construct a new strategic future (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013), and create a sense of novelty while avoiding overt unfamiliarity (Barry & Elmes, 1997) by simultaneously incorporating familiar themes.

Future research could expand on these insights by systematic analyses comparing strategic concepts and their use in different institutional and organizational contexts. Such research could also examine whether and how skillful and timely use of strategic concepts empowers managers in strategic sensemaking, and how the concepts may also, at times, constrain their sensemaking (Mantere & Vaara, 2008; Rouleau, 2005).

## 6.2 | A micro-level view on strategic ambiguity

Our concept-level analysis has implications for the recent discussion of ambiguity in strategic sensemaking (Abdallah & Langley, 2014; Jarzabkowski et al., 2010; Sillince et al., 2012). More specifically, our findings highlight “concept ambiguity” as a complement to the existing focus on what we call “proposition ambiguity.” *Proposition ambiguity* represents the ambiguity in beliefs and claims, connected to the equivocality and uncertainty concerning their factual validity or acceptability. Proposition ambiguity for the statement “increasing citizens’ self-responsibility saves us money” captures the extent of certainty with which actors accept it. In contrast, *concept ambiguity* relates to the meanings of a concept, such as equivocality or uncertainty as to what constitutes “self-responsibility” in the first place.

Actors can appear certain and decisive by making seemingly certain claims and endorsing policies. Yet, if their statements include relatively ambiguous concepts, they may convey limited information or fail to create substantive commitment. At the time of writing this article, the prime minister of Great Britain, Theresa May, argued that “Brexit means brexit,” using concept ambiguity to make a simple declarative sentence with apparent certainty and authoritativeness, while actually offering little or no information. In contrast, when concepts are defined more exactly, ambiguity of facts and commitments becomes more transparent.

Concept ambiguity both constrains and enables strategic sensemaking. As our case of self-responsibility illustrates, while ambiguity can hamper effective sensemaking, a degree of ambiguity may be crucial for the creation of consensus or co-orientation in conditions of multiple interests and points of view. Toward the end of our observed period, the concept became increasingly ambiguous, and its perceived usefulness and use decreased. These findings on the micro-level of concept ambiguity add to the view of ambiguity as a double-edged sword (Abdallah & Langley, 2014; Jarzabkowski et al., 2010; Sillince et al., 2012).

Future research could provide more comparative studies of concept ambiguity, examining how the breadth of strategic concept meanings influence their popularity and perceived usefulness. While research has noted how managers use ambiguous concepts in symbolic management (Abdallah & Langley, 2014; Jarzabkowski et al., 2010; Sillince et al., 2012), there is a surprising lack of attention to their role in both internal strategy conversations and the resulting strategy texts. A comparative longitudinal perspective might help elucidate how ambiguity and use of strategic concepts evolve over time.

## 6.3 | A dynamic perspective of vocabularies and strategic concepts

Our study provides a pragmatist view on the use of strategic concepts, complementing the more quantitative orientation in research on vocabularies (Jones & Livne-Tarandach, 2008; Jones, Maoret, Massa, & Svejenova, 2012; Mohr & Duquenne, 1997). Our analysis illuminates the specific ways the concept of self-responsibility was used in organizations and how its meanings evolved as actors
shaped the “rules of the language game” (Brandom, 2000; Dummett, 1993). Our analysis specifically shows how the use of self-responsibility induced a broader system of meaning or a vocabulary in our case organization. Thus, our analysis offers an example of a dynamic micro-level perspective that can enrich research on organizational and strategic vocabularies (Loewenstein et al., 2012).

The life-cycle view of strategic concepts suggests that a focus on vocabularies can help understand change and permanence of strategic cognitions (Barr et al., 1992; Nadkarni & Naryanan, 2007). Although the new understanding of a “smaller” public sector and its stripped-down “core tasks” preceded the concept of self-responsibility, it did not become widely shared until after the strategic concept became a staple in discussions and documents. By enabling actors to condense and communicate relevant meanings effectively, strategic concepts shape how attention is allocated, knowledge accumulated, activities coordinated, and decisions legitimated (see also Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997). Similarly, the prevalence of a concept in conversations and strategy texts may also explain the persistence of cognitions. These observations suggest that emerging beliefs “coalesce” around vocabularies (Loewenstein et al., 2012), and that once established, such vocabularies provide a certain permanence to the ideas they embody, in a manner similar to strategy texts (Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011). Thus, there is a need for future research on the forms and dynamics of these processes.

