Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T19:08:53.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Themes in Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

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

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
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

References

Aroles, J. and McLean, C. (2016). Rethinking stability and change in the study of organizational routines: Difference and repetition in a newspaper-printing factory. Organization Science, 27(3), 535550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. R. (1988). Technology, power, and the social organization of work: Towards a pragmatic theory of skilling and deskilling. In DiTomaso, N. and Bacharach, S., eds., Research in the Sociology of Organizations: A Research Annual, Vol. 7, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 3380.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 643677.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (2005). Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 775791.Google Scholar
Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 573593.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594613.Google Scholar
Burns, J. (2000). The dynamics of accounting change: Interplay between new practices, routines, institutions, power and politics. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13, 566586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacciatori, E. (2012). Resolving conflict in problem-solving: Systems of artefacts in the development of new routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 15591585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, M. (1998). An essay on framing and overflowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology. In Callon, M., ed., The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 244269.Google Scholar
Canales, R. (2014). Weaving straw into gold: Managing organizational tensions between standardization and flexibility in microfinance. Organization Science, 25(1), 128.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M. and Winter, S. G. (1996). Routines and other recurring patterns of organizations: Contemporary research issues. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(3), 653698.CrossRefGoogle 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), 614632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coriat, B. and Dosi, G. (1999). Learning how to govern and learning how to solve problems: On the co‐evolution of competences, conflicts and organizational routines. In Chandler, A. D., Hagstrom, P. and Sölvell, Ö., eds., The Dynamic Firm: The Role of Technology, Strategy, Organization, and Regions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2001). Crafting the virtual prototype: How firms integrate knowledge and capabilities across organisational boundaries. Research Policy, 30(9), 14091424.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2003). Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: The influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3), 321350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769789.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unraveled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routines transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 13251350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. (2014). Performing modularity: Competing rules, performative struggles, and the effect of organizational theories on the organization. Organization Studies, 35(12), 18131843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179202.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M. and Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685716.Google Scholar
Ethiraj, S. K. and Levinthal, D. (2009). Hoping for A to Z while rewarding only A: Complex organizations and multiple goals. Organization Science, 20(1), 421.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611629.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), 94124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaba, V. and Greve, H. R. (2019). Safe or profitable? The pursuit of conflicting goals. Organization Science, 30(4), 647667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. (1999). Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In Biagioli, M., ed., The Science Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 137160.Google Scholar
Ganz, S. C. (2018). Ignorant decision making and educated inertia: Some political pathologies of organizational learning. Organization Science, 29(1), 3957.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 21262154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. and Rerup, C. (2017). A process perspective on organizational routines. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 323337.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. (2015). Truce breaking and remaking: The CEO’s role in changing organizational routines. In Gavetti, G. and Ocasio, W., eds., Advances in Strategic Management. Bingley: Emerald Insight, 32: pp. 1–45.Google Scholar
Kho, J., Spee, A. P. and Gillespie, N. (2019). Enacting relational expertise to change professional routines in technology-mediated service settings. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations; Vol. 61). Bingley: Emerald, pp. 191213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiwan, L. and Lazaric, N. (2019). Learning a new ecology of space and looking for new routines: Experimenting robotics in a surgical team. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations; Vol. 61). Bingley: Emerald, pp. 173189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaric, N. and Denis, B. (2001). How and why routines change: Some lessons from the articulation of knowledge with ISO 9002 implementation in the food industry. Economies et Sociétés, 6, 585612.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. and Mangolte, P. A. (1998). Routines et mémoire organisationelle: un questionnement critique de la perspective cognitiviste. Revue Internationale de Systémique, 12, 2749.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N., Mangolte, P. A. and Massué, M. L. (2003). Articulation and codification of know-how Organizational routines: A review of the literature in the steel industry: Some evidence from blast furnace control in France. Research Policy, 32, 18291847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. and Rerup, C. (2020). The plural of goal: Learning in a world of ambiguity. Organization Science, 32(3), 527543.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (2006). An Engine, not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mangolte, P. A. (1997). Le concept de ‘routine organisationelle’ entre cognition et institution. PhD Thesis, Université Paris-Nord, U.F.R. de Sciences Economiques et de Gestion, Centre de Recherche en Economie Industrielle.Google Scholar
Mangolte, P. A. (2000). Organisational learning and the organisational link: The problem of conflict, political equilibrium and truce. European Journal of Economic and Social Systems, 14, 173190.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1962). The business firm as a political coalitionJournal of Politics, 24(4), 662678.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793815.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Organization Science, 54(3), 577610.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170209.Google Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S. and Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T. and Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932970.Google Scholar
Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P. and Smets, M. (2016). The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organization Science, 27(3), 759781.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 2446.Google Scholar
Zbaracki, M. J. and Bergen, M. (2010). When truces collapse: A longitudinal study of price adjustment routines. Organization Science, 21(5), 955972.Google Scholar

