Strategy-as-Practice: A Fresh Look at Strategy

“Strategy is not what a company has—it’s what people do.”

This provocative line captures the essence of the Strategy-as-Practice (SaP) approach, a perspective that continues to reshape how scholars and practitioners understand strategic management. Unlike mainstream strategy theories that often focus on formal plans, markets, and top-level decisions, the SaP view emphasizes the everyday activities, interactions, and tools used by individuals throughout an organization to shape strategic outcomes.

While SaP brings a refreshing, grounded approach to understanding how strategy works in real-world settings, it has not been without criticism. This blog explores the main criticisms of the SaP view, contrasts it with mainstream strategy, and reflects on which perspective offers more value for understanding strategy in today’s dynamic world.

In this blog, we’ll explore:

• The main criticisms of the strategy-as-practice view
• A comparison between mainstream and practice-based approaches
• My perspective on which offers more value in understanding strategy

What Is Strategy-as-Practice?

According to Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2017), strategy-as-practice focuses on “the doing of strategy”—that is, the behaviors, routines, and tools used by people in organizations when they engage in strategy work. It looks at strategy not as a property or outcome, but as an ongoing activity involving diverse actors beyond the executive suite.

This is often conceptualized through the Three Ps framework (Whittington, 2006):

• Practitioners – who does the strategizing (e.g., managers, consultants, analysts)
• Praxis – the flow of strategic activity (e.g., meetings, emails, workshops)
• Practices – the tools and norms that guide how strategy is done (e.g., frameworks, spreadsheets, PowerPoints)

Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective – Paula Jarzabkowski, Julia Balogun and David Seidl, Human Relation Volume 20 Issue 1, 2007

These elements help researchers and practitioners focus on action, context, and process rather than just outcomes.

Criticisms of the Strategy-as-Practice View

While the SaP view has become increasingly influential, several criticisms have been raised:

1. Lack of Theoretical Clarity
   Critics argue that SaP often lacks a strong theoretical foundation or consistent definitions. Because it draws from sociology, anthropology, and organizational studies, it can appear fragmented and methodologically loose (Jarzabkowski et al., 2021). Some question whether everything done in the name of strategy truly counts as “strategy.”
2. Overemphasis on Micro-Level Actions
   Mainstream theorists argue that SaP places too much emphasis on individual and group-level practices at the expense of larger structural and economic forces. For example, while meetings and conversations are important, focusing solely on these micro-activities may miss the big picture—such as market trends, industry disruption, or global strategy shifts (Johnson et al., 2019).
3. Difficult to Generalize
   Because SaP is grounded in deep contextual fieldwork (e.g., ethnographies of strategic meetings), its findings are often specific to one organization or situation. This makes it difficult to draw broad generalizations or predictive models, which traditional strategy research typically aims to do (Rumelt, 2011).
4. Limited Performance Focus
   Mainstream approaches link strategy with performance outcomes—profit, market share, growth. SaP is often less focused on measurable results, leading some to argue that it lacks practical value for guiding managerial decisions.

Mainstream vs. Practice: Which Is More Useful?

While both perspectives offer unique insights, I personally find the strategy-as-practice approach more beneficial for truly understanding how strategy functions in practice—especially in dynamic, human-centered environments like education, learning and development, or SMEs.

Why I Prefer the Practice View:

1. It Makes Strategy Inclusive
   As a professional working in learning and development, I see strategy play out in classroom discussions, curriculum meetings, and informal team huddles—not just in strategic documents. SaP recognizes that everyone contributes to strategy, not just senior leaders.
2. It Reflects Real Organizational Life
   Real strategy is rarely neat. Plans change, people improvise, and decisions get made through messy, political, and emotional processes. SaP helps us embrace this complexity rather than trying to abstract it away.
3. It Bridges Theory and Practice
   Traditional strategy models often feel too far removed from everyday work. SaP allows us to connect academic ideas with real-world behaviors, making it a more applicable tool for reflection, planning, and learning.

A Balanced View: Integration Over Isolation

While I lean toward SaP, I don’t dismiss the value of mainstream strategy. Tools like SWOT analysis, Porter’s Five Forces, and the Strategy Diamond (Hambrick & Fredrickson, 2001) provide structured thinking and strategic clarity. The real value lies in combining both views:

• Use mainstream tools to understand the competitive environment and define clear goals.
• Use the practice view to explore how those goals are shaped, communicated, and implemented by real people in context.

Strategy-as-practice reminds us that strategy is a verb, not just a noun. It brings strategy down from the ivory tower and embeds it in the lived experiences of people at all organizational levels. While it has its limitations—such as reduced focus on outcomes or theoretical generalization—its practical relevance, inclusivity, and realism make it a valuable lens for navigating strategy in action.
As students, professionals, or scholars, our challenge is to not only study what strategy is but to observe how it happens. And that’s where strategy-as-practice shines.

References

This blog was last updated by Jonath Aliman: Student at The University of London. while doing his research, Jonath has compiled all the below resources to help fellow student to strive more on reading this blog or the resources to better understand the subject. You can ask Jonath for this references by commenting on the BAians Library to have your copy.

• Hambrick, D.C., & Fredrickson, J.W. (2001). Are you sure you have a strategy? Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 48–59.
• Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2017). Introduction to Strategy-as-Practice [Video file]. Henry Stewart Talks.
• Jarzabkowski, P., Kavas, M., & Krull, E. (2021). It’s practice. But is it strategy? Strategic Organization, 19(3), 357–368.
• Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Regnér, P., Scholes, K., & Angwin, D. (2019). Exploring Strategy (12th ed.). Pearson.
• Rumelt, R. (2011). The perils of bad strategy. McKinsey Quarterly.

Please dont hesitate to comment and share your thoughts to add value on this subject and for me to consider for a perspective or benefit of the doubt that will surely contribute to my total growth and development. Thank you.