Endogenous-ostensive flexibility occurs when the change in the routine primarily affects the ostensive aspect and is triggered from within the routine itself. According to Pentland and Feldman (2005), the ostensive aspect of a routine should not be assumed to be a single, unified entity, but should be expected to differ between people, and in different times. Changes in the ostensive that are triggered endogenously can be categorised into: (1) planned changes, (2) emergent changes.
Planned change. Endogenous ostensive changes may occur due to the initiatives of the
routine actors which are planned ahead. In the study by Rerup and Feldman (2011) on organisational schemata, they observed how the ostensive was changed through a trial and error process. Organisational schemata is defined as “a set of shared assumptions, values, and frames of reference that give meaning to everyday activities and guide how organization members think and act” (p.578). Their study suggests that if an organisation recognises the relationship between routines and organisational schemata, it will manage change more effectively. This is because “routines and schemata are interactively co-constituted” where either one can influence the other (p.578). For instance, while solving problems related to a certain routine, the actions of the routine actors may also resolve any questions about schemata. Actors vary their ostensive to align their routines with the organisation’s schemata through a learning process using trial and error, or as Bucher and Langley (2016) term it, “spontaneous variations” (p.594). The trial and error process
41
of achieving the desired ostensive (and hence schemata) was consciously carried out, thus it was a planned ostensive change.
Emergent change. On the other hand, ostensive changes that are triggered endogenously
may also be emergent. For example, in Whitford and Zirpoli’s (2014) study of an automotive organisation involved in inter-organisational routines, they observed how an ostensive change became necessary following an undesired routine performance. The organisation faced ostensive breakdowns with one of its main sub-contractors as the result of a particular performance of one of their joint activities (i.e. crash test). The incident led to them re-establishing and agreeing on a new ostensive among all routine actors. In another example, Aroles and McLean (2016) observed how meetings were used as a space to challenge existing routines by raising concerns or controversies based on performances. The repetition of routine performances and discussions from the meetings led to changes in the ostensive that were emergent (Aroles and McLean 2016).
2.4.4 Endogenous-performative flexibility
Endogenous-performative flexibility occurs when the change in the routine primarily affects the performative aspect and is triggered from within the routine itself. Such changes can be either: (1) planned changes, or (2) instantaneous changes.
Planned changes. Planned performative changes may occur as actors choose their actions
depending on a specific context as well as what they have experienced in past routine performances (Dittrich et al. 2016). In the study by Feldman (2000) on university accommodation routines, she suggested that if a routine performance provides advancement opportunities (such as a more desirable outcome) then routine actors may choose to adapt the routine to take advantage of this opportunity. She refers to this as “striving”, which could be one of many ways in which routine actors use their experience to change how they perform a routine. Unlike the example in Whitford and Zirpoli’s (2014) study, in Feldman’s (2000) study the ostensive still remained. What changed was how the actors performed the routine. Thus the impact of past routine performances enabled actors to plan for changes in future performances. On the other hand, changes in the performative aspect that are triggered endogenously mostly occur instantaneously. Pentland and Rueter (1994) suggest that routines are “effortful accomplishments” that actors construct based on a repertoire of
42
possibilities. Evidence of this was clearly shown in Pentland et al.’s (2010) study in which a simple invoice-processing routine was observed being performed with significant differences each time, even when there was no apparent intervention from external sources (Pentland et al. 2011).