References

Anand, G., Gray, J. and Siemsen, E. (2012). Decay, shock, and renewal: Operational routines and process entropy in the pharmaceutical industry. Organization Science, 23(6), 17001716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 573593.Google Scholar
Blanche, C. and Cohendet, P. (2019). Remounting a ballet in a different context: A complementary understanding of routines transfer theories. In Feldman, M., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 61). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boe-Lillegraven, S. (2019). Transferring routines across multiple boundaries: A flexible approach. In Feldman, M., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 61). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 3153.Google Scholar
Bresman, H. (2013). Changing routines: A process model of vicarious group learning in pharmaceutical R&D. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 3561.Google Scholar
Bruns, H. (2009). Leveraging functionality in safety routines: Examining the divergence of rules and performance. Human Relations, 62(9), 13991426.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting Routine Dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505800.Google Scholar
Cajaiba, A. P., Cajaiba Santana, G. and Lazaric, N. (2015). An institutional perspective on routine emergence: A case from the bio-tech industry. Post-Print hal-01298030, HAL.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In Bijker, W., Hughes, T. and Pinch, T., eds., The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Canales, R. (2013). Weaving straw into gold: Managing organizational tensions between standardization and flexibility in microfinance. Organization Science, 25(1), 128.Google Scholar
Christianson, M. K., Farkas, M. T., Sutcliffe, M. and Weick, K. E. (2009). Learning through rare events: Significant interruptions at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Museum. Organization Science, 20(5), 846860.Google Scholar
Claus, L., de Rond, M., Howard-Grenville, J. and Lodge, J. (2019). When fieldwork hurts: On the lived experience of conducting research in unsettling contexts. In Zilber, T. B., Amis, J. M. and Mair, J., eds., The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory. (Research in the Sociology of Organizations Series, Vol. 59). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 157172.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), 614632.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 13251350.Google Scholar
Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H. and Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659677.Google Scholar
DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121147.Google Scholar
Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (2000). The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M. and Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685716.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 9621023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essén, A. (2008). Variability as a source of stability: Studying routines in the elderly home care setting. Human Relations, 61(11), 16171644.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611629.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94118.Google Scholar
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A. and Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 18801895.Google Scholar
Gersick, C. J. and Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 6597.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 21262154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 563727.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A. and Rerup, C. (2017). A process perspective on organizational routines. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Handbook of Process Organizational Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 323339.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (2016). Introduction. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 122.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698721.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. and Dover, G. (2015). Place and institutional work: Creating housing for the hard-to-house. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(3), 371410.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. and Phillips, N. (2019). Constructing Organizational Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
LeBaron, C., Christianson, M. K., Garrett, L. and Ilan, R. (2016). Coordinating flexible performance during everyday work: An ethnomethodological study of handoff routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 514534.Google Scholar
Lübcke, T., Steigenberger, N., Wilhelm, H. and Maurer, I. (2019). How core actors coordinate distal actors in organizational routines. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Boston.Google Scholar
Mutch, A. (2016). Bringing history into the study of routines: Contextualizing performance. Organization Studies, 37(8), 11711188.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nigam, A., Huising, R. and Golden, B. (2016). Explaining the selection of routines for change during organizational search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4), 551583.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398427.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. and Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T. and Hillison, D. (2011). The (n)ever-changing world: Stability and change in organizational routines. Organization Science, 22(6), 13691383.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, N. and Lawrence, T. B. (2012). The turn to work in organization and management theory: Some implications for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 10(3), 223230.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and 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), 577610.Google Scholar
Rogers, K. M., Corley, K. G. and Ashforth, B. E. (2017). Seeing more than orange: Organizational respect and positive identity transformation in a prison context. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 219269.Google Scholar
Royer, I. and Daniel, A. (2019). Organizational routines and institutional maintenance: The influence of legal artifacts. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 204224.Google Scholar
Sele, K. and Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, W. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P. and Smets, M. (2016). The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organization Science, 27(3), 759781.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Fern, M. J. (2012). Examining the stability and variability of routine performances: The effects of experience and context change. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 14071434.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. P. (2018). Watching the clock: Action timing, patterning, and routine performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 12531280.Google Scholar