7 | CONCLUSION

The present study offers a new perspective on strategic sensemaking with theoretical, methodological, and practical implications. Theoretically, this analysis helps us to understand the very micro-level of strategy work as it unfolds in organizations, thus responding to calls to develop this dimension of strategy process and practice research (Burgelman et al., 2018; Vaara & Whittington, 2012). In this view, concepts are not mere means of communication, but key components that make up an organization's strategy. Strategic language is not something abstract that resides in discourses, narratives, or rhetoric; instead, concepts are created, negotiated, debated, and even abandoned over time in the ongoing language games of strategic sensemaking (Mantere, 2015). Accordingly, concepts are important tools that actors use in strategy work. Thus, our analysis not only adds to the nascent stream of strategic concepts (Paroutis & Heracleous, 2013; Seidl, 2007), but even more importantly, offers a sorely needed missing piece to complement the language-based view on strategy (Balogun et al., 2014; Mantere, 2013).

Methodologically, concepts offer a new level of analysis to move down from examination of strategy discourses (Knights & Morgan, 1991; Mantere & Vaara, 2008), narratives (Barry & Elmes, 1997), or conversational practices (Kwon et al., 2014; Whittle et al., 2014). Contextualized analysis of strategy work provides a dynamic practice-based understanding of concepts as key micro-level tools that managers and other organizational members use when making sense of organizational strategy. By focusing on concepts, one can thus open a new line of inquiry in strategic sensemaking that can concentrate on the emergence, shaping, mobilization, and replacement of strategic concepts as well as the complexities, contradictions, and ambiguities that all of this may entail (Cornelissen & Schildt, 2015; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). By focusing on the use of concepts, rather than on their role in larger textual networks, our analysis can also pave the way for a new dynamic stream of research in strategic vocabularies (Loewenstein et al., 2012). A focus on concepts can also inform other areas of strategy process and practice research; for instance, by studying how these concepts are linked with attention, one can also significantly enrich the emergent attention-based view of strategy (Ocasio et al., 2018).
shaped the “rules of the language game” (Brandom, 2000; Dummett, 1993). Our analysis specifically shows how the use of self-responsibility induced a broader system of meaning or a vocabulary in our case organization. Thus, our analysis offers an example of a dynamic micro-level perspective that can enrich research on organizational and strategic vocabularies (Loewenstein et al., 2012).

The life-cycle view of strategic concepts suggests that a focus on vocabularies can help understand change and permanence of strategic cognitions (Barr et al., 1992; Nadkarni & Naryanan, 2007). Although the new understanding of a “smaller” public sector and its stripped-down “core tasks” preceded the concept of self-responsibility, it did not become widely shared until after the strategic concept became a staple in discussions and documents. By enabling actors to condense and communicate relevant meanings effectively, strategic concepts shape how attention is allocated, knowledge accumulated, activities coordinated, and decisions legitimated (see also Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997). Similarly, the prevalence of a concept in conversations and strategy texts may also explain the persistence of cognitions. These observations suggest that emerging beliefs “coalesce” around vocabularies (Loewenstein et al., 2012), and that once established, such vocabularies provide a certain permanence to the ideas they embody, in a manner similar to strategy texts (Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011). Thus, there is a need for future research on the forms and dynamics of these processes.

7 | CONCLUSION

The present study offers a new perspective on strategic sensemaking with theoretical, methodological, and practical implications. Theoretically, this analysis helps us to understand the very micro-level of strategy work as it unfolds in organizations, thus responding to calls to develop this dimension of strategy process and practice research (Burgelman et al., 2018; Vaara & Whittington, 2012). In this view, concepts are not mere means of communication, but key components that make up an organization's strategy. Strategic language is not something abstract that resides in discourses, narratives, or rhetoric; instead, concepts are created, negotiated, debated, and even abandoned over time in the ongoing language games of strategic sensemaking (Mantere, 2015). Accordingly, concepts are important tools that actors use in strategy work. Thus, our analysis not only adds to the nascent stream of strategic concepts (Paroutis & Heracleous, 2013; Seidl, 2007), but even more importantly, offers a sorely needed missing piece to complement the language-based view on strategy (Balogun et al., 2014; Mantere, 2013).

