Switching strategic perspective: the reframing of accounts of responsibility

John Sillince*, Frank Mueller

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


We provide an empirical study of the reframing of accounts of responsibility for strategy. We found that top management ambivalence about strategy provided a middle management team with wide scope for interpretation of responsibility for developing and implementing a strategic initiative. In the early stage, responsibility as well as expectations about the strategy's successful outcome were 'talked up'. In the later stage, when it was considered that the strategic initiative was failing, the middle management implementation team engaged in 'talking down' of expectations. We show that reframing from initial duty to capability to later accountability shaped and reflected actors' changing goals. By focusing on responsibility we increase understanding of the division of labour in the actual practice of strategizing, including where and how strategizing is done. Most important, we show how protagonists' goals drive the framing and reframing of strategic agendas, and how linguistic devices such as disclaimers and self-handicapping influence this process.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)155-176
Number of pages22
JournalOrganization Studies
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2007


  • Accounts
  • Ambivalence
  • Failure
  • Implementation
  • Reframing
  • Responsibility
  • Strategy-as-practice
  • Time


Dive into the research topics of 'Switching strategic perspective: the reframing of accounts of responsibility'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this