Submission declined on 19 July 2024 by
Broccoli and Coffee (
talk). This submission reads more like an
essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in
secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or
original research. Please write about the topic from a
neutral point of view in an
encyclopedic manner.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
| ![]() |
Submission declined on 6 November 2023 by
WikiOriginal-9 (
talk). Reads like an essay. Reads like an ad almost. Declined by
WikiOriginal-9 8 months ago. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is written like a
personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (November 2023) |
Open Strategy is an approach to strategy-making in organizations, distinguished by a higher degree of openness than traditional strategic management, involving greater inclusiveness and/or transparency in the processes and outcomes of strategy formulation and implementation.
The concept of Open Strategy was initially introduced by Henry Chesbrough and Melissa Appleyard in 2007. It was further developed by Richard Whittington, Ludovic Cailluet, and Basak Yakis-Douglas in 2011, who described the phenomenon of engaging a wider range of internal and external stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, partners, regulators, or the general public, in strategic decision-making. [2] [3]
Open Strategy aims to leverage diverse sources of knowledge and ideas, enhance legitimacy and commitment, and foster innovation and learning. The approach, however, presents various challenges and dilemmas, such as managing information overload, safeguarding intellectual property, balancing conflicting interests, and ensuring strategic coherence. The motivation for as well as the challenges and results of Open Strategy initiatives are influenced by several contextual factors, such as the nature of the industry, the organizational culture, the regulatory environment, and the technological infrastructure.
In general, the Open Strategy phenomenon is evident across different sectors and types of organizations. Examples include private companies like Barclays, Daimler-Benz, and Zurich Insurance Group; public entities such as the City of Vienna and the United States Navy; and community groups and cooperatives, including Wikimedia and Premium-Cola. [4] [5]
In the field of strategy-making, there has been a notable shift from traditional methods characterized by secrecy and exclusivity to more inclusive and transparent processes. This transition is primarily driven by four key forces: societal, cultural, technological, and organizational. [3]
As general drivers of openness, these forces have fueled the adoption of openness in many different areas of organizational activity. [6] The growing trend of openness in strategizing aligns with a broader societal shift observed over recent decades. [7] [8] Initially stemming from the realm of Open Source Software, the ethos of openness, underpinned by transparency and inclusion processes, has expanded across various fields. [9] These include Open Science, Open Innovation, Open Data, Open Government, and more recently, Open Strategy. [10] [11] [12] [13] [3]
In the field of business management, a shift toward more openness became primarily evident in 1995. The discourse began with the assertion that strategy is not created only by the people at the top of a company or its planning department. [14] This fundamental idea was further developed a year later, with an emphasis on the democratization of strategy-making. [15] As the new millennium unfolded, several related concepts emerged. In 2003, Henry Chesbrough introduced the paradigm of Open Innovation, followed closely by James Surowiecki's concept of the Wisdom of the Crowd in 2004, and the democratization of innovation by Eric von Hippel in 2005. [11] [16] [17] After Gary Hamel's emphasis on the democracy of ideas in 2007, Jeff Howe introduced the idea of Crowdsourcing in 2008, further reinforcing this shift. [18] [19] In 2011, this evolution resulted in the emergence of more open forms of strategy-making, advocating transparency and inclusion in the strategic management process. [3]
In the evolving landscape of organizational strategy, the Open Strategy phenomenon is significantly influenced by other movements towards more openness, especially Open Innovation. This approach underscores the importance of leveraging both external and internal sources of knowledge and ideas on an operational level. [11] By expanding the principles of Open Innovation to a strategic level, organizations are able to blur the conventional boundaries that traditionally separated strategic planning from other organizational processes. This enables them to adapt to the complex, dynamic, and interconnected business environments of the modern era. [2] [3] [20] [21] [1]
Open Strategy also draws inspiration from, and is often interlinked with, other more open practices like crowdsourcing, democratizing innovation, and collective intelligence. For instance, Crowdsourcing, involves issuing challenges to large and diverse groups to generate novel solutions, which aligns with the aim of Open Strategy to engage diverse stakeholder input. In a similar vein, the principle of collective intelligence, which posits that aggregated knowledge from a diverse group fosters better decision-making and innovation, underscores the close relationship with other, more open approaches.