Methodologically, concepts offer a new level of analysis to move down from examination of strategy discourses (Knights & Morgan, 1991; Mantere & Vaara, 2008), narratives (Barry & Elmes, 1997), or conversational practices (Kwon et al., 2014; Whittle et al., 2014). Contextualized analysis of strategy work provides a dynamic practice-based understanding of concepts as key micro-level tools that managers and other organizational members use when making sense of organizational strategy. By focusing on concepts, one can thus open a new line of inquiry in strategic sensemaking that can concentrate on the emergence, shaping, mobilization, and replacement of strategic concepts as well as the complexities, contradictions, and ambiguities that all of this may entail (Cornelissen & Schildt, 2015; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). By focusing on the use of concepts, rather than on their role in larger textual networks, our analysis can also pave the way for a new dynamic stream of research in strategic vocabularies (Loewenstein et al., 2012). A focus on concepts can also inform other areas of strategy process and practice research; for instance, by studying how these concepts are linked with attention, one can also significantly enrich the emergent attention-based view of strategy (Ocasio et al., 2018).
We thus hope that our article will encourage others to complement the more established linguistic approaches with a closer attention to strategic concepts. We believe that this perspective can be useful for a variety of research areas beyond strategic change—including broader interorganizational and institutional processes where specific concepts play a key role. Finally, although we have laid out an example of such analysis, there is work to be done to develop this perspective further. We have already highlighted the role of various kinds of struggles in concept use, thus deepening the understanding of how shared meaning is established in Wittgensteinian language games in the strategy context. Future studies could elaborate on the various ways in which managers and other organizational members define and redefine the norms and rules of the language games, including challenging and taking distance from the meanings, norms, or rules implied and imposed by others.

Finally, our analysis of strategic sensemaking in Bay City shows that concepts hold practical relevance for managers. Strategy work is “concept-mongering,” and this use of concepts has implications that easily pass unnoticed with more conventional lenses. Concept-shaping and mobilization, however, require discursive and social skills, and not all managers or organizational actors are equally equipped or disposed to participate in these language games. We firmly believe that by examining strategic concepts as enabling and constraining tools, future research can create strong explanations of strategic sensemaking and help managers to better understand how to participate in and influence the outcomes of strategy work.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank Professor Steve Floyd and our two anonymous reviewers for excellent guidance and insights that helped us a great deal. We also want to express our gratitude to Virpi Sorsa for long-term collaboration and very helpful comments throughout this process, to David Miller for language editing, to Saku Mantere for excellent advice, and to our many colleagues at Aalto University and Hanken School of Economics for feedback and support. We are grateful to Patrick Reinmoeller, Paula Jarzabkowski, and the other participants of the OTREG seminar in Oxford in November 2017 for helpful comments on our revision. All three authors have contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order.

## REFERENCES

Abdallah, C., & Langley, A. (2014). The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning. *Journal of Management Studies, 51*(2), 235–264.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1997). The ubiquity in and potency of labeling organizations. *Organization Science, 8*(1), 43–58.

Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. (1992). Organization science, managers, and language games. *Organization Science, 3*(4), 443–460.

Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P. A., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. *Journal of Management Studies, 51*(2), 175–201.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. *Academy of Management Journal, 47*(4), 523–549.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. *Organization Studies, 26*(11), 1573–1601.

Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action and organizational renewal. *Strategic Management Journal, 13*, 156.

Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. *The Academy of Management Review, 22*(2), 429–452.

Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 29*(3), 355–372.

Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. *Organization Science, 14*(3), 312–330.

Boje, D. M. (2008). *Storytelling organizations*. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
We thus hope that our article will encourage others to complement the more established linguistic approaches with a closer attention to strategic concepts. We believe that this perspective can be useful for a variety of research areas beyond strategic change—including broader interorganizational and institutional processes where specific concepts play a key role. Finally, although we have laid out an example of such analysis, there is work to be done to develop this perspective further. We have already highlighted the role of various kinds of struggles in concept use, thus deepening the understanding of how shared meaning is established in Wittgensteinian language games in the strategy context. Future studies could elaborate on the various ways in which managers and other organizational members define and redefine the norms and rules of the language games, including challenging and taking distance from the meanings, norms, or rules implied and imposed by others.

