Call for Papers

Routines are what ensures that creativity can go a long way in organizations (Sonenshein, 2016). They are, in fact, ubiquitous in organizations (Nelson & Winter, 1982). A thorough review of literature within and beyond organization theory underscores the importance of a deep understanding of routines in deciphering the dynamics of organizing. Indeed, research taking a routines dynamics perspective has already shown its potential to inform various streams of literature. Along these lines, this sub-theme encourages scholarship that further explores the dynamics of routines to unleash its transformative potential for organization theory.
 
Research on routine dynamics has started by challenging the prevalent belief that routines are inherently stable or even rigid behavioral patterns (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). This body of work, illustrated through numerous case studies, demonstrates that executing any organizational task typically involves the performance of one or more routines (Feldman et al., 2021). Routines are integral to various aspects of organizational life, including production processes (Kremser & Schreyögg, 2016), management accounting (Nguyen et al., 2023), service provision (Yamauchi & Hiramoto, 2020), project management (Sailer et al., 2024), entrepreneurial ventures (Spee et al., 2024), organizational learning (Rerup & Feldman, 2011), (in)equality (Feldman & Pentland, 2022), innovation (Sele & Grand, 2016), and strategy (Safavi, 2021). Beyond merely recognizing the ubiquity of routines in key organizational phenomena, this research trajectory has opened up the ‘black-box’ of organizational routines, revealing their dynamic, emergent, and generative nature.
 
However, in our theories of organizations and organizing we have not yet fully examined the implications of the idea that the stability of routines is not a simple default expectation, but an always uncertain achievement that may or may not happen in practice. In this subtheme we invite submissions that explore these implications for a variety of different fields. This includes, but is by no means limited to the following fields:
 
Coordination & Control: If we stop thinking of routines as fixed coordination mechanisms that guarantee smooth and efficient integration in achieving complex organizational tasks, we face a significant and neglected question: How can organizations achieve effective coordination in various old and new forms of organizing, even when actors do not follow formal rules and standard operating procedures (Jarzabkowski et al., 2012). This dynamism implies a need for a new understanding of managerial work by answering questions like:

• How do managerial and design practices interact with dynamic routines to shape organizational strategy and structure?

• How do actors govern multiple, interdependent routines? What are the roles of formal rules, triggers, information flows, and interfaces in this process?

 
Organizational Learning: Conceptualizing routines as dynamic action patterns instead of reliable and consistent “knowledge repositories” (Argote, 2013) challenges our understanding of how organizations can foster learning and knowledge transfer (D’Adderio, 2014). When routines, and by implication also the knowledge embedded in them, are constantly evolving, this raises questions about the nature and continuity of organizational learning processes themselves and how they can be managed in the face of ongoing change and radical uncertainty. Related research questions could be:

• What are characteristics and dynamics of routines that make them more or less prone to remembering or forgetting?

• How does the performance of different types of routines (e.g., more vs. less complex, more vs. less interdependent, more vs. less situated) influence learning processes by affecting the cognitive and psychological states of actors?

 
Strategic Management: As we assume that routines are not only dynamic but generative, strategizing becomes less about managing static capabilities and more about navigating and leveraging the fluidity of these capabilities (Mirc et al., 2023). This poses a fundamental challenge in how we approach strategy processes as constant flux is inherent in both an organization’s capabilities and its building blocks. By implication, the following exemplar research questions could be asked:

• How do routines enable and how do they hinder strategic renewal and capability development in organizations?

• How do dynamic routines mediate the relationship between strategy processes and practices and organizational performance outcomes?

 
Organizational Change: As we reject the assumption that routines are “the” source of organizational inertia and resistance to change, a new avenue for explaining these important process phenomena may lie in the mindful and situated enactment of routines by different actors (Feldman, 2003) whose skill and expertise builds on professions and occupations (Kho & Spee, 2021). This shifts the focus to the social-relational aspects of how individuals and groups interact with and shape routines in action and poses questions such as:

• How are patterning dynamics within and among routines affected by the social-relational dynamics of power and control that form organizational roles?

• How can routines be designed to be more adaptable to managerial interventions?