The evolution of openness in strategy-making practices is characterized by three key phases: [1]
Each phase represents a significant shift towards increased openness in strategy-making, evolving from a closed dialogue among top management to a more inclusive and transparent process involving a wider array of stakeholders. [1]
Open Strategy is conceptualized “as a dynamic bundle of practices promoting greater strategic transparency and/or inclusion among internal and external actors. The balance and extent of openness adapt to evolving contingencies from within and outside organizational boundaries.” [22] Open Strategy can consequently be understood along two key dimensions: inclusion and/or transparency, both addressing internal and external stakeholders, expanding beyond the confines of managerial elites. [22] [20] [3]
The concept of “inclusion” within Open Strategy encompasses engaging a variety of actors in the strategic discourse, thereby enriching the strategy-making process. This aspect aims to diversify the range of voices and perspectives in strategy development and implementation. It emphasizes both external and internal consultation in order to exchange “information, views and proposals intended to shape the continued evolution of an organization’s strategy”. [23] This shift marks a departure from traditional strategy paradigms, which were exclusively the domain of top management, breaking down the monolithic structure of conventional strategy-making. Inclusion manifests in several sub-dimensions:the variety and diversity of participating constituencies, the degree and form of involvement (including decision-making), and the openness and transparency of participation procedures. [20]
In the context of Open Strategy, a variety of dynamics are driving organizations towards an increased state of openness, characterized by practices of transparency and inclusiveness. Some organizations opt for greater transparency in strategic decisions without necessarily expanding the stakeholder group involved in decision-making. Conversely, organizations such as Siemens have actively sought to involve their employees in strategy formation, encouraging them to contribute ideas and suggestions. [27] In certain instances, organizations are increasing both transparency and inclusion, gaining additional insights while also sharing more strategic information broadly. However, it is important to recognize that an increase in one dimension (transparency or inclusion) does not necessitate a corresponding increase in the other. [3]
Despite the noticeable trend towards increased openness, there are also dynamics that can lead organizations to lessen their level of openness. [24] Some organizations, faced with challenges associated with increased openness, may revert to more traditional, closed strategic methods. For instance, start-ups that initially adopted a more inclusive approach might find it more efficient to revert to a primary focus on transparency over time. [28] The decision and degree of openness are influenced by a myriad of internal and external factors, including the competitive landscape, organizational structures, and the skills of the individuals involved. As organizations navigate the intricacies of an open strategy, they must remain agile, constantly re-evaluating and recalibrating their approach in response to changing circumstances. [29]
Drawing from the Strategy as Practice (SAP) tradition, which emphasizes the activities and interactions in strategic management, Open Strategy extends this focus into a more inclusive and transparent realm. [30] Depending on the degree of inclusion and transparency, Open Strategy can manifest in various forms and practices. These include online platforms, crowdsourcing, wikis, blogs, social media, town hall meetings, workshops, surveys, or open contests. [22]These practices can be applicable across different stages of the strategic management process, encompassing analysis, idea generation, formulation, implementation, evaluation, and refinement.
The following overview provides a summary of the most relevant opportunities and challenges associated with increased inclusion and transparency, reflecting on the motivations that drive organizations towards Open Strategy and the potential hurdles encountered in this endeavor. [20]
The dilemmas of Open Strategy introduced by Hautz et al. in 2017 describe the challenges faced by organizations when adopting a more inclusive and transparent approach to their strategic planning. [22] Central to these dilemmas is the trade-off between the benefits of wider stakeholder engagement and the operational, informational, and relational challenges that come with it:
The exploration of Open Strategy has been enriched through various theoretical lenses, each highlighting distinctive facets of this domain. David Seidl and colleagues have broadly categorized the theoretical perspectives on Open Strategy into six distinct groups: [20]
Submission declined on 19 July 2024 by
Broccoli and Coffee (
talk). This submission reads more like an
essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in
secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or
original research. Please write about the topic from a
neutral point of view in an
encyclopedic manner.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
| ![]() |
Submission declined on 6 November 2023 by
WikiOriginal-9 (
talk). Reads like an essay. Reads like an ad almost. Declined by
WikiOriginal-9 8 months ago. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is written like a
personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (November 2023) |
Open Strategy is an approach to strategy-making in organizations, distinguished by a higher degree of openness than traditional strategic management, involving greater inclusiveness and/or transparency in the processes and outcomes of strategy formulation and implementation.