Finally, our analysis of strategic sensemaking in Bay City shows that concepts hold practical relevance for managers. Strategy work is “concept-mongering,” and this use of concepts has implications that easily pass unnoticed with more conventional lenses. Concept-shaping and mobilization, however, require discursive and social skills, and not all managers or organizational actors are equally equipped or disposed to participate in these language games. We firmly believe that by examining strategic concepts as enabling and constraining tools, future research can create strong explanations of strategic sensemaking and help managers to better understand how to participate in and influence the outcomes of strategy work.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank Professor Steve Floyd and our two anonymous reviewers for excellent guidance and insights that helped us a great deal. We also want to express our gratitude to Virpi Sorsa for long-term collaboration and very helpful comments throughout this process, to David Miller for language editing, to Saku Mantere for excellent advice, and to our many colleagues at Aalto University and Hanken School of Economics for feedback and support. We are grateful to Patrick Reinmoeller, Paula Jarzabkowski, and the other participants of the OTREG seminar in Oxford in November 2017 for helpful comments on our revision. All three authors have contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order.

## REFERENCES

* Abdallah, C., & Langley, A. (2014). The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning. *Journal of Management Studies, 51*(2), 235–264.

* Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1997). The ubiquity in and potency of labeling organizations. *Organization Science*, *8*(1), 43–58.

* Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. (1992). Organization science, managers, and language games. *Organization Science*, *3*(4), 443–460.

* Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P. A., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. *Journal of Management Studies*, *51*(2), 175–201.

* Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. *Academy of Management Journal*, *47*(4), 523–549.

* Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. *Organization Studies*, *26*(11), 1573–1601.

* Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action and organizational renewal. *Strategic Management Journal*, *13*, 156.

* Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. *The Academy of Management Review*, *22*(2), 429–452.

* Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, *29*(3), 355–372.

* Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. *Organization Science*, *14*(3), 312–330.

* Boje, D. M. (2008). *Storytelling organizations*. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Brandom, R. B. (1994). *Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brandom, R. B. (2000). *Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). *A study of thinking*. New York, NY: Wiley.

Burgelman, R. A., Floyd, S. W., Laamanen, T., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2018). Strategy processes and practices: Dialogues and intersections. *Strategic Management Journal*, *39*, 531–558.

Cooren, F. (2010). *Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism*. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Cornelissen, J. P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). The contraction of meaning: The combined effect of communication, emotions, and materiality on sensemaking in the Stockwell shooting. *Journal of Management Studies*, *51*(5), 699–736.

Cornelissen, J. P., & Schildt, H. A. (2015). Sensemaking in strategy as practice: A phenomenon or a perspective? In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), *Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice* (2nd ed., pp. 345–364). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. *Organization Science*, *12*(3), 346–371.

Dameron, S., Lê, J. K., & LeBaron, C. (2015). Materializing strategy and strategizing materials: Why matter matters. *British Journal of Management*, *26*(S1), S1–S12.

Davidson, D. (1983). A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In K. Ludwig & E. Lepore (Eds.), *The essential Davidson* (pp. 225–241). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Plunkett Tost, L., & Suchman, M. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), *SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism* (2nd ed., pp. 27–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). *Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach*. London, U.K.: Sage Publications.

Dummett, M. (1993). *The seas of language*. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. *Academy of Management Journal*, *34*(3), 517–554.

Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2008). Strategy as discourse in a global retailer: A supplement to rationalist and interpretive accounts. *Organization Studies*, *29*(2), 191–217.

Fairclough, N. (1989). *Language and power*. Essex, England: Addison Wesley.

Fenton, C., & Langley, A. (2011). Strategy as practice and the narrative turn. *Organization Studies*, *32*(9), 1171–1196.

Fiol, C. M., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Maps for managers: Where are we? Where do we go from here? *Journal of Management Studies*, *29*(3), 267–285.

Floyd, S. W., Cornelissen, J. P., Wright, M., & Delios, A. (2011). Processes and practices of strategizing and organizing: Review, development, and the role of bridging and umbrella constructs. *Journal of Management Studies*, *48*(5), 933–952.

Giddens, A. (1979). *Central problems in social theory*. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. *Strategic Management Journal*, *12*(6), 433–448.

Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. *Academy of Management Journal*, *44*(4), 755–778.

Hodge, B., & Coronado, G. (2006). Mexico Inc.? Discourse analysis and the triumph of managerialism. *Organization*, *13*(4), 529–547.

Hutzschenreuter, T., & Kleindienst, I. (2006). Strategy-process research: What have we learned and what is still to be explored. *Journal of Management*, *32*(5), 673–720.

Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice. *Strategic Management Journal*, *36*, 537–558.

Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). A rhetoric-in-context approach to building commitment to multiple strategic goals. *Organization Studies*, *28*(11), 1639–1665.

Jarzabkowski, P. A., Sillince, J. A. A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. *Human Relations*, *63*(2), 219–248.

Jones, C., & Livne-Tarandach, R. (2008). Designing a frame: Rhetorical strategies of architects. *Journal of Organizational Behavior*, *29*(8), 1075–1099.

Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the De Novo category “modern architecture,” 1870–1975. *Organization Science*, *23*(6), 1523–1545.

Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. *Organization Science*, *24*(4), 965–995.

Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. *Journal of Management*, *31*(5), 719–737.

Ketokivi, M., & Castañer, X. (2004). Strategic planning as an integrative device. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, *49*(3), 337–365.

Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique. *Organization Studies*, *12*(2), 251–273.

Kwon, W., Clarke, I., & Wodak, R. (2014). Micro-level discursive strategies for constructing shared views around strategic issues in team meetings. *Journal of Management Studies*, *51*(2), 265–290.
Brandom, R. B. (1994). *Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brandom, R. B. (2000). *Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). *A study of thinking*. New York, NY: Wiley.

Burgelman, R. A., Floyd, S. W., Laamanen, T., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2018). Strategy processes and practices: Dialogues and intersections. *Strategic Management Journal*, *39*, 531–558.

Cooren, F. (2010). *Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism*. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Cornelissen, J. P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). The contraction of meaning: The combined effect of communication, emotions, and materiality on sensemaking in the Stockwell shooting. *Journal of Management Studies*, *51*(5), 699–736.

Cornelissen, J. P., & Schildt, H. A. (2015). Sensemaking in strategy as practice: A phenomenon or a perspective? In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), *Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice* (2nd ed., pp. 345–364). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. *Organization Science*, *12*(3), 346–371.

Dameron, S., Lê, J. K., & LeBaron, C. (2015). Materializing strategy and strategizing materials: Why matter matters. *British Journal of Management*, *26*(S1), S1–S12.

Davidson, D. (1983). A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In K. Ludwig & E. Lepore (Eds.), *The essential Davidson* (pp. 225–241). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Plunkett Tost, L., & Suchman, M. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), *SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism* (2nd ed., pp. 27–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). *Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach*. London, U.K.: Sage Publications.

Dummett, M. (1993). *The seas of language*. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. *Academy of Management Journal*, *34*(3), 517–554.

Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2008). Strategy as discourse in a global retailer: A supplement to rationalist and interpretive accounts. *Organization Studies*, *29*(2), 191–217.

Fairclough, N. (1989). *Language and power*. Essex, England: Addison Wesley.

Fenton, C., & Langley, A. (2011). Strategy as practice and the narrative turn. *Organization Studies*, *32*(9), 1171–1196.

Fiol, C. M., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Maps for managers: Where are we? Where do we go from here? *Journal of Management Studies*, *29*(3), 267–285.

Floyd, S. W., Cornelissen, J. P., Wright, M., & Delios, A. (2011). Processes and practices of strategizing and organizing: Review, development, and the role of bridging and umbrella constructs. *Journal of Management Studies*, *48*(5), 933–952.

Giddens, A. (1979). *Central problems in social theory*. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. *Strategic Management Journal*, *12*(6), 433–448.

Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. *Academy of Management Journal*, *44*(4), 755–778.

Hodge, B., & Coronado, G. (2006). Mexico Inc.? Discourse analysis and the triumph of managerialism. *Organization*, *13*(4), 529–547.

Hutzschenreuter, T., & Kleindienst, I. (2006). Strategy-process research: What have we learned and what is still to be explored. *Journal of Management*, *32*(5), 673–720.

Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice. *Strategic Management Journal*, *36*, 537–558.

Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). A rhetoric-in-context approach to building commitment to multiple strategic goals. *Organization Studies*, *28*(11), 1639–1665.

Jarzabkowski, P. A., Sillince, J. A. A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. *Human Relations*, *63*(2), 219–248.

Jones, C., & Livne-Tarandach, R. (2008). Designing a frame: Rhetorical strategies of architects. *Journal of Organizational Behavior*, *29*(8), 1075–1099.

Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the De Novo category “modern architecture,” 1870–1975. *Organization Science*, *23*(6), 1523–1545.

Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. *Organization Science*, *24*(4), 965–995.

Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. *Journal of Management*, *31*(5), 719–737.