References

Abbott, A. (1995). Boundaries of social work or social work of boundaries? The social service review lecture. Social Service Review, 69(4), 545562.Google Scholar
Abell, P., Felin, T. and Foss, N. (2008). Building micro‐foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(6), 489502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256280.Google Scholar
Birnholtz, J. P., Cohen, M. D. and Hoch, S. V. (2007). Organizational character: On the Regeneration of Camp Poplar Grove. Organization Science, 18(2), 315332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442455.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. and Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554568.Google Scholar
Davies, A., Frederiksen, L., Cacciatori, E. and Hartmann, A. (2018). The long and winding road: Routine creation and replication in multi-site organizations. Research Policy, 47(8), 14031417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H. and Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659677.Google Scholar
Dönmez, D., Grote, G. and Brusoni, S. (2016). Routine interdependencies as a source of stability and flexibility: A study of agile software development teams. Information and Organization, 26(3), 6383.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 11051121.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281317.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611629.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 12401253.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94118.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Studies, 27(3), 505513. Special Issue.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309331.Google Scholar
Galunic, C. and Weeks, J. (2005). Intraorganizational ecology. In Baum, J. A. C., ed., Blackwell Companion to Organizations, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 7598.Google Scholar
Geiger, D., Danner-Schröder, A. and Kremser, W. (2021). Getting ahead of time: Performing temporal boundaries to coordinate routines under temporal uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1), 220264. doi:10.1177/0001839220941010.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 21262154.Google 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), 19011929.Google Scholar
Hansson, M., Hærem, T. and Pentland, B. T. (2018). Repertoire, routinization, and enacted complexity in patterns of action. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 10734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfat, C. (2018). The behavior and capabilities of firms. In Nelson, R., Dosi, G., Helfat, C., Pyka, A., Saviotti, P. and Lee, K., et al., eds., Modern Evolutionary Economics: An Overview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85103.Google Scholar
Hoekzema, J. (2020). Bridging the gap between ecologies and clusters: Towards an integrative framework of routine interdependence. European Management Review, 17(2), 559571.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds. (2016). Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed (vol. 5). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. (2017). Interdependente Routinen. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremser, W. and Blagoev, B. (2021). The Dynamics of Prioritizing: How actors temporally pattern complex role-routine ecologies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 339379. doi:10.1177/0001839220948483.Google Scholar
Kremser, W., Pentland, B. and Brunswicker, S. (2019) Interdependence within and between routines: A performative perspective. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698721.Google Scholar
Langley, A., Lindberg, K., Mørk, B. E., Nicolini, D., Raviola, E. and Walter, L. (2019). Boundary work between groups, occupations, and organizations: From cartography to process. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 704736.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, A. (2020). Developing theory through integrating human and machine pattern recognition. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(1), 90116.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of the Firm. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, Belknap.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413453.Google Scholar
Peng, D. X., Schroeder, R. G. and Shah, R. (2008). Linking routines to operations capabilities: A new perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 730748.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (2004). Towards an ecology of inter-organizational routines: A conceptual framework for the analysis of net-enabled organizations. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference (pp. 264271). IEEE.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (2011). The foundation is solid, if you know where to look: Comment on Felin and Foss. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 279293.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Liu, P., Kremser, W. and Haerem, T. 2020. The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 1947.Google Scholar
Pentland, B.T., Liu, P., Kremser, W. and Hærem, T. (2021). Can small variations accumulate into big changes? In Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. and Spee, P., eds., Research in the Sociology of Organizations Vol. 71. On Practice and Institution: New Empirical Directions. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 2944.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Recker, J. and Wyner, G. (2015). Conceptualizing and measuring interdependence between organizational routines. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2016), December, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Peteraf, M. and Tsoukas, H. (2017). How differences in understanding the dynamic capabilities construct may be reconciled through process research. In Sandberg, et al., eds., Skillful Performance: Enacting Capabilities, Knowledge, Competence, and Expertise in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Prange, C., Bruyaka, O. and Marmenout, K. (2017). Investigating the transformation and transition processes between dynamic capabilities: Evidence from DHL. Organization Studies, 1–27.Google Scholar
Puranam, P., Raveendran, M. and Knudsen, T. (2012). Organization design: The epistemic interdependence perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 419440.Google Scholar
Quick, K. S. and Feldman, M. S. (2014). Boundaries as junctures: Collaborative boundary work for building efficient resilience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 673695.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. (2009). The contribution of event-sequence analysis to the study of organizational routines. In Becker, M. C. and Lazaric, N., eds., Organizational Routines. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 68102.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilke, O., Hu, S. and Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390439.Google Scholar
Seidl, D. and Whittington, R. (2014). Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies. Organization Studies, 35(10), 14071421.Google Scholar
Sele, K. and Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722738.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P. and Smets, M. (2016). The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organization Science, 27(3), 759781.Google Scholar
Strauss, A. L., Schatzman, L., Ehrlich, D., Bucher, R. and Sabshin, M. (1963). The Hospital and Its Negotiated Order. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G. and Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689709.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509533.Google Scholar
Zaheer, S., Albert, S. and Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 725741.Google Scholar

