تأثیرگذاری پاورپوینت:چشم اندازی بصری به معناسازی در استراتژی

نوع مقاله : ترجمه

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت اجرایی دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت بازرگانی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی تهران

چکیده

براساس داده های قوم نگاری از دو طرح مشاوره ای نتیجه می گیریم که استراتژیست ها از سه سازوکار بصری (نمایش، هم جواری و برجستگی) در ساخت اسلایدهای پاورپوینت استفاده می کنند. این سازوکارهای بصری ازطریق برانگیختن گفت و گوها و درنهایت با خلق وضوح استراتژیک موجب معناسازی می شوند. هنگامی که شرکت کنندگان به تصاویر واکنش نشان می دهند، استراتژی را به شکل اصلاح شده تفسیر می کنند که این تصویر پژواک استراتژیک را منعکس می کند. در این پژوهش، براساس تعامل بین این سه خرده فرایند (سازوکار های بصری، وضوح استراتژیک و پژواک استراتژیک)، مدلی فرایندی را به منظور درک چگونگی تأثیرگذاری تصاویر در معناسازی در تعاملات استراتژی بیان می کنیم و با تبیین چگونگی تأثیرگذاری تصاویر در پدید آمدن تعابیر متفاوت از یک استراتژی و خلق ادراک جدید، به مطالعات موجود در حوزۀ اجرا و فرایند استراتژی کمک می کنیم؛ به ویژه هنگامی که موضوعات از لحاظ سیاسی حساس یا از لحاظ تحلیلی پیچیده اند. هدف از این پژوهش شناخت روش استفادۀ استراتژیست ها از اطلاعات بصری (به شکل خاص در اسلایدهای پاورپوینت) و تأثیر آن در فرایند استراتژی است. گفت وگو دربارۀ استراتژی تحت تأثیر فنونی است که استراتژیست ها در ساخت اسلایدها به کار می برند، فنونی که نوع اقدامات پیگیری را شکل می دهند. یافته ها همچنین حاکی از آن است که: الف) طراحی اسلایدهای پاورپوینت می تواند در بررسی موضوعات پیچیده مؤثر باشد؛ برای نمونه در موقعیت های حساس سیاسی یا هنگامی که شرکت کنندگان دیدگاه های متفاوتی دارند؛ ب) کسانی که اسلایدهای پاورپوینت را تدوین و ویرایش می کنند به شدت در جهت گیری استراتژی تأثیر می گذارند. بنابراین، به کارگیری ماهرانۀ پاورپوینت در شکل دهی ماهیت و سرعت تعاملات استراتژی به دست مدیران بسیار مهم است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Power of PowerPoint: A Visual Perspective on Meaning Making in Strategy

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zahra Daniali 1
  • Amirhossein Tayebi Abolhasani 2
1 MSc. of EMBA, University of Tehran
2 PhD. Student of Business Management, Allameh Tabatabaii University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

Relying on ethnographic data from two consulting engagements, we find that strategists use three visual mechanisms (depiction, juxtaposition, and salience) to create PowerPoint slides. These visual mechanisms prompt meaning-making through the conversations they stimulate, creating strategic visibility. As participants react to visuals, they enact revised interpretations of the strategy, reflecting strategic resonance. Based on the interactions among these three subprocesses (visual mechanisms, strategic visibility, and strategic resonance), we develop a process model for how visuals influence meaning making in strategy engagements. We contribute to existing strategy practice and process studies by explaining how visuals help broker divergent interpretations of a strategy and give rise to new understandings, especially when issues are politically sensitive or analytically complex. Managerial Summary: The purpose of this study is to understand how strategists use visual information (specifically in PowerPoint slides), and its effects on the strategy process. We find that strategy conversations are influenced by the techniques strategists use to create slides, which in turn shape the kinds of follow-up actions taken. The implications are that: (a) PowerPoint slides can be designed to help tackle complex issues, for instance, when participants have divergent opinions or in politically sensitive situations, and (b) those who craft and edit PowerPoint slides strongly influence the direction of the strategy. The skillful use of PowerPoint is therefore crucial in allowing managers to shape the nature and speed of strategy engagements.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • PowerPoint
  • Strategy Consulting
  • Strategy as Practice
  • Strategy Process
  • Visual Semiotics

