality rather thanany special ambience.

LowAlthough again led byCEO, there was no clearliturgical device. TheCEO articulated hisagenda as a discussion of‘are we getting thisright?’ and ‘should wehave another plan?’ Butthe ensuing discussionwas unfocused.

LowOne participantcommented later thatthe discussion was‘going nowhere’

Table 4.(Continued)

Insofar as specialists were used by Defenceco, Oilco and the Charity, theirrole was orchestrated by the CEOs who utilized them to legitimize a liturgy use-ful to the workshop purpose. Moreover, the outputs resulting from the discus-sions were in line with that intended. In the two Hotelco workshops, the role ofthe specialist facilitator differed. He was commissioned by one of the juniordirectors, not the CEO. While the liturgy he employed in the first workshop wasaccepted by the participants, it ran into problems in the second workshop. It becameclear that there was a mismatch between what the wider participants (and thefacilitator) thought was the workshop purpose — radical restructuring — andthe more conservative agenda of the CEO. The consequence was that the facili-tator’s role was diminished as the CEO reasserted a leadership position. Further,it became apparent that the liturgy, closely identified with the facilitator, was notaccepted by the workshop participants.

As pointed out earlier, removal, liturgy and specialists lead to privileging ofrituals: the antithesis of such privileging we have termed groundedness. Eitherby design or not, workshops may be more or less privileged or grounded. Forexample, the intention for the first Hotelco workshop was that it should behighly privileged. The second was decidedly grounded, not only by low removalbut also because formal hierarchy was asserted and because it became immersedin the politics, status concerns and operational issues of everyday organizationallife. Other workshops were intended to be grounded. For example, liturgicaldevices were deliberately chosen for the second Defenceco workshop and theOilco workshop to focus participants on the activities and capabilities underpin-ning current strategy. The Charity workshop was structured such that operationalissues were discussed after strategic issues, but they were on the same agenda.Moreover, there were symbols of groundedness. The Charity’s mission state-ment concerned with ending world poverty was on all PowerPoint slides, andmeeting rooms were all named after developing countries in which they wereengaged operationally.

It is necessary to qualify and so refine our explanation of the influence of theabove characteristics in terms of the perceived legitimacy of events by partici-pants. Legitimacy is ‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions ofan entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within some socially constructedsystem of norms, values, beliefs and definitions’ (Suchman 1995: 574). At themost basic level, for example, in discussions with both sponsors of and partici-pants in strategy workshops, we found that the practice of getting a group ofmanagers to focus on issues deemed to be especially significant to the future ofthe organization was seen to be an appropriate way of developing strategy.However, in some instances, a specific workshop, activities within a workshop,or people associated with it were not seen as legitimate, as evidenced by thequestioning or criticisms raised about them. The perceived legitimacy of bothliturgical devices and specialists therefore varied.

As seen in Table 3, relating to the change workshops, in the first Defencecoworkshop, the consultant presenting the competency framework legitimized theimportance of the discussion to follow. This was also the case for the value-chain approach used at the Charity workshop. However, the Hotelco workshopshighlight the delicate but significant role of ritual specialists in legitimizing the

1602 Organization Studies 31(12)

liturgy. In the first Hotelco workshop, legitimacy seemed to be of a high order.This diminished in the second, however, where the facilitator lost the support ofthe CEO at the outset and therefore lost credibility with the other directors andparticipants; and where it also became clear to the wider group of participantsthat the purpose of the meeting was not what they expected.

With regard to the continuity workshops, as shown in Table 4, in the secondDefenceco workshop, the CEO presented Porter’s framework to confer legiti-macy on the proceedings. The participants in the Oilco workshop were familiarwith and readily accepted the approach taken by the consultant, who had workedwith the organization before. The third Defenceco workshop was noticeable forthe absence of liturgy or specialists and took the form of a general discussion,but had a low apparent buy-in to that process by participants. Overall, whenliturgies were perceived to be legitimate, there was energetic commitment to theprocess, most notably in the first of the Hotelco workshops, the Charity work-shop and the first two Defenceco workshops.

Having described our data through the ritual lens, in the next section we turnto the task of theory development. The goal is to develop a set of theoreticalinferences marking relationships between characteristics of ritual and partici-pants’ behaviour.

The Behavioural Dynamics of Strategy Workshops

Removal, liturgy and specialists, when seen as legitimate by workshop partici-pants, may create a liminal state: a context in which behaviours are likely to bedifferent from those in the workplace. Tables 5 and 6 depict relevant behaviouraldynamics for change and continuity workshops, respectively. The sharpest shiftto liminality was Hotelco 1. Here a small group of directors, normally governedby an idiosyncratic and autocratic management regime centred on the founderand CEO, behaved quite differently in the workshop. They suspended normalhierarchy, shared their views (the CEO ‘was more one of the four; he was sittingthere listening’) and questioned past norms (‘I think it freed up the mind ... Itwas a great experience’). As also evident from Table 5, participants in otherchange workshops (e.g. Defenceco 1 and the Charity) also engaged in behav-iours that were quite different from those in their workplace. This was also trueof one continuity workshop, Defenceco 2 (Table 6). In this liminal state, we alsoobserved communitas and, in some cases, anti-structure, though the extent ofthese dynamics varied.