References

Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Archer, M. S. (2007). Making Our Way through the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C., Knudsen, T. and March, J. G. (2006). Schumpeter, Winter, and the sources of novelty. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15, 353371.Google Scholar
Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 23, 573593.Google Scholar
Brette, O., Lazaric, N. and de Vierera, V. (2017). Habit, decision making and rationality: Comparing Thorstein Veblen and early Herbert Simon, Journal of Economic Issues, 3, 567587.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27, 594613.Google Scholar
Cacciatori, E. (2012). Resolving conflict in problem-solving: Systems of artefacts in the development of new routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 15591585.Google Scholar
Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as practical coping : A Heideggerian perspective. Organization Studies, 27(5), 635654.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (1991). Individual learning and organizational routine: Emerging connections. Organization Science, 2(1), 135139.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (2007). Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organization Studies, 28(5), 773786.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963/1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011) Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economy, 7, 197230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37, 769789.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25, 13251350.Google Scholar
Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H. and Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27, 659677.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re)creation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionalist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38, 181205.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guerard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678697.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in Routine Dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 111138.Google Scholar
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, 147162.Google Scholar
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 11201171.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 281317.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 9621023.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611629.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727752.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present, and future. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2346.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski,. W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 12401253.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94118.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction of the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505513.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309331.Google Scholar
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D. and Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363390.Google Scholar
Fuller, C. (2013). Reflexivity, relative autonomy and the embedded individual in economics. Journal of Institutional Economics, 9(1), 109129.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 21262154.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R. (2008). Organizational routines and performance feedback. In Becker, M. C., ed., Handbook of Organizational Routines. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 187204.Google Scholar
Gupta, A., Hoopes, D. G. and Knott, A. M. (2015). Redesigning routines for replication. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 851871.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618636.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A. 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. 323339.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A., eds. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiwan, L. and Lazaric, N. (2019). Learning a new ecology of space and looking for new routines: Experimenting robotics in a surgical team. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 173189.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. (2008). Routines and routinization: An exploration of some micro-cognitive foundations. In Becker, M. C., ed., Handbook of Organizational Routines. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 205227.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. (2011). Organizational routines and cognition: An introduction to empirical and analytical contributions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 147156.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. and Denis, B. (2001). How and why routines change: Some lessons from the articulation of knowledge with ISO 9002 implementation in the food industry. Economie et Sociétés, 585–612.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. and Denis, B. (2005). Routinization and memorization of tasks in a workshop: The case of the introduction of ISO norms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 873896.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N., Mangolte, P-A. and Massué, M-L. (2003). Articulation and codification of collective know-how in the steel industry: Evidence from blast furnace control in France. Research Policy, 32, 18291847.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, 502513.Google Scholar
March, J. and Simon, H. (1958). Organizations, NY: Wiley, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Obstfeld, D. (2012). Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization Science, 23(6), 15711592.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398427.Google Scholar
Parmentier Cajaiba, A., Lazaric, N. and Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2021). The effortful process of routines emergence: The interplay of entrepreneurial actions and artefacts, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 31(1), 33–63.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 527548.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (1995). Grammatical models of organizational processes. Organization Science, 6(5), 541556.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M.S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793815.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235250.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C. and Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 14841508.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Ju Jung, E. (2016). Evolutionary and revolutionary change in path-dependent patterns of action. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 96113.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H.H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484510.Google Scholar
Possas, M. L, Salles-Filho, S. and Silveira, da J. M. (1996). An evolutionary approach to technological innovation in agriculture: Some preliminary remarks. Research Policy, 25, 933945.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schema: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577610.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20, 384409.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37, 468490.Google Scholar
Sent, E.-M. (2000). Herbert A. Simon as a Cyborg scientist. Perspectives on Science, 8(4), 380406.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. [1947] (1976). Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. [1947] (1997). Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press, 4th edition.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99118.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment, Psychological Review, 63(2), 129138.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational – Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49, 53283.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1991). Theories of bounded rationality. In McGuire, C. B. and Radner, Roy, eds., Decision and Organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, pp. 161176.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. and Lorino, P. (2016) Re-viewing routines through a Pragmatist lens. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 4770.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. New York: The Century Co,Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567582.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Cacciatori, E. (2016). The multiplicity of habit: Implications for routines research. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 7195.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 2446.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (1964). Economic ‘natural selection’ and the theory of the firm. Institute of Public Policy Studies, University of Michigan, 4, 225272.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2013). Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 120137.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. and Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730743.Google Scholar