Ketokivi, M., & Castañer, X. (2004). Strategic planning as an integrative device. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, *49*(3), 337–365.

Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique. *Organization Studies*, *12*(2), 251–273.

Kwon, W., Clarke, I., & Wodak, R. (2014). Micro-level discursive strategies for constructing shared views around strategic issues in team meetings. *Journal of Management Studies*, *51*(2), 265–290.
Latour, B. (1987). *Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. *Discourse & Communication, 1*(1), 91–112.

van Leeuwen, T. (2008). *Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis*. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Loewenstein, J., Ocasio, W., & Jones, C. (2012). Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new approach linking categories, practices, and institutions. *The Academy of Management Annals, 6*(1), 41–86.

van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. *Academy of Management Review, 32*(4), 1145–1154.

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. *The Academy of Management Annals, 8*(1), 57–125.

Mantere, S. (2005). Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity. *Strategic Organization, 3*(2), 157–184.

Mantere, S. (2013). What is organizational strategy? A language-based view. *Journal of Management Studies, 50*(8), 1408–1426.

Mantere, S. (2015). A Wittgensteinian perspective on strategizing. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), *Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice* (2nd ed., pp. 220–233). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in organization science. *Academy of Management Review, 38*(1), 70–89.

Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. *Organization Science, 19*(2), 341–358.

Mauws, M. K., & Phillips, N. (1995). Understanding language games. *Organization Science, 6*(3), 322–334.

Mirabeau, L., & Maguire, S. (2014). Too much of a good thing? Absorptive capacity, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. *Strategic Management Journal, 35*, 1202–1229.

Mohr, J. W., & Duquenne, V. (1997). The duality of culture and practice: Poverty relief in New York City, 1888–1917. *Theory and Society, 26*(2), 305–356.

Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility and firm performance. *Strategic Management Journal, 28*(3), 243–270.

Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 43*(2), 257–292.

Ocasio, W., Laamanen, T., & Vaara, E. (2018). Communication and attention dynamics: An attention-based view of strategic change. *Strategic Management Journal, 39*(1), 155–167.

Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. (2013). Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption. *Strategic Management Journal, 34*, 935–956.

Pentland, B. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 37*(4), 527–548.

Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish Knitware manufacturers. *Journal of Management Studies, 26*(4), 397–416.

Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. *Journal of Management Studies, 42*(7), 1413–1441.

Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence. *Journal of Management Studies, 48*(5), 953–983.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic direction. *Journal of Management Studies, 40*(1), 141–174.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2005). Strategic practice, “discourse” and the everyday interactional constitution of “power effects”. *Organization, 12*(6), 803–841.

Searle, J. R. (1995). *Construction of social reality*. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Seidl, D. (2007). General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: A systemic-discursive perspective. *Organization Studies, 28*(2), 197–218.

Sillince, J. A. A., Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Shaw, D. (2012). Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical construction and exploitation of ambiguity. *Organization Science, 23*(3), 630–650.

Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. A. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process. *Organization Studies, 32*(9), 1217–1245.

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 50*, 35–67.

Taylor, J. R., & Robichaud, D. (2004). Finding the organization in the communication: Discourse as action and sensemaking. *Organization, 11*(3), 395–413.

Vaara, E. (2010). Taking the linguistic turn seriously: Strategy as a multifaceted and interdiscursive phenomenon. *Advances in Strategic Management, 27*, 29–50.

Vaara, E., & Monin, P. (2010). A recursive perspective on discursive legitimation and organizational action in mergers and acquisitions. *Organization Science, 21*(1), 3–22.

Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. *Academy of Management Annals, 6*(1), 285–336.

Weick, K. E. (1995). *Sensemaking in organizations*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Whittle, A., Housley, W., Gilchrist, A., Mueller, F., & Lenney, P. (2014). Category predication work, discursive leadership and strategic sensemaking. *Human Relations, 68*(3), 377–407.

Wittgenstein, L. (2009). *Philosophical investigations* (4th ed.). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Latour, B. (1987). *Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. *Discourse & Communication, 1*(1), 91–112.

van Leeuwen, T. (2008). *Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis*. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Loewenstein, J., Ocasio, W., & Jones, C. (2012). Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new approach linking categories, practices, and institutions. *The Academy of Management Annals, 6*(1), 41–86.

van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. *Academy of Management Review, 32*(4), 1145–1154.

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. *The Academy of Management Annals, 8*(1), 57–125.