Collins (2004) regards the emotional energy and commitment of participantswithin a group, or communitas, as the measure of success in a ritual. We see suchemotional commitment, not as an outcome, but as a key behavioural dynamicwithin a strategy workshop that influences other outcomes and, in particular,whether or not the purpose of the workshop is achieved. As Table 5 shows, com-munitas was clearly present in the first Hotelco workshop, but markedly absentin the second, where the rift between the consultant and the directors and even-tually the other participants came to dominate. The Charity workshop partici-pants saw the value-chain framework as relevant to the purpose of the debate,and their energetic discussions of whether to partner or not culminated in a view

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1603

1604 Organization Studies 31(12)

Workshop/outcome CEO behaviour Communitas Antistructure

Hotelco 1Successful

The CEO signalledendorsement of the liturgyby complying with it – thatis, he refrained fromdominating theproceedings.One director noted:‘Matters were discussedmore fully … I could havethe time to think thingsthrough and make acomment rather than try towork at someone else’space.’

HighParticipants were engagedand energized: ‘Everyonewas engrossed’; ‘Iremember feeling upbeat’and ‘Those two dayswere probably the mostmemorable of my timewith the company.’

HighThe directors feltthat theirdiscussions hadbeen more focusedand honest, withthem questioningeach other. Oneobserved: ‘There wasmore consensus ... itwas a more levelplaying field.’

Defenceco 1Successful

The CEO’s design of theliturgy – getting the otherdirectors to put themselvesin his shoes – highlightedtheir potential contributionand downplayed his ownauthority.

HighParticipants, with oneexception, energized inconsidering a range ofpotential options.Excitement aboutunexplored possibilities:e.g. could capabilities inmanaging complexoperations be applied inother industry contexts?The CEO: ‘Anacknowledgement fromeveryone that thereneeded to be somewhereelse that we could employour skills, and [discussionof] where might that be.’

HighStatus quochallenged through‘blue skies’ ideas(e.g. diversifyingfrom managingdefence services tomanaging healthcarefacilities).

With the exceptionof one participantwho asked for ‘moreof the same’, theothers oftenprefaced commentswith expressionssuch as ‘Beingcontroversial, couldI suggest…?’

CharitySuccessful

CEO took a back seat buthad agreed beforehandwith the Chairman that he(the Chairman) would runthings and driveconsensus-building.

HighA common goal for‘eradicating worldpoverty’ appeared tofoster solidarity and ashared vision. Thestrategy workshopproceeded smoothly andin line with the day’sagenda. The issue ofpartnering was discussedand debated vigorously inbreakout groups, but withno evidence of animosity.

Moderate:‘Cautiousanti-structure’.CEO kept a lowprofile but theChairman of theBoard was verymuch in control,particularly indebriefing followingbreakoutdiscussions. Whenone group reportedback some tentativeconcerns with apartneringapproach, hebrokered aconsensus whichwas in favour ofgoing down thepartnering route.

Table 5.Variation in theBehaviouralDynamics ofChange Workshops

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1605

Workshop/outcome CEO behaviour Communitas Antistructure

Hotelco 2Unsuccessful

The directors andespecially the CEOresumed dominance. Thefacilitator said that he hadbeen ‘undermined’ becausethe CEO did not complywith the liturgy (e.g. theCEO’s presentation offeredless autonomy to the nexttier than the facilitatorthought had been agreed).

LowAlthough initiallyengaged and generalagreement on aims andvision (‘we were inharmony’), there was abreakdown incommunication betweendirectors and the next tier.Resulted in directors andtheir reports meeting inseparate rooms withfacilitator trying tomediate. Eventually aproposal from the directorsfor an operational boardwas seen to favour threeof the seven directreports. Communitasmarkedly absent. Onedirector acknowledged:‘We left these peoplefeeling really deflated.’

LowAlthough someefforts made by thenext tier to assertthemselves, thestatus quo wasreinforced as adegree of cordialrelations wereresumed onlytowards the end ofthe workshop, oncepeople startedtalking aboutoperational matters(i.e. getting back tothe everyday).

Table 5.(Continued)

Workshop/outcome CEO behaviour Communitas Antistructure

Defenceco 2Successful

The CEO asserted hisposition on key strategicissues and soughtcommitment byemphasizing‘convergence’ around ashared view of strategy.

HighParticipants, withoutexception, focused onand united in the goal toavoid unfavourabletakeover outcome.Noticeable focus andimmediacy to theirdiscussions. Sharedconcerns about apotentially grave situationpromoted solidarity andjoint commitment to theCEO’s approach.

LowCEO asserted hispositionunambiguously andsought buy-in. Thusstatus quoreinforced: i.e. focuson consolidation,not change. Morediscussion aboutwhat the businesstruly was and lessblue skies ideas:‘Our core businessis engineeringservice related.’

OilcoSuccessful

CEO adopted a low profilebut had arranged with thespecialist a liturgy toensure participantsretained theirorganizational roles duringthe workshop.

Moderate/lowConsensus readilyformed; participantslistened to otherviewpoints and adjustedtheir own. However,preoccupation withmobile phones, checkingemails on laptops anddiscussion of operationalmatters curtailedemotional engagement.

LowFocus on buildingconsensus; nodissenting voices.Discussions aroundperformance targetstightly aligned withOilco’s strategy.Although labelled‘strategic’, mostdiscussion wasoperational andgrounded in theeveryday.

Table 6.Variation in theBehaviouralDynamics ofContinuityWorkshops

(Continued)

that this option ought to be pursued. High levels of communitas were alsoevident in the first Defenceco workshop. All but one of the participants engagedenthusiastically with both the liturgical devices employed. The exception wasone manager who regarded these as means of encouraging debate about unreal-istic strategic options. Moreover, the competence analysis in this workshop ledto a feeling among participants that they could ‘take on the world’. This was notjust a matter of removal (which was not especially high anyway) but of the per-ceived legitimacy of the liturgy in relation to the purpose of the event.