مراجع

  1. Abdallah, C., & Langley, A. (2014). The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning.Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 235–264.
  2. Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power.Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 175–201.
  3. Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures.Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 393–413.
  4. Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse.Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 429–452.
  5. Bell, E., & Davison, J. (2013). Visual management studies: Empirical and theoretical approaches.International Journal of Manage-ment Reviews, 15(2), 167–184.
  6. Berinato, S. (2016). Visualizations that really work.Harvard Business Review, 94, 92–100.
  7. Bourgoin, A., & Muniesa, F. (2016). Building a rock-solid slide management consulting, PowerPoint, and the craft of signification.Management Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 390–410.
  8. Brannen, M. Y. (2004). When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness.Academy ofManagement Review, 29(4), 593–616.
  9. Burgelman, R. A. (2011). Bridging history and reductionism: A key role for longitudinal qualitative research.Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 42, 591–601.
  10. Burgelman, R. A., & Grove, A. S. (1996). Strategic dissonance.California Management Review, 38(2), 8–28.
  11. Burgelman, R. A., Meza, P. E., & McKinney, W. (2016).Becoming Hewlett Packard: Why strategic leadership matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  12. Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduc-tion to the special issue.Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170.
  13. Czarniawska, B. (2008).A theory of organizing. Northampton, MA: Elgar.Dameron, S., Lê, J. K., & LeBaron, C. (2015). Materializing strategy and strategizing material: Why matter matters.British Journalof Management, 26(S1), S1–S12.
  14. De Saussure, F. (2006).Writings in general linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  15. Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242.
  16. 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.
  17. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations.Academy of Manage-ment Review, 20(3), 541–570.
  18. Gaskins, R. (2012).Sweating bullets: Notes about inventing PowerPoint. London, U.K.: Vinland Books.Giraudeau, M. (2008). The drafts of strategy: Opening up plans and their uses.Long Range Planning, 41(3), 291–308.
  19. Gylfe, P., Franck, H., Lebaron, C., & Mantere, S. (2016). Video methods in strategy research: Focusing on embodied cognition.Strategic Management Journal, 37(1), 133–148.
  20. Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2008). Crafting strategy: The role of embodied metaphors.Long Range Planning, 41, 309–325.
  21. Jarzabkowski, P., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice.Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 537–558.
  22. Jewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: A social semiotic approach. In T. Van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook ofvisual analysis (pp. 134–156). London, England: Sage.
  23. Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making.OrganizationScience, 22(2), 320–346.
  24. Knight, E., & Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical ten-sions.Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 403–432.
  25. Knight, E., & Wójcik, D. (2016). Geographical linkages in the financial services industry: A dialogue with organizational studies.Regional Studies, 51(1), 1–12.
  26. Kress, G. R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996).Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  27. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data.Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.
  28. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
  29. Li, Y. (2017). A semiotic theory of institutionalization.Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 520–547.
  30. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985).Natralistic inquiry. London, England: Sage.Liu, F., & Maitlis, S. (2014). Emotional dynamics and strategizing processes: A study of strategic conversations in top team meetings.Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 202–234.
  31. Mantere, S. (2013). What is organizational strategy? A language-based view.Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1408–1426.
  32. Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in organization science.Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 70–89.
  33. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
  34. Meyer, R. E., Höllerer, M. A., Jancsary, D., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2013). The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and orga-nization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues.The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 489–555.
  35. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  36. Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation.Management Science, 24(9), 934–948.
  37. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning.Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107–114.
  38. Mirabeau, L., & Maguire, S. (2014). From autonomous strategic behavior to emergent strategy.Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1202–1229.
  39. Moriarty, S. E. (1996). Abduction: A theory of visual interpretation.Communication Theory, 6(2), 167–187.
  40. Nöth, W. (2011a). From representation to thirdness and representamen to medium: Evolution of Peircean key terms and topics.Trans-actions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 47(4), 445–481.
  41. Nöth, W. (2011b). Visual semiotics: Key features and an application to picture ads. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), The Sagehandbook of visual research methods (pp. 298–316). London, England: Sage.
  42. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization.TheAcademy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
  43. Paivio, A. (2013).Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  44. Paroutis, S., Franco, A., & Papadopoulos, T. (2015). Visual interactions with strategy tools: Producing strategic knowledge in work-shops.British Journal of Management, 26(1), S44–S68.
  45. Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. (2013). Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during insti-tutional adoption.Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 935–956.
  46. Paroutis, S., Mckeown, M., & Collinson, S. (2013). Building castles from sand: Unlocking CEO mythopoetical behaviour in HewlettPackard from 1978 to 2005.Business History, 55(7), 1200–1227.
  47. Patton, M. (2015).Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th Ed.). London, England: Sage.
  48. Payne, G., & Williams, M. (2005). Generalization in qualitative research.Sociology, 39(2), 295–314.
  49. Peirce, C. S. (1998).The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  50. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change theory and practice.Organization Science, 1(3), 267–292.
  51. Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). The character and significance of strategy process research.Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 5–16.
  52. Queiroz, J., & Merrell, F. (2006). Semiosis and pragmatism: Toward a dynamic concept of meaning.Σημειωτκή-Sign Systems Stud-ies, 34(1), 37–65.
  53. Ray, J. L., & Smith, A. D. (2011). Using photographs to research organizations: Evidence, considerations, and application in a fieldstudy.Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 288–315.
  54. Schoeneborn, D. (2013). The pervasive power of PowerPoint: How a genre of professional communication permeates organizationalcommunication.Organization Studies, 34(12), 1777–1801.
  55. Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of organization.Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 361–380.
  56. Sillince, J., Jarzabkowski, P., & Shaw, D. (2012). Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical construction and exploitation ofambiguity.Organization Science, 23(3), 630–650.
  57. Spee, P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process.Organization Studies, 32(9), 1217–1245.
  58. Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. (2012). Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual togroup-level prospective sensemaking.Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1232–1259.
  59. Suominen, K., & Mantere, S. (2010). Consuming strategy: The art and practice of managers’everyday strategy usage. In J. A. C.Baum & J. Lampel (Eds.), The globalization of strategy research (pp. 211–245). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group PublishingLimited.
  60. Tufte, E. R. (2003).The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Vaara, E., & Lamberg, J.-A. (2016). Taking historical embeddedness seriously: Three historical approaches to advance strategy pro-cess and practice research.Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 633–657.
  61. Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy as practice: Taking social practices seriously.Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 285–336.
  62. Werle, F., & Seidl, D. (2015). The layered materiality of strategizing: Epistemic objects and the interplay between material artefactsin the exploration of strategic topics.British Journal of Management, 26(S1), S67–S89.
  63. Whittington, R. (2017). Strategy as practice, process, and institution: Turning towards activity. In A. Langely & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp. 387–400). London, England: Sage.
  64. Wenzel, M., & Koch, J. (2018). Strategy as staged performance: A critical discursive perspective on keynote speeches as a genre ofstrategic communication.Strategic Management Journal.
  65. Wright, R. P., Paroutis, S. E., & Blettner, D. P. (2013). How useful are the strategic tools we teach in business schools? Journal ofManagement Studies, 50(1), 92–125.

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 01 خرداد 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 02 مرداد 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 23 شهریور 1399

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار