Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T14:49:21.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 33 - Carnegie School Experiential Learning and Routine Dynamics

from Part IV - Related Communities of Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

By
Claus Rerup  and
Bryan Spencer
Edited by
Martha S. Feldman ,
Brian T. Pentland ,
Luciana D'Adderio ,
Katharina Dittrich ,
Claus Rerup  and
David Seidl
Martha S. Feldman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Brian T. Pentland
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Luciana D'Adderio
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Katharina Dittrich
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Claus Rerup
Affiliation:
Frankfurt School of Finance and Management
David Seidl
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
Get access

Summary

Given the centrality of experiential learning in the Carnegie School, we focus on how this form of learning provides an opportunity for deepening the relationship between the Carnegie School and Routine Dynamics. Experiential learning is central to Routine Dynamics because the flow and progression of routines emerge from experiential learning like processes of taking action, evaluating the results of those actions, and, if necessary, making adjustments to future actions.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicsPatterningexperiential learningconflictpolitical contestationtrucesinterpretation and sensemaking.
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 445 - 459
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aggarwal, V. A., Posen, H. E. and Workiewicz, M. (2017). Adaptive capacity to technological change: A microfoundational approach. Strategic Management Journal, 38(6), 1212–1231.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. H. and Lemken, R. K. (2019). An empirical assessment of the influence of March and Simon’s organizations: The realized contribution and unfulfilled promise of a masterpiece. Journal of Management Studies, 56(8), 1537–1569.Google Scholar
Argote, L. (2013). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, 2nd edition, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argote, L. and Greve, H. R. (2007). A behavioral theory of the firm – 40 years and counting: Introduction and impact. Organization Science, 18, 337–349.Google Scholar
Battilana, J. and D’Aunno, T. (2009) Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B., eds., Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacciatori, E. (2012). Resolving conflict in problem-solving: Systems of artifacts in the development of new routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1559–1585.Google Scholar
Cohendet, P. S. and Simon, L. O. (2016). Always playable: Recombining routines for creative efficiency at Ubisoft Montreal’s video game studio. Organization Science, 27(3), 614–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. 2018. Emerging intentionality in routine dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111–138.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present, and future. In Howard-Grenville, J. A., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: A Process Perspective. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.Google Scholar
Ganz, S. C. (2018). Ignorant decision making and educated inertia: Some political pathologies of organizational learning. Organization Science, 29(1), 39–57.Google Scholar
Gavetti, G., Greve, H. R., Levinthal, D. A. and Ocasio, W. (2012). The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 6, 1–40.Google Scholar
Gavetti, G. Ocasio, W. and Levinthal, D. A. (2007). Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie School’s past, present, and reconstructing for the future. Organization Science, 18(3), 523–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, K. T. and Pentland, B. T. (2019). From actions to paths to patterning: Toward a dynamic theory of patterning in routines. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1901–1929.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R. (2003). Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R. (2008). Organizational routines and performance feedback. In Becker, M., ed., Handbook of Organizational Routines. Northampton, MA: Elgar, 187–204.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R. and Gaba, V. (2017). Performance feedback in organizations and groups: Common themes. In Argote, L. and Levine, J. M., eds., The Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilligoss, B. (2020). Routines and Sensemaking: Strengthening Connections, Extending Theory. Winner, MOC Best Symposium Award, Academy of Management Conference.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. and Rerup, C. (2017). A process perspective on organizational routines. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Sage Handbook of Process Organizational Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 323–339.Google Scholar
Kacperczyk, A. Beckman, C. M. and Moliterno, T. P. (2015). Disentangling risk and change: Internal and external comparisons in the Mutual Fund Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60, 228–262.Google Scholar
Kay, N. M. (2018). We need to talk: Opposing narratives and conflicting perspectives in the conversation on routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(6), 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koumakhov, R. and Daoud, A. (2017). Routine and reflexivity: Simonian cognitivism vs practice approach. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26, 727–743.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. and Raybaut, A. (2005). Knowledge, hierarchy and the selection of routines: An interpretative model with group interactions. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15(4), 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. and Marino, A. (2015). Three facets of organizational adaptation: Selection, variety, and plasticity. Organization Science, 26(3), 743–755.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. and Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502–513.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. and Rerup, C. (2021). The plural of goal: Learning in a world of ambiguity. Organization Science, 32(3), 527–543.Google Scholar
Levitt, B. and March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 319–340.Google Scholar
Lindberg, A. (2020). Developing theory through integrating human and machine pattern recognition. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(1), 7.Google Scholar
Lyytinen, K., Rose, G. and Yoo, Y. (2010). Learning routines and disruptive technological change: Hyper-learning in seven software development organizations during internet adoption. Information Technology & People, 23(2), 165–192.Google Scholar
Maitlis, S. and Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57–125.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1962). The business firm as a political coalition. Journal of Politics, 24(4), 662–678.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
March, J. G., Sproull, L. S. and Tamuz, M. (1991). Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science, 2(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Mariano, S. and Casey, A. (2016). The dynamics of organizational routines in a startup: The Ereda model. European Management Review, 13(4), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. D. Pentland, B. T. and Choi, S. (2012). Dynamics of performing and remembering organizational routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1536–1558.Google Scholar
Nelson, P. R. and Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.Google Scholar
Pentland, B., Feldman, T., Becker, M. S., M. C. and Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484–1508.Google Scholar
Pentland, B.T., Recker, J., Wolf, J. R. and Wyner, G. (2020). Bringing context into the analysis of process with digital trace data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(5), 1214–1236.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484–510.Google Scholar
Posen, H. E., Keil, T., Kim, S. and Meissner, F. (2018) Renewing research on problemistic search: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 208–251.Google Scholar
Powell, W. W. and Rerup, C. (2017). Opening the black box: Microfoundations of institutions. In Greenwood, R. et al., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications, Chapter 12: 311–337.Google Scholar
Prashantham, S. snd Floyd, S. W. (2012). Routine microprocesses and capability learning in international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(6), 544–562.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. (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.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and Zbaracki, M. (in press). The politics of learning from rare events. Organization Science.Google Scholar
Royer, I. and Daniel, A. (2019). Organizational routines and institutional maintenance: The influence of legal artifacts. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 204–224.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multi-level research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468–490.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170–209.Google Scholar
Seo, M. G. and Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222–247.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1964). On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Zbaracki, M. J. and Bergen, M. (2010). When truces collapse: A longitudinal study of price-adjustment routines. Organization Science, 21(5), 955–972.Google Scholar
Zietsma, C. and Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×