Table 6 shows that the second Defenceco workshop, which employed Porter’sframework to refocus participants on the current strategy, despite being a quitedifferent orientation to the first, again galvanized enthusiastic commitment.Oilco workshop participants engaged with the process led by the facilitator,though with less enthusiasm than was evident in other workshops. The excep-tion was the third Defenceco workshop, with no apparent liturgy and an unclearpurpose. Here the emotional commitment of participants flagged and there wasoverall disappointment with the event: ‘We would have been better off stayingin the office.’

Collins (2004) argues that communitas arises because the symbolic nature ofritual focuses attention on the purpose and associated liturgy and, as such, cre-ates ‘its own feeling of intersubjectivity, its own shared emotion’ (2004:37). ForCollins, this mutuality of focus and shared emotion is self-reinforcing, soencouraging greater bonding of those present and their commitment to the activ-ities within a ritual and its purpose. This reinforcing cycle between purpose, useof a liturgy and the sense of solidarity seemed to be at work in the first Hotelcoworkshop, during the competence analysis in the first Defenceco workshop andin the breakout groups in the Charity (see Table 5). In the second Defencecoworkshop (Table 6), which took place in the context of a potential takeover ofthe business, the emotional bonding of participants was particularly evident.Here the CEO structured the discussion, not only to require participants to identify

1606 Organization Studies 31(12)

Workshop/outcome CEO behaviour Communitas Antistructure

Defenceco 3Unsuccessful

Unlike other twoworkshops, the CEO didnot have a clear liturgy.Reliance on generalquestions: ‘Is our strategystill valid?’ and ‘Shouldwe give thought to a PlanB?’Also an absence ofmorale-boosting messages,as before.

LowMid-way participantsappeared confused as towhat they were doing; notenergized or engagedwith each other. Althoughan open debate, it wasunfocused.

LowParticipants more intheir functionalroles. Status quo notchallenged despitequestions posed bythe CEO. The groupgravitated quicklytowards action-points relating tocurrent strategyalbeit with littleclarity by the end.As one participantput it: ‘Do we justhave to hold ournerve?’

Table 6.(Continued)

the components of the strategy, but also to commit themselves to that strategywhatever the outcome of the potential takeover. In effect, he was ‘putting themon the line’.

The data in Tables 5 and 6 show that communitas is not necessarily associatedwith the extent of removal. There were workshops where communitas was evi-dent where removal was high (Hotelco 1), moderate (Defenceco 1 and 2), low(Oilco) and mixed (Charity). The common characteristic in all the workshopswhere communitas was high was the high perceived legitimacy of the liturgy inrelation to a clear and commonly understood purpose. In the absence of thesefactors (Hotelco 2, Defenceco 3 and Oilco), communitas was of a lower order.We conclude that, providing it is seen as legitimate by participants in terms ofthe workshop purpose, the liturgy itself creates a kind of psychological removalin that the language and script followed are distinctly different from everydayorganizational experience and concerned with issues not typically addressed.

Proposition 1: The extent of communitas within a ritualized strategy episodeincreases when participants perceive the liturgy to be a legitimate means toachieve the workshop purpose.

Anti-structure refers to a freeing of participants from structural norms as distinctfrom remaining within such structural norms. As liminal settings, strategy work-shops may generate the propensity for just such relaxing of social structures.However, our data suggest that the extent to which this occurs depends on theactions of those in a position of authority (in our cases the CEO) to signal thesuspension of participants’ structural roles in the day-to-day work environment.Where this happened, it did so by means of the CEO endorsing the liturgy andspecialist as enablers of such anti-structure (see Tables 5 and 6).

Anti-structure was of a high order in the first Hotelco workshop, where theCEO willingly subjugated his normal dominance to the liturgy adopted by thespecialist. It was, however, markedly absent in the second workshop, wherethe CEO’s hierarchical command and control style reasserted itself, so dimin-ishing the role of both liturgy and specialist. In the first Defenceco workshop,the CEO deliberately structured the event to diminish his own authority withinthe workshop and positioned participants as notionally in that role as opposed totheir own; in effect, he was seeking to promote anti-structure. He then built onthis by asking the specialist to orchestrate a competence analysis that encour-aged ‘blue skies’ thinking. The opposite was the case in the second workshop,where he made clear his position on key strategic issues and asked participantsto commit to that, not only as members of the top team, but also as heads of man-agement functions. In the Charity workshop, the CEO kept a low profile, sayinglittle, while the participants had a free exchange of views, prompted by the facil-itator’s use of the value-chain framework. However, the Chairman of the Boardof Trustees (with the prior agreement of the CEO) took charge of the plenary dis-cussion to ensure that a consensus was reached to modify the strategy. In theOilco workshop, however, while the CEO also adopted a low profile, everyonewas expected to stay within their organizational roles and report on activitiesrelating to the strategy of the organization from their perspective.

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1607

Proposition 2: Anti-structure in a workshop increases when the CEO signalsrelaxation of hierarchical and structural norms and endorses the legitimacyof the liturgy and specialist.

Explaining the Outcomes of Strategy Workshops

Here we seek to explain three different outcomes of the workshops in terms oftheories of ritualization. We define outcomes as whether the purpose of theworkshop was achieved within the workshop itself. Specifically, if the purposeof the workshop was about reconsidering or reformulating strategy (change),was that intent achieved within the workshop? If the purpose was reviewing orconsolidating strategy (continuity), was that intent achieved within the work-shop? Or, was the purpose not achieved, i.e. was there failure to achieve changeor continuity?

