Studying general organizational routines could improve understanding of ODRs. Different from the limited studies on ODRs, academics have paid substantial attention to the understanding organizational routines. They have attracted continuous interest from researchers with respect to various issues such as change, learning or organizational actions (e.g.Becker & Zirpoli, 2008; Nelson & Winter, 1982; Pentland, et al., 2010). The current debate on routines is mainly about whether routines are inflexible and mindless, or they are a resource of both change and stable. The more traditional approach of routines is explained by three famous metaphors, individual habit, programs and genes. However, contemporary literature on organizational routines tend to consider routines being stability and change (Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Gilbert, 2005; Rerup et al., 2011).
38 2.3.1 Organizational routines and stability
The traditional view treated organizational routines as (a) individual habit, (b) performance programs, and (c) employed the metaphor of “genes.” According to the first perspective, routines are like individual habits in that they become reflex and automatic actions (e.g. Becker and Zirpoli, 2008). Also routines operate via individual habitual behavior that mainly is non-deliberative and non-intentional (Hodgson, 2008). However, habits are different from routines. Habits are often referred as individual-level dispositions to engage in a particular behavior in response to stable contextual cues (Knudsen, 2008). From a view of pragmatist philosophy and instinct psychology, Hodgson and Knudsen (2004) posited that habit is propensity to react to certain stimuli and social institutions help to reinforce habits. Routines are meta-habits, existing on one ontological layer above habits themselves (Hodgson and Knudsen 2004, p. 289). Organizations provide social and physical environment to guide individuals’ habitual behavior. In the second perspective, routines have been equated to performance programs that are institutionalized rules or standard procedures from previous successful experiences (Cyert and March, 1963; Levitt, et al., 1999). They require more adjustment than habits because they involve compromises from each member’s habit to suit organizational development. However, they do not require deliberate consideration as most decisions are made in advance (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). The third theoretical perspective relates routines to biological “genes” (Nelson and Winter, 1982). Employees in organizations change over time, but some information is stored and carried forward, like genes inherited by the new employees. Routines here are like the memory of the organization. The gene analogy highlights that organizational routines have an important function as a capability reservoir for organizations (Hodgson, 2008). This
39
prevailing understanding of routines being like ‘genes’ is from an evolutionary theory which borrowed biology. Some routines persistently passed down after the process of variation, selection and information transfer (Knudsen). It emphasizes the characteristics of routines being repetitive, recurrent and automatic.
These three popular metaphors of organizational routines reflect a common feature: stability. In this perspective routines are mundane, mindless and lack deliberation (Becker, et al., 2005). Nelson (1991) also described routines as a partially automatic collective performance that is embedded in organizational capabilities in the form of implicit knowledge. This implicit knowledge such as abstract and generalized rules is labelled as the ostensive aspect of routines by Feldman and Pentland (2008). Feldman and Pentland (2003) criticized the traditional views on routines as an incomplete perspective without consideration of employees participating in the routines. However, the traditional view overlooks that employees are the agents of routines and they can deliberately adjust routines or modify them in coordination with other individuals to suit different situations. Therefore, Feldman and Pentland (2003) suggested that routines have a performative aspect, too. This means modification on routines can emerge from employees’ performance on routines. The ostensive and performative aspects of routines are interdependent, and thus can sometimes act in a complementary and sometimes in a contradictory fashion.
2.3.2 Organizational routines and change
A more current view not only recognizes routines as being stable, but also points out that organizational routines are effortful accomplishments of employees who mindfully select action at specific time and specific situation (Feldman 2000).
40
Recently organizational studies published a special issue on routine dynamics. Mainly these research challenges the conventional understanding on routines being inertial. For example, using simulation techniques, Yi et al. found that ‘a reduced rate of change at the routine level may cause variations in the pace and sequence with which planned changes to the routines and their effects take place, and such reordering of the planned changes may open the door to further organizational exploration and adaptation’ ( 2016, p. 796). In other words, the current research on routines advocate that routines are a source of stability and change (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). Farjoun (2010) noted that they are interdependent and influence each other. This is because the stability side of routines or the ostensive factor of routines gives directions or guidelines to employees, but the agency of actors who perform routines in organizations intentionally or unintentionally tailor routines based on the situations (Howard-Grenville, 2005). Employees’ reflective talk on the established behavior could elicit a new way of acting (Dittrich, Guerard and Seidl, 2016). Consequently, these patterns change in the organizational context and/or their own performance. Feldman and Pentland (2003) generalized these two characteristics of routines and defined routines as “a repetitive, recognizable pattern of interdependent actions, involving multiple actors, but they cannot be understood as static unchanging objects” (p.95).
In this definition “A repetitive, recognizable pattern” echoes the traditional view on organizational routines being stable; but “multiple actors” emphasizes the roles of employees as the agent carrying out the routines. This is because individuals interpret and conduct routines differently in accordance to either their own experience or a particular situation requirement, despite the fact that written routines
41
are invariable. For example, Howard-Grenville (2005) observed employees’ behavior in a high-tech manufacturing company and found that employees interpret routines differently depending on time and situation. Overall it is worthwhile noting that routines do not only present themselves in archived rules, schedules, and standard operating procedures, but also develop through interaction and cooperation among actors (Turner and Rindova, 2012). The literature on routines also posited that collective reflect communication at the situating problems is an important factor of contributing to changes at current routines (e.g. Dittrich et.al. 2016; Howard- Grenville, 2005). Hence, routines are not static, but can be modified during the process of performing them. Some of the variations can be institutionalized and become part of legitimate routines; some others may not be incorporated.
It is important to recognize the role agents at organizational routines. However, the role of institutions should be acknowledged as well. Based on DiMaggio and Powell’s work, organizations change routines can be categorized into three mechanisms, namely coercive isomorphism which stems from political influence; mimetic isomorphism resulting from standard responses to uncertainty and normatice isomorphism associated with professionalization (1983, p. 150). These three mechanisms indicate whether stabilizing or changing the current routines is not only a choice of individuals; but also a force of different institutions. These institutions could be government bodies, competitors or professional associations.