 
Organizational Technology: Just like routines, technologies have long been theorized as “fixed entities in fixed relations” (Bailey et al., 2022: 4). However, with the advent of advanced digital technologies, like generative AI, it becomes more and more clear that technologies, just like routines, are neither fixed nor stable. What is less clear is how dynamic technologies and dynamic routines co-constitute each other as organizational work is accomplished in and over time. The main puzzle in this line of research shifts from how technology standardizes work to how it interacts with and adapts to constantly changing work practices (Glaser et al., 2021), implying research questions such as:

• How is the introduction and integration of generative AI reshaping organizational routines? What implications does this have for organizational learning, change management, and strategic decision-making?

• How does the integration of advanced digital technologies affect the flexibility and adaptability of organizational routines? Does technology tend to reinforce routine stability or promote routine dynamism?

References

• Argote, L. (2013): Organizational Learning. Creating, Retaining and Transferring. New York. Springer.

• Bailey, D.E., Faraj, S., Hinds, P.J., Leonardi, P.M., & von Krogh, G. (2022): “We Are All Theorists of Technology Now: A Relational Perspective on Emerging Technology and Organizing.” Organization Science, 33 (1), 1–18.
• D’Adderio, L. (2014): “The Replication Dilemma Unravelled: How Organizations Enact Multiple Goals in Routine Transfer.” Organization Science, 25 (5), 1325–1350.
• Feldman, M.S. (2003): “A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 12 (4), 727–752.
• Feldman, M.S., & Pentland, B.T. (2003): “Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (1), 94–118.
• Feldman, M.S., & Pentland, B.T. (2022): “Routine dynamics: Toward a critical conversation.” Strategic Organization, 20 (4), 846–859.
• Glaser, V.L., Pollock, N., & D’Adderio, L. (2021): “The Biography of an Algorithm: Performing algorithmic technologies in organizations.” Organization Theory, 2 (2); https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211004609.
• Jarzabkowski, P.A., Lê, J.K., & Feldman, M.S. (2012): “Toward a Theory of Coordinating: Creating Coordinating Mechanisms in Practice.” Organization Science, 23 (4), 907–927.
• Kremser, W., & Schreyögg, G. (2016): “The Dynamics of Interrelated Routines: Introducing the Cluster Level.” Organization Science, 27 (3), 698–721.
• Mirc, N., Sele, K., Rouzies, A., & Angwin, D.N. (2023): “From Fit to Fitting: A routine dynamics perspective on M&A synergy realization.” Organization Studies, 44 (9), 1465–1490.
• Nelson, R.R., & Winter, S.G. (1982): An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Nguyen, D.H., Hiebl, M.R.W., & Quinn, M. (2023): “Integrating a new management accounting routine into a routine cluster: the role of interactions between multiple management accounting routines.” Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 20 (4), 543–568.
• Rerup, C., & Feldman, M.S. (2011): “Routines as a Source of Change in Organizational Schemata: The Role of Trial-and-Error Learning.” Academy of Management Journal, 54 (3), 577–610.
• Sailer, P., Loscher, G.J., & Kaiser, S. (2024): “Coordinated Interdependence: How Patterning Governs Flexibility in a Routine Cluster.” Journal of Management Studies, 61 (5), 1884–1915.
• Safavi, M. (2021): “Advancing post-merger integration studies: A study of a persistent organizational routine and embeddedness in broader societal context.” Long Range Planning, 54 (6); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102071.
• Sele, K., & Grand, S. (2016): “Unpacking the Dynamics of Ecologies of Routines: Mediators and Their Generative Effects in Routine Interactions.” Organization Science, 27 (3), 722–738.
• Sonenshein, S. (2016): “Routines and Creativity: From Dualism to Duality.” Organization Science, 27 (3), 739–758.
• Spee, A.P., Kho, J., Jenkins, A., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2024): “Routine Formation as a Layered Process.” In: Mahringer, C.A., Pentland, B.T., Renzl, B., Sele, K., Spee, A.P. (eds): Routine Dynamics: Organizing in a World in Flux. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 88. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, 203–220.
• Yamauchi, Y., & Hiramoto, T. (2020): “Performative Achievement of Routine Recognizability: An Analysis of Order Taking Routines at Sushi Bars.” Journal of Management Studies, 57 (8), 1610–1642.
•