First, compare the change workshops. As summarized in Table 7, the firstworkshops for Hotelco and Defenceco had a clear purpose; the extent ofremoval helped create liminal conditions within which there was a liturgy suitedto purpose that fostered the emotional energy characteristic of communitas.Combined with the levelling achieved by Hotelco’s workshop facilitator (sup-ported by the CEO) and anti-structure encouraged by Defenceco’s CEO, theseconditions led to a challenging of the status quo. The Charity workshop was heldin its head office, the strategy discussion preceded a more operational agendaand anti-structure was less evident. However, the clarity of purpose, perceivedlegitimacy of the event itself and of the liturgy encouraged communitas and aquestioning of strategy.

In the case of the failed workshop for change (Hotelco 2), the purpose, thoughnominally about significant change, became confused, removal was low, hierar-chy and organizational roles were reasserted and the workshop became con-cerned with operational issues. The specialist facilitator attempted to stick to aprocess liturgy not perceived to be legitimate and that eventually came to be

1608 Organization Studies 31(12)

WorkshopEspousedpurpose

Clarityofpurpose Removal

LiturgyandSpecialists Communitas

Anti-structure Outcome

Hotelco 1 Change High Very high High High High Successful

Defenceco 1 Change High Moderate High High High Successful

Charity Change High Mixed High High Moderate Successful

Hotelco 2 Change Low Low High Low Low Unsuccessful

Defenceco 2 Continuity High Moderate High High Low Successful

Oilco Continuity Mixed Very low High Moderate/low

Low Successful

Defenceco 3 Continuity Low Moderate tolow

Low Low Low Unsuccessful

Table 7Summary ofCase-Study Findings

disregarded, with a resulting lack of cognitive engagement and a good deal ofemotional negativity. So:

Proposition 3: For change workshops, success is dependent on clarity of purposeto participants and a liturgy perceived as legitimate; thus creating anti-structure and communitas within the group that, in turn, lead to questioningand challenging.

Note that removal and the role of the specialist do not appear to be essential tothe success of a workshop but, given clarity of purpose, a legitimate liturgy andreduction of hierarchy, they can provide additional reinforcement and furtherincrease the likelihood of success.

Our data further suggest that there may be a special benefit of the privilegedritualization of strategy workshops when the purpose is change. Anti-structure,accompanied by a liturgy encouraging questioning of the status quo, may stim-ulate what some have called ‘constructive confrontation’ (Burgelman 1991;Tjsvold 2007) or ‘cognitive conflict’ (Amason 1996), without triggering nega-tive affect within the group. The liturgies employed in the first Hotelco andDefenceco workshops galvanized questioning of the status quo and produceddivergent views among participants. Nonetheless, feelings of communitas pre-served, even enhanced, group solidarity in the face of such conflicting opinionsthat otherwise might have led to more affective conflict. Where communitas andanti-structure were not present in combination, this did not occur: a similarliturgy was employed in the second Hotelco workshop as in the first one but, inthe absence of communitas, the workshop dissolved into affective confrontation.The combination of anti-structure and communitas therefore produces a uniqueset of circumstances — a group ready to debate and challenge, but one who willdo so without generating an overhead of affective conflict (Amason 1996).

If we consider workshops for continuity, as summarized in Table 7, the suc-cessful Oilco workshop and second Defenceco workshop both had a clear pur-pose and a liturgy suited to the purpose of reviewing strategy. Further, in both, theextent of anti-structure was less than in the change workshops. In the Oilco work-shop, this was because the liturgy employed was familiar, groundedness washigh — issues discussed were largely to do with operational activities underpin-ning strategy — and removal was low. In the case of the second Defenceco work-shop, the CEO reasserted his hierarchical, if facilitative, role and focused on moreoperational issues than in the first workshop. Further, both Oilco and the secondDefenceco workshops referred to past successes and were relatively formalizeddiscussions with participants remaining largely in their operational roles. Thesecorresponded to rituals where ‘“tradition authority”, rooted in an appeal to thepast’ (Bell 1992; 120) is emphasized. The purpose of the third Defenceco work-shop, in contrast, was ambiguous and there was no clear liturgy, with the conse-quence that participants felt they had wasted their time. Thus:

Proposition 4: For continuity workshops, success is dependent on the clarityof purpose, a liturgy perceived as legitimate, a more grounded agenda and theCEO (or workshop leader) encouraging greater structure in terms of hierar-chy and formalized behaviour.

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1609

The Management of Strategy Workshops

The systematic variation we have described in connections between ritual andworkshop outcomes raises the question as to whether managers do or can struc-ture such workshops to achieve strategic purposes. For workshops with the pur-pose of change, the behavioural states encouraged by liminal conditions seem toalign with what the sponsors of workshops often seek to create — the potentialfor liberating participants to question the status quo and envisage change, cou-pled with a heightened emotional commitment and solidarity around suchdebate. The means of achieving this through ritualization seem manageable:employing an appropriate liturgy, using a specialist to legitimize the process,privileging the event by removal from the everyday and limiting participation toa select group. Similarly, the factors influencing the success of workshops forcontinuity — a liturgy suited to purpose, greater groundedness and structure —seem manageable.

We see evidence of the deliberate management of strategy workshops. In thefirst Hotelco and Defenceco workshops, there was deliberate structuring ofthe events to get freewheeling ideas for change on the table. In the secondDefenceco workshop, there was deliberate structuring, orchestrated by the CEO,which succeeded in getting commitment to continuity of strategy. In Oilco, theCEO chose the facilitator precisely because he knew that the same processliturgy would be employed that had been successful in previous strategy reviewworkshops. The value chain was employed by the Charity workshop facilitatorspecifically to provide a rationale for a discussion of partnering.

Deliberate management of workshop design does, then, occur in terms of themanipulation of the nature of removal, the use of liturgy and specialists as leversof influence. Moreover, as we have shown, variations in these features seem toinfluence outcomes. There is no suggestion here, however, that designers ofstrategy workshops explicitly take into account their ritual characteristics. It istherefore possible that they end up with workshop designs that are not suited forpurpose, for example, by promoting anti-structure and reversal and thereforeencouraging challenge and questioning when the purpose is review and conti-nuity. This is an issue we return to in the discussion that follows.

Discussion

We have demonstrated the relevance of ritual theory in explaining the behav-ioural dynamics and achievement of purpose of strategy workshops. Here wediscuss our explanation in the context of previous research relating to strategyworkshops and also to the wider strategic management literature, in particular,research on strategic planning. Our argument is that rituals are significant inorganizations, not least in the structuring of episodes within strategy processes,such as strategy workshops, and that understanding such episodes as ritualizedepisodes illuminates the findings of prior research.

Hendry and Seidl (2003) contend that strategy episodes are a useful unit ofanalysis by which to understand both strategy processes and the practice of strategy.

1610 Organization Studies 31(12)

Episodes are important because they may act to suspend everyday organizationalstructures and thus facilitate strategic debate. Building on this, Jarzabkowski andSeidl (2008) provide empirical insights into the structures of strategy episodes.We extend these arguments by proposing that understanding such episodes interms of theories of ritual and ritualization provides further insight and raisesfurther implications, not least because of the structuring effects of ritualization itself.

We have shown how the success or failure of a workshop is likely to dependon the alignment or misalignment of various ritual elements. This provides a dif-ferent explanation, for example, to Hodgkinson and Wright’s (2002) ‘failedstrategy episode’. Their explanation of failure suggested that the challengingnature of their liturgy — scenario planning — gave rise to defensive routines ofparticipants and the CEO. Whittington (2006) argued, however, that the work-shop’s failure could be explained in terms of misalignment with the ongoingpractice and praxis of strategizing in the firm. Our findings suggest that, withinthe workshop itself, even the most sophisticated liturgy employed by a skilledspecialist has to be seen as part of an interwoven set of factors associated with aritualized context. There may have been an over-reliance on the power of sce-nario planning. For a change workshop — which theirs was — at least as impor-tant would be the achievement of communitas and anti-structure, both dependenton the perceived legitimacy of the liturgy and the facilitators themselves, notleast by the workshop sponsor, the CEO.

A further limitation on whether workshops achieve their intended outcomesdoes, however, relate to the potential power of the liturgy. We have shown that anappropriate liturgy, seen as legitimate, can promote participants’ emotional andintellectual engagement. Bürgi et al. (2005) show how this might be so by utiliz-ing a ‘hands on’ crafting approach in a strategy workshop. However, there is adanger of liturgy-centred rituals where ‘the question most insistently asked [is] …“Have we got it right?’’’ (Humphrey and Laidlaw; 1994: 11), as distinct from ‘hasit worked?’ It should not, then, be assumed that strategy workshops employingliturgies galvanizing energetic commitment necessarily achieve outcomes beyondthe ritualized action within the workshop. We saw as much in the first Hotelcoand Defenceco workshops, both of which were liturgy-centred. The effect was toremove participants psychologically from everyday work realities. Participantsreflected after both events that the liturgy had rather taken over and that the out-comes were unrealistic. So, ritual theory raises the question of the extent to whichattention to a liturgy should necessarily be seen as having instrumental intent.

It is also clear that a good deal of the management of workshops is accom-plished before or after the ritualized episode — ‘backstage’ in Goffman’s (1959)terms. Both the Oilco and Charity CEOs took a low-profile role during the work-shops but made sure the facilitator was carefully chosen and briefed before theworkshops. The participants in the first Hotelco workshop, who so enthusiasti-cally championed change within the event, changed their minds after it andentered the second workshop with no clear purpose. The Defenceco CEO actedto ‘calm things down’ after the first workshop.

So, if so much is managed backstage, why is the ritual of the workshop itselfneeded? Why should the directors of Hotelco go away to a distant luxury hotel tofollow the agenda of an external facilitator? They could have discussed the

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1611

consultant’s report in the office. If, after the first workshop, the CEO and managersof Defenceco determined that greater focus was needed, why did they need thesecond workshop at all? We offer two reasons for this. The first is that a collectiveengagement with a liturgy producing communitas has value above and beyond theresolution of substantive strategic issues. Confirmation and emotional commit-ment to a strategy is important and a workshop provides the setting for achievingthis. The second relates to liminality. Other researchers who have addressed limi-nality in a management context have not considered how it operates within strat-egy episodes, nor have they considered the ritualistic nature of these episodes.Rather, they have focused either on liminal people such as temporary workers ormanagement consultants (Tempest and Starkey 2004; Ibarra 2004; Czarnawskaand Mazza 2003) or on how the process of management consulting can be seen asa liminal experience (Sturdy et al. 2006). These authors recognize that liminalitycan be a creative state because of the freedom from normative structures, but thatit is also potentially a state of anxiety, as people have temporarily lost the powerthat comes with their structural position. Here we have shown that, within a ritu-alized episode, the benefits of creativity might, indeed, be realized but that thecharacteristics of ritual such as liturgy and the facilitation of a specialist may pro-vide a structure for participants within the episode that encourages group cohe-siveness and emotional engagement, so diminishing such anxiety.

