A bridge too far?

Analyzing cross-level strategizing challenges of an interorganizational strategy process on a collective bridge inventory

Journal Article (2026)
Author(s)

A.R. Toering (TU Delft - Organisation & Governance)

M.L.C. de Bruijne (Netherlands Defence Academy)

T.S.G.H. Rodhouse (TU Delft - Organisation & Governance)

Wijnand Veeneman (TU Delft - Organisation & Governance)

DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-09-2025-0382 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2026
Language
English
Journal title
Journal of Strategy and Management
Downloads counter
6
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Purpose – This paper examines how interorganizational strategy processes unfold by analyzing cross-level decision-making challenges that recur when organizations jointly develop strategy while remaining embedded in their own organizational contexts.

Design/methodology/approach – We conducted a longitudinal qualitative case study of an interorganizational strategy process focused on a collective bridge inventory in a Dutch region. We followed an initiative for approximately one year, starting from its early formation. Using a layered analytical approach that distinguishes interpretation, structure and relations, we traced how the initiative transformed over time across organizational boundaries.

Findings – The study identifies three cross-level strategizing challenges: joint goal setting, shared ownership and pacing. These challenges did not appear as linear stages or discrete obstacles but repeatedly re-emerged. Joint goal setting was complicated by divergent organizational rationales, shared ownership emerged unevenly across actors and pacing reflected persistent temporal misalignments between interorganizational ambitions and intraorganizational capacities. Together, these cross-level dynamics shaped the trajectory of the strategy process.

Practical implications – For practitioners, we propose viewing these challenges as interpretive lenses to make sense of re-emerging tensions and diagnose when the strategy process may require temporary stabilization. Rather than designing “linking pins”, strategizing requires a continuous balancing effort between inter- and intraorganizational rationales.

Originality/value – The paper contributes to interorganizational strategizing research by conceptualizing cross-level challenges as dynamic and constitutive elements of strategy processes rather than background conditions. It offers a rare, in-depth, processual account of informal and horizontal interorganizational strategizing in response to complex societal challenges, extending open strategy research beyond the focal organization.