This study makes four important contributions to the ODRs field. First, to the researcher’s knowledge, there are no other studies that identify the components of ODRs at both the organizational and the individual level. Most of the studies on ODRs focus on demonstrating the consequences of having ODRs in organizations. There is no clear and systematic identification on components of ODRs. By proposing theoretical models of ODRs at both levels, this study enriches organizational routine theories. This study shows that organizational routines are repetitive actions individuals interact with other members at an organizational setting. These actions are affected by both individuals’ cognition and social environment at organizations. The study also indicates that not all the routines are building blocks of organizational capabilities. Instead, they can be impediment of organizational progress.
As far as the researcher’s knowledge is concerned, this is the first time that a rigorous process is followed to develop a scale measurement for ODRs. The study also attempts to make the theoretical argument on ODRs more convincing to organizations by highlighting the multi-dimensional nature of ODRs. The multi- dimensional nature of ODRs shows that eliminating ODRs requires organizations’
139
effort on changing their defensive working climate. It also demands all the employees to reduce their own defensiveness on self-censoring important information without worrying about repercussions. If organizations only focus on one of the dimensions, it will not be sufficient to reduce ODRs.
Second, Argyris (2001) theoretically proposed that ODRs exist in all cultures, but this claim is not tested empirically. Configural invariance test have been confirmed the hierarchical second-order structure of ODRs in both UK and US cultural context. It made the researcher believe that ODRs could be measured from two dimensions at organizational and individual level independently. Though the differences between UK and USA cultures are not as significant as comparing western cultures and Asian cultures, yet this is first step to establish whether culture affects peoples’ interpretation on the scale. It provides a new reliable and valid scale for identifying ODRs across cultures, which enriches the existing ODRs theories and extends the applicability of the scale for empirical studies.
Additionally, the study contributes to bringing in a new perspective to understand the reason why organizational routines are inert and automatic. Although Feldman (2000) suggested that organizational routines are the source of stability and change, ODRs make organizations a place of preferring to maintain old routines, at most, temporary changes (Argyris, 1990). Hence, the inert nature of routines becomes more apparent in organizations with ODRs than without ODRs. Routines are carried out by a system of individuals who interactively work together, so an emergence of new routines requires to solve conflicts between individuals before reaching a new truce (Nelson & Winter, 1990; Cacciatori, 2012). When ODRs are prevalent in
140
organizations, the dominant way of solving conflict is bypassing and covering up organizational issues (Noonan, 2000). Without a clear communication on the issues, the intermediaries are not able to transfer the correct intention of one actor to another resulting in maintaining old routines (Bapuji et al., 2012). Additionally, organizations with ODRs tend to encourage people to exploit incumbent routines and avoid exploring new routines, because a new routine is exposed to more risk of resistance and criticism than an unknown routine (Argyris, 1990). This results in organizations investing more on an exploitation process instead of an exploration process (Gilbert, 2005). Altogether, it means that the existence of ODRs could contribute to the limited dynamic of organizational capability to change at macro- level of organizational routines.
The study also brings individuals psycho-cognitive tendency into consideration of micro level of organizational routines. Routines at individual levels are understood from individuals’ actions in organizations (Cohen, 2012) together with materials such as computers and technological tools (Pentland et al., 2012). Organizational routines involve multiple actors whose actions are interdependent (Feldman, 2000). Hence, it is essential to have shared cognitive frameworks among these actors in order to reduce the cognitive distance between them (Witt, 2011). While ODRs exist in organizations, individuals are prone to make assumptions on the rationality of disguising their candor opinion toward negative issues (Noonan, 2011). The unexposed cognition framework on the causes of embarrassment and threat in organizations increased the cognitive distance between employees. As a result, the opportunity of designing new routines for solving the negative issues would not be identified and the old routines stay effective. This reflects Simon’s (1974) theory
141
that individuals’ cognition is at the top of the pyramid to determine individuals’ habitual behavior and emotion. It also brings a novel perspective on how individuals can contribute to the emergence of new routines by reducing ODRs.
The researcher also would like to note the practical implication of this study. First, the scales can serve as diagnostic tools for consultants and organizations to identify ODRs. Measuring ODRs is valuable for organizations to identify ODRs at any stage of their development, especially when organizations are going through changes (Argyris, 1990). At the individual level, it is important for individuals as well to be aware of their own contribution to ODRs, as ODRs relate to their own job performance. Additionally, regular assessment of ODRs at both the organizational and the individual level could contribute to the assessment of whether organizations have formed a culture unconsciously to encourage employees to by-pass or cover up negative issues. This could create barriers for organizational learning. As Tranfield et al. (2000) pointed out organizations who want to be learning organizations need to reduce or eliminate ODRs in order to unlearn old routines. Furthermore, the ODRs instrument can be used as a tool for consultants to define ODRs at the early stage of examining organizational problems or confirming their findings from case studies. Previous case studies conducted by Argyris (1990) and Noonan (2007) showed that identifying ODRs is time consuming. These instruments could be beneficial for them to recognize ODRs more efficiently.
Secondly, from the societal perspective, the results of this study can facilitate people to have a different perspective on understanding certain social virtues such as suppress negative feelings and respect other people in order to avoid embarrassment
142
and conflict (Argyris, 2001). Those social virtues simply confine people to have open discussion on negative issues (Noonan, 2007). However, this study shows that constructively revealing genuine feelings toward negative issues can enable people to identify the causes of the embarrassment and threat at the first place, so that the problems can be solved at the initial stage. Changing peoples’ perspectives on social virtues related to dealing with embarrassment and threat will benefit organizations to have a healthy environment to decrease ODRs.