There is also the question as to the likelihood of the outcomes of strategy work-shops translating into realized outcomes for the organization. Our evidence sug-gests that such translation is problematic. In the first workshops for both Hotelcoand Defenceco, participants engaged energetically in originating quite differentstructures and strategies for their businesses yet, in both cases, these commit-ments were limited to the workshops; they did not translate into organizationaloutcomes. Consistent with ritual theory, in both these workshops, we see that thecommunitas resulting from ritualization may lead to ludic behaviour where‘people play with the elements of the familiar and defamiliarize them’ (Turner1982: 27). Such situations may, however, be ‘more in contrast than in activeopposition to social structure ... a way of being detached from social structure —and hence potentially of periodically evaluating its performance’ (Turner 1982:50–51). On the surface, a reversal of social norms during a state of liminality canbe seen as a challenge to the status quo. However, as Gluckman (1965) shows,apparent ‘reversals’ of established social norms may actually serve to highlighttheir significance. For example, ironically, a king washing the feet of the poorhas the effect of emphasizing the importance of the king (Turner 1969). So struc-ture and anti-structure may reinforce each other over time. Ritualization may,then, encourage questioning in change-oriented strategy workshops, but suchquestioning may be transitory and, after the ritual, it may lead to a heightenedappreciation for the status quo rather than a commitment to change it (Gluckman1954, 1956). On reflection, the participants in the first Hotelco workshop admit-ted that the process had ‘run away with them’; that it ‘took over’.

Although our data do not permit us to examine outcomes outside the work-shop setting with any authority, we speculate that, in addition to the danger sug-gested by Humphrey and Laidlaw (1994) that liturgy-centred rituals may focuson ‘getting it right’ rather than on outcomes, there may be two other explanations

1612 Organization Studies 31(12)

for why such outcomes may not carry over into everyday reality. First, the verydifference and ‘privileging’ of a strategy workshop that may heighten liminalconditions also distances that discussion from the realities of participants’ regu-lar work environment. Such ritualized settings can create ‘a little temporary cult,a shared reality ... with its own rules ... keeping the mundane surrounding worldoutside’ (Collins 1988: 47). This, in turn, may mean that it is problematic to inte-grate the outcomes (if any) within the workshop into operational realities.Second, the emotional commitment arising out of ritualization may be transitory.In ritualized settings, people may express genuine and emotionally chargedbeliefs, but those beliefs may be specific to that context: ‘this does not mean thatthey act on these beliefs, or that they [have] a sincere feeling about them in othereveryday interactions’ (Collins 2004: 44).

These observations square with the findings of MacIntosh et al. (forthcoming)from their study of the extent to which the outcomes within strategy workshopstranslate successfully to organizational action. They suggest that one-off work-shops do not tend to produce changes in organizations’ strategies: rather thatsuch changes are more likely where there are a series of workshops integratedwith the wider strategy-development processes in organizations. Bringingtogether the findings from both studies suggests that the ritual privileging ofworkshops may have the benefits of galvanizing questioning and challenge butruns the risk of their outcomes not translating to organizational outcomes.However, a series of such workshops may allow sufficient grounding of suchquestioning to effect such a translation.

Finally, what do our findings say about strategy workshops within the widerstrategy process literature? One implication concerns the link between strategyprocesses and organizational performance (Rajagopalan et al. 1993). Strategyworkshops are typically part of strategic planning processes (Hodgkinson et al.2006) which are likely to be episodic (Hendry and Seidl 2003) and have ritual-ized characteristics. We have shown how the misalignment of ritualized charac-teristics within such workshops may mean that their purposes are not achievedand that, if they are achieved, their outcomes may not translate into realizedstrategy and, thus, have little influence on organizational performance. Theremay already be evidence of this. Miller and Cardinal (1994) found correlationsranging from –0.31 to 0.75 for the relationship between strategic planning andrevenue growth and –0.21 to 0.71 for the relationship between planning andprofitability. Our argument suggests that at least part of this variance may be dueto the potential misalignments we have suggested within the ritualized charac-teristics of strategy episodes, which may have an influence on whether theintended outcomes of strategic planning episodes are achieved and hencewhether the strategic planning process influences organizational performance.

More generally, variation in the ritualized practice of deliberate strategy mak-ing may be an unrecognized factor in explaining inconsistencies in strategyprocess research. These observations resonate with the conclusions from Grant’s(2003) study of strategic planning in large multinationals. He shows that theinfluence of strategic planning on firms’ strategies derives less from analyticalsophistication and more from its ability to increase coordination among managers.Similarly, Ketokivi and Castaner (2004) found that formal strategic planning

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1613

reduces position bias, helps to shift managers’ attention away from sub-goals andserves to increase the level of integration within the organization. Our argumentssuggest that both the increased coordination and enhanced integration observedin these studies may be attributable to, or at least enhanced by, the anti-structureand communitas that can develop in ritualized strategic planning episodes.

Conclusion and Future Research

Our aim has been to demonstrate the power of theories of ritual and ritualizationto provide a theoretical perspective and a useful set of concepts for understand-ing the dynamics and outcomes of strategy workshops. We also suggest that ourtheoretical perspective is likely to be of value, more generally, in understandingand explaining the wider episodic nature of strategy development. There has beenover a century of systematic study of ritual phenomena in anthropology, yieldinga vast body of ethnography and associated theorizing. We acknowledge that,here, we have only drawn on a relatively narrow set of such concepts. We alsoacknowledge that our findings and propositions must be qualified; they are induc-tive products of case-based research that is inevitably limited in terms of gener-alizability. Our hope, however, is that this study might, nonetheless, encouragemanagement scholars to draw on such empirical and theoretical resources infuture research on the practices and processes of strategic development.