Mantere, S. (2005). Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity. *Strategic Organization, 3*(2), 157–184.

Mantere, S. (2013). What is organizational strategy? A language-based view. *Journal of Management Studies, 50*(8), 1408–1426.

Mantere, S. (2015). A Wittgensteinian perspective on strategizing. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), *Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice* (2nd ed., pp. 220–233). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in organization science. *Academy of Management Review, 38*(1), 70–89.

Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. *Organization Science, 19*(2), 341–358.

Mauws, M. K., & Phillips, N. (1995). Understanding language games. *Organization Science, 6*(3), 322–334.

Mirabeau, L., & Maguire, S. (2014). Too much of a good thing? Absorptive capacity, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. *Strategic Management Journal, 35*, 1202–1229.

Mohr, J. W., & Duquenne, V. (1997). The duality of culture and practice: Poverty relief in New York City, 1888–1917. *Theory and Society, 26*(2), 305–356.

Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility and firm performance. *Strategic Management Journal, 28*(3), 243–270.

Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 43*(2), 257–292.

Ocasio, W., Laamanen, T., & Vaara, E. (2018). Communication and attention dynamics: An attention-based view of strategic change. *Strategic Management Journal, 39*(1), 155–167.

Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. (2013). Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption. *Strategic Management Journal, 34*, 935–956.

Pentland, B. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 37*(4), 527–548.

Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish Knitware manufacturers. *Journal of Management Studies, 26*(4), 397–416.

Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. *Journal of Management Studies, 42*(7), 1413–1441.

Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence. *Journal of Management Studies, 48*(5), 953–983.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic direction. *Journal of Management Studies, 40*(1), 141–174.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2005). Strategic practice, “discourse” and the everyday interactional constitution of “power effects”. *Organization, 12*(6), 803–841.

Searle, J. R. (1995). *Construction of social reality*. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Seidl, D. (2007). General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: A systemic-discursive perspective. *Organization Studies, 28*(2), 197–218.

Sillince, J. A. A., Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Shaw, D. (2012). Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical construction and exploitation of ambiguity. *Organization Science, 23*(3), 630–650.

Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. A. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process. *Organization Studies, 32*(9), 1217–1245.

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 50*, 35–67.

Taylor, J. R., & Robichaud, D. (2004). Finding the organization in the communication: Discourse as action and sensemaking. *Organization, 11*(3), 395–413.

Vaara, E. (2010). Taking the linguistic turn seriously: Strategy as a multifaceted and interdiscursive phenomenon. *Advances in Strategic Management, 27*, 29–50.

Vaara, E., & Monin, P. (2010). A recursive perspective on discursive legitimation and organizational action in mergers and acquisitions. *Organization Science, 21*(1), 3–22.

Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. *Academy of Management Annals, 6*(1), 285–336.

Weick, K. E. (1995). *Sensemaking in organizations*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Whittle, A., Housley, W., Gilchrist, A., Mueller, F., & Lenney, P. (2014). Category predication work, discursive leadership and strategic sensemaking. *Human Relations, 68*(3), 377–407.

Wittgenstein, L. (2009). *Philosophical investigations* (4th ed.). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. *Journal of Management, 34*(6), 1190–1221.

Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 43*(3), 602–636.

Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. *The American Journal of Sociology, 104*(5), 1398–1438.

Zuckerman, E. W., Kim, T. Y., Ukanwa, K., & von Rittmann, J. (2003). Robust identities or nonentities? Typecasting in the feature-film labor market. *American Journal of Sociology, 108*(5), 1018–1073.

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.

**How to cite this article:** Jalonen K, Schildt H, Vaara E. Strategic concepts as micro-level tools in strategic sensemaking. *Strat Mgmt J.* 2018;39:2794–2826. https://doi.org/10.1002/ smj.2924
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. *Journal of Management, 34*(6), 1190–1221.

Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 43*(3), 602–636.

Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. *The American Journal of Sociology, 104*(5), 1398–1438.

Zuckerman, E. W., Kim, T. Y., Ukanwa, K., & von Rittmann, J. (2003). Robust identities or nonentities? Typecasting in the feature-film labor market. *American Journal of Sociology, 108*(5), 1018–1073.

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.

**How to cite this article:** Jalonen K, Schildt H, Vaara E. Strategic concepts as micro-level tools in strategic sensemaking. *Strat Mgmt J.* 2018;39:2794–2826. https://doi.org/10.1002/ smj.2924