analysis of integrated reporting in Germany from 2008 to 2019 shows, however, that organizations approached integrated reporting with a wait-and-see mentality. This approach cannot be described adequately by the existing conceptualizations of (partial) practice adoption. We therefore develop the notion of wait-and-see-ism, defined as the deliberate and potentially long-lasting postponement of a decision to adopt a practice while its further development is monitored silently. We see limited, though continuous, efforts to prepare for the prospect of adopting the practice of integrated reporting quickly at a later stage. Wait-and-see-ism expands on prior work on partial adoption by emphasizing its temporal dimension. This adds an important yet undertheorized option that organizations can employ to respond to ambiguous institutional demands, thus explaining the stalling of promising management practices.

27:T481,

While work on affect in strategy-making has been increasingly developing, relatively little research has been conducted on the emotional dynamics of strategy processes directed by strategy consultants. Drawing on a variety of qualitative data gathered during a 1-year consulting case, this article looks into the way emotions unfold when managers solicit external strategic advice. Specifically, this article reveals the mechanisms underpinning managers’ emotions in guided strategy-making from pre- to post-strategizing, highlighting processes as they develop over time. In doing so, three fundamental emotional drivers are laid bare: interaction—or how practitioners engage with each other; temporality—or how practitioners engage with time; and impression—or how practitioners engage with mental representations of strategy-making and strategy consultancy. By revealing how emotions evolve when managers find themselves strategically directed, this article offers insight into how a guided strategy-making trajectory can be affectively managed—to make sense of emotions when they unfold, and to address them appropriately as they do.

28:T43c,

Research has addressed how the practices and organization of strategy meetings shape strategy processes and outcomes. However, how interactive processes run between and feed into meetings—an integral aspect of how managers shape ongoing strategy emergence—remains relatively poorly understood. Through a strong processual-interactionist approach, we thus examine how in- and between-meeting practices interact and create combined effects in orchestrating ongoing flows of strategy formation. By considering strategy meetings as part of and punctuating chain-like, interactive processes of strategy formation, we develop an understanding of how in- and between-meeting practices dynamically interact—they enable, balance the effects of, and shape one another through the interaction flows in which they are engaged. The longitudinal case study reveals and explains the role of cross-over effects and coalescing between multiple simultaneous interaction flows, thereby advancing extant research on how series of interaction sequences shape strategy emergence and evolution.

29:T4ae,

In interorganizational teams, processes are more complex and structures less clear than in intraorganizational settings. Different perspectives come together and authoritative positions are often ambiguous, which makes establishing what to do problematic. We adopt a ventriloquial analytical lens and pose the question: How exactly do interorganizational team members build a collaborative strategy under these conditions, in their situated interactions? Our findings show how many different voices (individual, organizational, team, and other) shape members’ strategy-making and reveal these voices’ performative authoritative effects: Members established their team’s strategy and produced the needed authority to do so through three coauthoring practices, namely, the proposition, appropriation, and expropriation of voices. When members