For instance, although we have tried to identify the salient characteristics of strat-egy workshops, future research should strive to better understand the significanceof such characteristics; not least, whether the propositions we advance are sup-ported more widely than in our study. Further, to what extent is the ritualized natureof strategy workshops a matter of design? What role do strategy tools and conceptsplay liturgically? There are indications that their use is limited (Hodgkinson et al.2006). Which ones are employed and why? Does their use influence workshop out-comes? We have shown that the emotional engagement of participants (communitas)is important. We therefore need to know just how this occurs and more about itseffects. When workshop participants are engaged cognitively and emotionally withthe liturgy, how contextually specific and limited to the ritualized setting are theoutcomes of such activities? What is the relative importance of ‘backstage’ activity(Goffman 1967)— activity outside the ritual itself — to the dynamics of workshopsand to the realization in organizational action of the outcomes of such workshops?Is it inevitable that outcomes within the workshop will dissipate in the light ofeveryday reality? Are there ritualistic elements such as rites of incorporation (VanGennep 1960 [1909]) that may enhance the endurance of new ways of thinking andbehaving? What are these and how can research help to identify them? How mightvariation in key design parameters, such as removal and liturgy, increase the dura-bility of the changes produced in the ritualized setting?

Finally, we concur with those who argue that, if we are to advance our under-standing of strategic management, we need to better explain the links betweenwhat people do as they strategize, the influences on that behaviour and the outcomesof their strategizing activities (Johnson et al. 2003, 2007; Jarzabskowski et al.2007). It has been our intent to show that theories of ritual and ritualization maybe helpful and illuminating in this regard.

1614 Organization Studies 31(12)

Alexander, Bobby C.1997 ‘Ritual and current studies of ritual:

Overview’ in Anthropology ofreligion: A handbook. S. D. Glazier(ed.), 139–160. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.

Amason, Allen. C.1996 ‘Distinguishing the effects of

functional and dysfunctional conflicton strategic decision making:Resolving a paradox for topmanagement teams’. Academy ofManagement Journal 39/1: 123–148.

Bell, Catherine1992 Ritual theory, ritual practice. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Bowie, Fiona2000 The anthropology of religion: An

introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bowker, John2003 The Oxford dictionary of world

religions. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Bowman, Cliff1995 ‘Strategy workshops and top team

commitment to strategic change’.Journal of Managerial Psychology10/8: 4–12.

Burgelman, Robert A.1991 ‘Intraorganizational ecology of

strategy making and organizationaladaptation: Theory and fieldresearch’. Organization Science2/3: 239–262.

Bürgi, Peter, Claus Jacobs, and Johan Roos2005 ‘From metaphor to practice in the

crafting of strategy’. Journal ofManagement Inquiry 14/1: 78–94.

Collins, Randall1988 ‘Theoretical continuities in Goffman’s

work’ in Erving Goffman: Exploringthe interaction order. P. Drew andA. Wootton (eds). Oxford: Polity Press.

Collins, Randall2004 Interaction ritual chains. New York:

Princeton University Press.

Czarnawska, Barbara, and Carmelo Mazza2003 ‘Consulting as a liminal space’.

Human Relations 56/3: 267–290.

Durkheim, Emile1954 The elementary forms of the religious

life, trans. J. W. Swain. New York:Free Press. Original work published1912.

Frisch, Bob, and Logan Chandler2006 ‘Off-sites that work’. Harvard

Business Review 84/6: 117–126.

Gluckman, Max1954 Rituals of rebellion in south-east

Africa. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press.

Gluckman, Max1956 Custom and conflict in Africa.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Gluckman, Max1965 Politics, law and ritual in tribal

society. Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, Erving1959 The presentation of self in everyday

life. Garden City, NY: DoubledayAnchor.

Goffman, Erving1961 Asylums. Essays on the social

situation of mental patients and otherinmates. Garden City, NY: DoubledayAnchor.

Goffman, Erving1967 Interaction ritual. New York:

Doubleday.

Hamel, Gary1996 ‘Strategy as revolution’. Harvard

Business Review 74/4: 69–82.

Hamel, Gary, and C. K. Prahalad1994 Competing for the future. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hendry, John, and David Seidl2003 ‘The structure and significance of

strategic episodes: Social systemstheory and routine practices ofstrategic change’. Journal ofManagement Studies40/1: 175–196.

Hodgkinson, Gerard, and George Wright2002 ‘Confronting strategic inertia in a top

management team: Learning fromfailure’. Organization Studies23: 949–978.

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1615

Note

References

We thank the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and Engineering and Physical SciencesResearch Council for funding for this research through the UK Advanced Institute of ManagementResearch (AIM). We are also grateful to senior editor Ann Langley and three anonymous reviewersfor their insightful and helpful feedback during the review process.

Hodgkinson, Gerard, Richard Whittington,Gerry Johnson, and Mirella Schwarz2006 ‘The role of strategy workshops in

strategy development processes:Formality, communication, co-ordination and inclusion’. LongRange Planning 39: 479–496.

Humphrey, Caroline, and James Laidlaw1994 The archetypal actions of ritual: A

theory of ritual illustrated by the Jainrite of worship. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

Ibarra, Herminia2004 ‘Becoming yourself: Identity,

networks and the dynamics of roletransition’. INSEAD Working PaperSeries, No. 2004/21/OB.

Janis, Irving, and Leon Mann1977 Decision making: A psychological

analysis of conflict, choice andcommitment. New York: Free Press.

Jarzabkowski, Paula, and David Seidl2008 ‘The role of meetings in the social

practice of strategy’. OrganizationStudies 29: 1391–1426.

Jarzabskowski, Paula, Julia Balogun, andDavid Seidl2007 ‘Strategizing: The challenges of a

practice perspective’. HumanRelations 60: 5–27.

Johnson, Gerry, Leif Melin, and RichardWhittington2003 ‘Micro-strategy and strategising’.

Journal of Management Studies40: 3–20.

Johnson, Gerry, Ann Langley, Leif. Melin,and Richard Whittington2007 Strategy as practice: Research

directions and resources. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Keane, Webb1997 ‘Religious language’. Annual Review

of Anthropology 26: 47–71.