Instantaneous changes. Instantaneous performative changes are triggered by various
factors. Firstly, different intentions between routine actors and the routine owners can cause performance deviation. For instance, in the study by Bruns (2009), she observed that due to different professional concerns, the routines were not performed according to the rules set by the organisation as the routine actors picked and chose whichever routines they deemed suitable to be applied according to the situation. Similarly, Bapuji et al. (2012) in their study on towel-changing routines in a hotel observed that the incorrect use of artefacts resulted in the intentions of the hotel not being clearly transferred to the hotel guests. The impact of this was a variety of routine performances (i.e. towels were left all over the place) which made the work of the housekeepers more difficult. Secondly, power can influence how a routine is performed. For example, in Howard-Grenville’s (2005) study, a senior executive, because of his position, was able to influence a change in how the routine was enacted. Alternatively, even if an individual is a regular employee, they can still determine the routine’s enactment. For instance, in D’Adderio’s (2003) study, even though the organisation had implemented a new software system to be part of the routine, routine actors decided to bypass the system when enacting the routine because they viewed it as a hindrance. Thus, they had the power to determine how the routine should be performed. Lastly, performance flexibility can be triggered by the actors’ experiences. For instance, the study by Narduzzo et al. (2000) observed how technicians varied the sequence of activities while performing their installation and repair routines based on their own experiences. Although the sequence of activities was not exactly the same each time they performed the routines, the final outcome, i.e. to repair or install the equipment, was always achieved.
In summary, although performative changes that are endogenously triggered can be planned ahead, most of the changes occur instantaneously due to conflicting intentions, use of power, and relying on experience.
43
2.5 Summary and research gaps
Routine flexibility has been examined in various studies ranging from adaptation and evolution from a black-box perspective (Cyert and March 1963; Nelson and Winter 1982), to ostensive and performative flexibility from a practice perspective (Feldman and Pentland 2003). A shift in how routines are theorised has led to the practice approach of studying routines, which provides new insight into their micro-dynamics. Feldman and Pentland (2003) proposed that routines consist of the ostensive and performative aspects, which are interlinked as generative systems (Pentland and Feldman 2005). This means that both aspects of the routine are continuously changing with time. By understanding these aspects and how they are exerted, organisations can learn to manage their operations better. For instance, by understanding that routine performance is driven by the agentic role of its actors, organisations can plan for investing in the actors’ ostensive, such as by providing training and seeking constant feedback (Pentland and Feldman 2008a).
Empirical studies have provided evidence of routine flexibility occurring in both the ostensive and the performative aspects. Ostensive flexibility occurs through many mechanisms, such as: planned or purposeful experimentation (Bucher and Langley 2016), conducting a trial and error process (Rerup and Feldman 2011), redesigning the artefact that represents the ostensive (Whitford and Zirpoli 2014), and anticipating reactions or effects of certain actions (Short and Toffel 2010). Alternatively, flexibility in the performative aspect can occur through mechanisms including: use of power (Howard-Grenville 2005) or experience (Turner and Fern 2012), referring to artefacts as a guide (Pentland and Rueter 1994; Turner and Rindova 2012), and articulating personal objectives (Bruns 2009). However, is it true that routine flexibility involves only one aspect at a time? Pentland and Feldman (2005) suggests that both the ostensive and performative form the generative properties of routines, and that without these two aspects, routines cannot exist. Furthermore, similar to structure and agency (Giddens 1984), the ostensive and performative are mutually constitutive of one another, i.e. their relationship is a two-way occurrence. Thus, these two aspects form an integral part in the existence of routines, which also allows them to both change and stabilise (Feldman and Pentland 2003; Feldman et al. 2016). This suggests that flexibility in routines involves both aspects. However little is known about how the relationship between ostensive and performative aspects affects routine flexibility.
44
Some relationships have been explicitly acknowledged, such as how the ostensive-to- performative relationship exists through guiding, accounting and referring (Feldman and Pentland 2003). The flexibility of the performative aspect is dependent on how the ostensive provides guidance and accountability as well as reference. Although this has been discussed theoretically, there have been few empirically based studies that support these relationships. Additionally, there are relationships that have been implied in previous studies. For example, one of the characteristics of the ostensive is that it does not determine the routine’s performance (e.g. D'Adderio 2003; Bruns 2009). The performative aspect will often have some form of novelty compared to the intended routine design (i.e. the ostensive) even if it has been encoded in an artefact such as a standard operating procedure (Pentland and Feldman 2005). Thus performative flexibility occurs independently from the ostensive aspect. Although there has been some research that supports this (D'Adderio 2003; Bruns 2009), the role of the ostensive-to-performative relationship in routine flexibility is still unclear. For instance, why does the ostensive not determine the performative? Is this only true if the ostensive is fixed? It has been established that the ostensive can also change and differ with each individual due to the tacit aspect of routines (Emirbayer and Mische 1998; Howard-Grenville 2005). Therefore, if the ostensive is always flexible, will the performative also be flexible in relation to the ostensive?