The concept of Open Strategy was initially introduced by Henry Chesbrough and Melissa Appleyard in 2007. It was further developed by Richard Whittington, Ludovic Cailluet, and Basak Yakis-Douglas in 2011, who described the phenomenon of engaging a wider range of internal and external stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, partners, regulators, or the general public, in strategic decision-making. [2] [3]
Open Strategy aims to leverage diverse sources of knowledge and ideas, enhance legitimacy and commitment, and foster innovation and learning. The approach, however, presents various challenges and dilemmas, such as managing information overload, safeguarding intellectual property, balancing conflicting interests, and ensuring strategic coherence. The motivation for as well as the challenges and results of Open Strategy initiatives are influenced by several contextual factors, such as the nature of the industry, the organizational culture, the regulatory environment, and the technological infrastructure.
In general, the Open Strategy phenomenon is evident across different sectors and types of organizations. Examples include private companies like Barclays, Daimler-Benz, and Zurich Insurance Group; public entities such as the City of Vienna and the United States Navy; and community groups and cooperatives, including Wikimedia and Premium-Cola. [4] [5]
In the field of strategy-making, there has been a notable shift from traditional methods characterized by secrecy and exclusivity to more inclusive and transparent processes. This transition is primarily driven by four key forces: societal, cultural, technological, and organizational. [3]
As general drivers of openness, these forces have fueled the adoption of openness in many different areas of organizational activity. [6] The growing trend of openness in strategizing aligns with a broader societal shift observed over recent decades. [7] [8] Initially stemming from the realm of Open Source Software, the ethos of openness, underpinned by transparency and inclusion processes, has expanded across various fields. [9] These include Open Science, Open Innovation, Open Data, Open Government, and more recently, Open Strategy. [10] [11] [12] [13] [3]
In the field of business management, a shift toward more openness became primarily evident in 1995. The discourse began with the assertion that strategy is not created only by the people at the top of a company or its planning department. [14] This fundamental idea was further developed a year later, with an emphasis on the democratization of strategy-making. [15] As the new millennium unfolded, several related concepts emerged. In 2003, Henry Chesbrough introduced the paradigm of Open Innovation, followed closely by James Surowiecki's concept of the Wisdom of the Crowd in 2004, and the democratization of innovation by Eric von Hippel in 2005. [11] [16] [17] After Gary Hamel's emphasis on the democracy of ideas in 2007, Jeff Howe introduced the idea of Crowdsourcing in 2008, further reinforcing this shift. [18] [19] In 2011, this evolution resulted in the emergence of more open forms of strategy-making, advocating transparency and inclusion in the strategic management process. [3]
In the evolving landscape of organizational strategy, the Open Strategy phenomenon is significantly influenced by other movements towards more openness, especially Open Innovation. This approach underscores the importance of leveraging both external and internal sources of knowledge and ideas on an operational level. [11] By expanding the principles of Open Innovation to a strategic level, organizations are able to blur the conventional boundaries that traditionally separated strategic planning from other organizational processes. This enables them to adapt to the complex, dynamic, and interconnected business environments of the modern era. [2] [3] [20] [21] [1]
Open Strategy also draws inspiration from, and is often interlinked with, other more open practices like crowdsourcing, democratizing innovation, and collective intelligence. For instance, Crowdsourcing, involves issuing challenges to large and diverse groups to generate novel solutions, which aligns with the aim of Open Strategy to engage diverse stakeholder input. In a similar vein, the principle of collective intelligence, which posits that aggregated knowledge from a diverse group fosters better decision-making and innovation, underscores the close relationship with other, more open approaches.
