Synthesising the paradox of organisational routine flexibility and stability: a processual view

Organisational routines have paradoxically been recognised as one of the most important elements of both stability and flexibility in organisational behaviour. Identifying routines as sources of stability, macro-level theories tend to overlook micro-level subjective aspects, such as tacit knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and values. Drawing from the knowledge-creation theory (Nonaka, 1994), this paper synthesises the micro and macro, and the subjective and objective dimensions of organisational routines. Organisational routines are described as sources for stability and flexibility, enabling and constraining thought and action of organisational actors. Examples of routines are provided from two Japanese automakers, Honda and Toyota, to describe a dynamic interaction among individuals and their work environment. Conclusions and research limitations are provided.

[1]  M. B. Lee,et al.  40 Years, 20 Million Ideas: The Toyota Suggestion System , 1990 .

[2]  R. I. Sutton,et al.  Switching Cognitive Gears: From Habits of Mind to Active Thinking , 1991 .

[3]  Mustafa Emirbayer,et al.  What Is Agency?1 , 1998, American Journal of Sociology.

[4]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[5]  M. Feldman,et al.  Organizational Routines as Sources of Connections and Understandings , 2002 .

[6]  B. Pentland,et al.  Organizational Routines as Grammars of Action , 1994 .

[7]  Markus C. Becker.  Organizational routines: a review of the literature , 2004 .

[8]  Paul Ryan,et al.  From Subcontracted R&D to Joint Collaboration: The Role of Trust in Facilitating this Process , 2004, Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag..

[9]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[10]  M. Feldman.  A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines , 2003 .

[11]  G. Hodgson,et al.  The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and routines , 2004 .

[12]  James D. Westphal,et al.  Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption , 1997 .

[13]  S. Winter,et al.  Introduction: The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities , 2001 .

[14]  M. Hannan,et al.  Structural Inertia and Organizational Change , 1984 .

[15]  E. Johnsen.  Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[16]  W. Orlikowski.  Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000 .

[17]  R. Hepburn,et al.  BEING AND TIME , 2010 .

[18]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[19]  M. Feldman,et al.  Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change , 2003 .

[20]  J. Dewey,et al.  PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL PRACTICE. , 1900, Science.

[21]  H. Braverman.  Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century , 1996 .

[22]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Ambiguity and choice in organizations , 1976 .

[23]  George H. Mead.  Scientific Method and the Moral Sciences , 1923, The International Journal of Ethics.

[24]  H. Garfinkel.  Studies in Ethnomethodology , 1968 .

[25]  Markus C. Becker.  A framework for applying organizational routines in empirical research: linking antecedents, characteristics and performance outcomes of recurrent interaction patterns , 2005 .

[26]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[28]  P. Adler,et al.  Flexibility Versus Efficiency? a Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System , 1999 .

[29]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[30]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[31]  Pierre Bourdieu,et al.  Outline of a Theory of Practice , 2020, On Violence.

[32]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[33]  Donald A. Schön.  The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action , 1986 .

[34]  Markus C. Becker,et al.  Applying Organizational Routines in understanding organizational change , 2005 .

[35]  P. Bourdieu.  The Logic of Practice , 1990 .

[36]  Ikujiro Nonaka,et al.  Strategic knowledge creation: the case of Hamamatsu Photonics , 2005, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[37]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues , 1996 .

[38]  M. Feldman.  Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change , 2000 .

[39]  A. Giddens.  Central Problems In Social Theory , 1979 .

[40]  Anthony Giddens,et al.  A contemporary critique of historical materialism , 1981 .

[41]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[42]  R. Collins.  On the Microfoundations of Macrosociology , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[43]  Mariano Corso,et al.  Fostering innovation and knowledge transfer in product development through information technology , 2001, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[44]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[45]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  The Toyota way : 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer , 2004 .

[46]  S. Barley.  Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. , 1986, Administrative science quarterly.

[47]  K. Weick.  The Vulnerable System: An Analysis of the Tenerife Air Disaster , 1990 .