Recent studies have attempted to address this gap by including both the ostensive and performative aspects in their discussions on routine flexibility. For instance, Bucher and Langley (2016) state that routines continuously evolve as local performances of the routine are adapted to ongoing circumstances, but at the same time still retain selected adaptations from the overall routine’s concept. Reflective spaces allow actors to develop new concepts of the routine (i.e. ostensive), whereas experimental spaces allow actors to test out (i.e. performative) these concepts (Bucher and Langley 2016). Thus the role of spaces and boundaries are central to their findings. In another example, Lebaron et al. (2016) observed how mutual intelligibility (i.e. ostensive) is created, maintained, and repaired through performative flexibility. The sequential features of a routine commonly understood between actors became a source for how they negotiated changes in the sequence via coordination, thus allowing flexibility in the routine’s performance (LeBaron
et al. 2016). Their study focused on the coordination between actors that enabled performative flexibility. In both these studies, the ostensive-performative relationships were not explicitly discussed, i.e. the studies’ main focus were on other aspects. Whereas the first study focused on
45
the roles of spaces in routine change, the second focused on coordination in performative flexibility. This leaves many more areas unexplored on the ostensive-performative relationship, which is why this study aims to primarily focus on the relationship of the two routine aspects in routine flexibility.
Another common theme in past studies on routine flexibility is the examination of sources. Different sources trigger different aspects of the routine. According to Feldman and Pentland (2003), routine flexibility can be triggered by sources from within (endogenous) or external (exogenous) to the routine. Exogenous sources may include: introduction of a new structure (Reynaud 2005), changing market and technical realities (Burgelman 1994), implementation of new legislation (Short and Toffel 2010), environmental changes (Turner and Rindova 2012), and the introduction of technological artefacts (D'Adderio 2003; 2008; Goh et al. 2011). On the other hand, endogenous sources may include: undesirable routine performances (Feldman 2000; Whitford and Zirpoli 2014), contradiction in organisational schemata (Rerup and Feldman 2011), and having different objectives (D'Adderio 2003; Bruns 2009) or intentions (Bapuji et al. 2012). Understanding the sources of routine flexibility can provide insight into the characteristics and mechanisms of how routines are flexible. Referring to Table 2.2, it can be observed that there are different characteristics associated with different sources. For instance, exogenous sources are likely to trigger changes in the routines that are a direct response to the sources, or involve some form of structure (e.g. artefacts, proven practices) to guide the routine enactment. Therefore, in a way, routine flexibility that is exogenously triggered is a form of controlled flexibility. On the other hand, endogenous sources are likely to trigger emergent or impromptu changes in a routine that are different every time the routine is enacted. I believe that the characteristics and mechanisms for routine flexibility triggered by endogenous sources are endless as no exact situation is likely to repeat itself. This can be observed when the routine’s ostensive is part of a norm, such as in Howard-Grenville’s (2005) case, rather than embedded in an artefact. This is because total reliance on actors’ tacit knowledge for routine enactment provides the avenue for endless flexibility to emerge because the actors are not bound by any explicit rules. Thus the mechanisms for this type of routine flexibility are still largely unexplored, which is why this study aims to examine routine flexibility that emerges endogenously.
46
In summary, although some research studies have acknowledged the relationship between the ostensive and performative in routine change, such as Bucher and Langley’s (2016) reflective and experimentation spaces, and Rerup and Feldman’s (2011) trial and error process, there is still limited understanding on this relationship. For this research, the over-arching research question is:
How does the ostensive-to-performative relationship affect the emergence of endogenous routine flexibility? To address this question, the aim is to focus on the ostensive and performative aspects individually during observation. The epistemological approach is discussed further in the following chapter and provides details on the methodologies used to accomplish this. These include establishing clear ontological and epistemological assumptions, selecting the appropriate case as the study, collecting multiple data types from multiple sources, and using a suitable analysis to establish relevant theory.
47