Ketokivi, Mikko, and Xavier Castaner2004 ‘Strategic planning as an integrative

device’. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 49: 337–365.

MacIntosh Robert, Donald MacLean, andDavid Seidl

‘Unpacking the effectivity paradox ofstrategy workshops: Do strategyworkshops produce strategic change?’The Cambridge handbook of strategyas practice. Forthcoming.

Mezias, James, Peter Grinyer, and William D.Guth2001 ‘Changing collective cognition: A

process model for strategic change’.Long Range Planning 34/1: 71–95.

Miller, C. Chet, and Laura B. Cardinal1994 ‘Strategic planning and firm

performance: A synthesis of morethan two decades of research’.Academy of Management Journal37/6: 1649–1665.

Mintzberg, Henry1994 The rise and fall of strategic

planning. London: Prentice Hall.

Mintzberg, Henry, and Joseph Lampel1999 ‘Reflecting on the strategy process’.

MIT Sloan Management Review 40/3:21–30.

Morgan, David. L.1997 Focus groups as qualitative research.

London: Sage.

O’Reilly, Karen2005 Ethnographic methods. London:

Routledge.

Orton, James D.1997 ‘From inductive to iterative grounded

theory: Zipping the gap betweenprocess theory and process data’.Scandinavian Journal of Management13: 419–438.

Porter, Michael1985 Comptetitive advantage: Creating and

sustaining superior performance.New York: Free Press.

Porter. Michael1996 ‘What is strategy?’Harvard Business

Review, November/December: 61–78.

Rajagopalan, Nandini, Abdul M. A. Rasheed,and Deepak K. Datta1993 ‘Strategic decision processes: Critical

review and future directions’. Journalof Management 19: 349–384.

Schwartzman, Helen B.1986 ‘The meeting as a neglected social

form in organizational studies’.Research on Organizational Behavior8: 233–258.

Sturdy, Andrew, Mirella Schwarz, and AndreSpicer2006 ‘Guess who’s coming to dinner?

Structure and uses of liminality instrategic management consultancy’.Human Relations 59: 929–960.

1616 Organization Studies 31(12)

Suchman. Mark1995 ‘Managing legitimacy; Strategic and

institutional approaches’. Academy ofManagement Review 20: 571–610.

Tempest, Susan, and Kenneth Starkey2004 ‘The effects of liminality on individual

and organizational learning’.Organization Studies 25: 507–527.

Trosvold, D.2007 ‘The conflict-positive organization: It

depends upon us’. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior 29: 19–28.

Turner, Victor1969 The ritual process: Structure and

anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine.

Turner, Victor1982 From ritual to theater: The human

seriousness of play. New York: PAJPublications.

Van Gennep, Arnold1960 The rites of passage, trans.

M. B. Vizedom and G. B. Caffee.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Original work published1909.

Whittington, Richard2006 ‘Completing the practice turn in

strategy research’. OrganizationStudies 27: 613–634.

Johnson et al.: The Ritualization of Strategy Workshops 1617

Gerry Johnson is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Management at Lancaster UniversityManagement School and Senior Fellow of the UK Advanced Institute of ManagementResearch (AIM). He received a BA inAnthropology from University College London andhis PhD from Aston University. His research, primarily concerned with strategy develop-ment and change, has been published in the Academy of Management Review, Academyof Management Journal, Journal of Management Studies, Strategic ManagementJournal, Organization Studies and British Journal of Management. He serves on the edi-torial boards of the Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journaland Journal of Management Studies.Address: University of Lancaster Management School, Lancaster University,Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK.Email: gerry.johnson@lancaster.ac.uk

Shameen Prashantham is a Senior Lecturer in International Business and Strategy at theUniversity of Glasgow and a Fellow of the UK Advanced Institute of ManagementResearch (AIM). His research focuses on the internationalization of entrepreneurial firmsand strategy making. He has published in California Management Review, EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice and Journal of Management Studies, among others. He earned aPhD from Strathclyde Business School; his doctoral research won the award for mostoriginal research from the Academy of International Business and he was a finalist for theBarry Richman Award for best dissertation at the Academy of ManagementAddress: University of Glasgow, Business School, Centre for Internationalization andEnterprise Research, Gilbert Scott Building,Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK.Email: Shameen.Prashantham@glasgow.ac.uk

Steven W. Floyd is the Frank S. Kaulback, Jr. Professor of Commerce at the McIntireSchool of Commerce, University of Virginia. His research on strategy process has beenpublished in two co-authored books and in journals such as Academy of ManagementReview, Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Journalof Management, Journal of Management Studies, Organization Studies, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Journal of Organization Behaviour, Academy ofManagement Executive and Long Range Planning among others. He is an InternationalVisiting Fellow of the UK Advanced Institute of Management Research and serves as anAssociate Editor of Strategic Management Journal.Address: McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA22904, USAEmail: Steven.Floyd@unisg.ch

Gerry Johnson

ShameenPrashantham

StevenW. Floyd

Nicole Bourque is a Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology at the University ofGlasgow, and an Associate of the UK Advanced Institute of Management Research(AIM). She holds a BA in Anthropology from the University of New Brunswick, Canada,and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. Her research focuses on religion, ritual andreligious change, including syncretism and conversion. She has carried out field work inEcuador, Bolivia and the UK. She sits on the editorial board of the Bulletin of LatinAmerican Studies and has published in Ethnography.Address: University of Glasgow School of Social and Political Sciences, Adam SmithBuilding, Bute Gardens Glasgow G12 8RT, UK.Email: Nicole.bourque@glasgow.ac.uk

1618 Organization Studies 31(12)

Nicole Bourque