The evolution of openness in strategy-making practices is characterized by three key phases: [1]
Each phase represents a significant shift towards increased openness in strategy-making, evolving from a closed dialogue among top management to a more inclusive and transparent process involving a wider array of stakeholders. [1]
Open Strategy is conceptualized “as a dynamic bundle of practices promoting greater strategic transparency and/or inclusion among internal and external actors. The balance and extent of openness adapt to evolving contingencies from within and outside organizational boundaries.” [22] Open Strategy can consequently be understood along two key dimensions: inclusion and/or transparency, both addressing internal and external stakeholders, expanding beyond the confines of managerial elites. [22] [20] [3]
The concept of “inclusion” within Open Strategy encompasses engaging a variety of actors in the strategic discourse, thereby enriching the strategy-making process. This aspect aims to diversify the range of voices and perspectives in strategy development and implementation. It emphasizes both external and internal consultation in order to exchange “information, views and proposals intended to shape the continued evolution of an organization’s strategy”. [23] This shift marks a departure from traditional strategy paradigms, which were exclusively the domain of top management, breaking down the monolithic structure of conventional strategy-making. Inclusion manifests in several sub-dimensions:the variety and diversity of participating constituencies, the degree and form of involvement (including decision-making), and the openness and transparency of participation procedures. [20]
In the context of Open Strategy, a variety of dynamics are driving organizations towards an increased state of openness, characterized by practices of transparency and inclusiveness. Some organizations opt for greater transparency in strategic decisions without necessarily expanding the stakeholder group involved in decision-making. Conversely, organizations such as Siemens have actively sought to involve their employees in strategy formation, encouraging them to contribute ideas and suggestions. [27] In certain instances, organizations are increasing both transparency and inclusion, gaining additional insights while also sharing more strategic information broadly. However, it is important to recognize that an increase in one dimension (transparency or inclusion) does not necessitate a corresponding increase in the other. [3]
Despite the noticeable trend towards increased openness, there are also dynamics that can lead organizations to lessen their level of openness. [24] Some organizations, faced with challenges associated with increased openness, may revert to more traditional, closed strategic methods. For instance, start-ups that initially adopted a more inclusive approach might find it more efficient to revert to a primary focus on transparency over time. [28] The decision and degree of openness are influenced by a myriad of internal and external factors, including the competitive landscape, organizational structures, and the skills of the individuals involved. As organizations navigate the intricacies of an open strategy, they must remain agile, constantly re-evaluating and recalibrating their approach in response to changing circumstances. [29]
Drawing from the Strategy as Practice (SAP) tradition, which emphasizes the activities and interactions in strategic management, Open Strategy extends this focus into a more inclusive and transparent realm. [30] Depending on the degree of inclusion and transparency, Open Strategy can manifest in various forms and practices. These include online platforms, crowdsourcing, wikis, blogs, social media, town hall meetings, workshops, surveys, or open contests. [22]These practices can be applicable across different stages of the strategic management process, encompassing analysis, idea generation, formulation, implementation, evaluation, and refinement.
The following overview provides a summary of the most relevant opportunities and challenges associated with increased inclusion and transparency, reflecting on the motivations that drive organizations towards Open Strategy and the potential hurdles encountered in this endeavor. [20]
The dilemmas of Open Strategy introduced by Hautz et al. in 2017 describe the challenges faced by organizations when adopting a more inclusive and transparent approach to their strategic planning. [22] Central to these dilemmas is the trade-off between the benefits of wider stakeholder engagement and the operational, informational, and relational challenges that come with it:
The exploration of Open Strategy has been enriched through various theoretical lenses, each highlighting distinctive facets of this domain. David Seidl and colleagues have broadly categorized the theoretical perspectives on Open Strategy into six distinct groups: [20]