References

Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A. and Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 512529.Google Scholar
Arstila, V. and Lloyd, D. (2014). Subjective Time: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Temporality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ballard, D. I. and Seibold, D. R. (2006). The experience of time at work: Relationship to communication load, job satisfaction, and interdepartmental communication. Communication Studies, 57(3), 317340.Google Scholar
Bapuji, H., Hora, M., Saeed, A. and Turner, S. (2019). How understanding-based redesign influences the pattern of actions and effectiveness of routines. Journal of Management, 45(5), 21322162.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. and Zirpoli, F. (2009). Innovation routines: Exploring the role of procedures and stable behaviour patterns in innovation. In Becker, M. C. and Lazaric, N., eds., Organizational Routines: Advancing Empirical Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 303339.Google Scholar
Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676706.Google Scholar
Bergmann, W. (1992). The problem of time in sociology: An overview of the literature on the state of theory and research on the ‘Sociology of Time’, 1900–82. Time & Society, 1(1), 81134.Google Scholar
Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 573593.Google Scholar
Bluedorn, A. C. and Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2), 299320.Google Scholar
Bresman, H. (2013). Changing routines: A process model of vicarious group learning in pharmaceutical R&D. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 3561.Google Scholar
Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 134.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594613.Google Scholar
Cacciatori, E. (2012). Resolving conflict in problem-solving: Systems of artefacts in the development of new routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 15591585.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (2007). Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organization Studies, 28(5), 773786.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), 614632.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963/1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 13251350.Google Scholar
Danner-Schröder, A. and Geiger, D. (2016). Unravelling the motor of patterning work: Toward an understanding of the microlevel dynamics of standardization and flexibility. Organization Science, 27(3), 633658.Google Scholar
Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H. and Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dionysiou, D. D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re)creation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionalist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 181205.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guerard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678697.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 9621023.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611629.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727752.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present, and future. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2346.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94118.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction of the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505513.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A. and Karnoe, P. (2010). Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), 760774.Google Scholar
Goh, K. T. and Rerup, C. (2018). The role of space and time in balancing conflicting pressures through routine dynamics. Academy of Management Proceedings. Published online.Google Scholar
Grand, S. (2016). Routines, Strategies and Management: Engaging for Recurrent Creation ‘at the Edge’. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J. and Siino, R. M. (2015). Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 136168.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716749.Google Scholar
Hernadi, P. (1992). Objective, subjective, intersubjective times: Guest editor’s introduction. Time & Society, 1(2), 147158.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618636.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. and Rerup, C. (2017). A process perspective on organizational routines. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 323337.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. (2015). Truce breaking and remaking: The CEO’s role in changing organizational routines. In Gavetti, G. and Ocasio, W., eds., Cognition and Strategy. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 145.Google Scholar
Kho, J., Spee, A. P. and Gillespie, N. (2019). Enacting relational expertise to change professional routines in technology-mediated service settings. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 191213.Google Scholar
Kiwan, L. and Lazaric, N. (2019). Learning a new ecology of space and looking for new routines: Experimenting robotics in a surgical team. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 173189.Google Scholar
Kremser, W., Pentland, B. T. and Brunswicker, S. (2019). Interdependence within and between routines: A performative perspective. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 7998.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698721.Google Scholar
Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (2017). Introduction: Process thinking, process theorizing and process researching. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 125.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. (2008). Routines and routinization: An exploration of some micro-cognitive foundations. In Becker, M. C., ed., Handbook of Organizational Routines. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 205227.Google Scholar
LeBaron, C., Christianson, M. K., Garrett, L. and Ilan, R. (2016). Coordinating flexible performance during everyday work: An ethnomethodological study of handoff routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 514534.Google Scholar
Lin, Y. (2013). The Intersubjectivity of Time: Levinas and Infinite Responsibility. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
McTaggart, J. E. (1908). The unreality of time. Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, 17(68), 457474.Google Scholar
Mutch, A. (2016). Bringing history into the study of routines: Contextualizing performance. Organization Studies, 37(8), 11711188.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 527548.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C. and Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 14841508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Reuter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484510.Google Scholar
Ravasi, D., Rindova, V. and Stigliani, I. (2019). The stuff of legend: History, memory and the temporality of organizational identity construction. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 15231555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinecke, J. and Ansari, S. (2017). Time, temporality, and process studies. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 402416.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schema: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577610.Google Scholar
Rowell, C., Gustafsson, R. and Clemente, M. (2016). How institutions matter ‘in time’: The temporal structure of practices and their effects on practice reproduction. In Gehman, J., Lounsbury, M. and Greenwood, R., eds., How Institutions Matter, Vol. 48A, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 305330.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384409.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sele, K. and Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722738.Google Scholar
Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R. and Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 122.Google Scholar
Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P. and Smets, M. (2016). The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organization Science, 23(3), 759781.Google Scholar
Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G. and Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening up the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689709.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Fern, M. J. (2012). Examining the stability and variability of routine performances: The effects of experience and context change. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 14071434.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 2446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. P. (2018). Watching the clock: Action timing, patterning, and routine performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 12531280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urry, J. (1996). Sociology of time and space. In Turner, B. S., ed., The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 369395.Google Scholar
van Mierlo, J., Loohuis, R. and Bondarouk, T. (2019). The role of multiple points of view in non-envisioned routine creation: Taking initiative, creating connections, and coping with misalignments. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 153172.Google Scholar
Yakura, E. K. (2002). Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 956970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zbaracki, M. J. and Bergen, M. (2010). When truces collapse: A longitudinal study of price-adjustment routines. Organization Science, 21(5), 955972.Google Scholar
Zerubavel, E. (1981). Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

References

Aroles, J. and McLean, C. (2016). Rethinking stability and change in the study of organizational routines: Difference and repetition in a newspaper-printing factory. Organization Science, 27(3), 535550.Google Scholar
Baden‐Fuller, C. and Winter, S. G. (2005). Replicating organizational knowledge: rinciples or templates? (No. 0515). Papers on Economics and Evolution.Google Scholar
Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 573593.Google Scholar
Birnholtz, J. P., Cohen, M. D. and Hoch, S. V. (2007). Organizational character: On the Regeneration of Camp Poplar Grove. Organization Science, 18(2), 315332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanche, C. and Cohendet, P. (2019). Remounting a Ballet in a Different Context: A Complementary Understanding of Routines Transfer Theories. Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 61). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 1130.Google Scholar
Boe-Lillegraven, S. (2019). Transferring Routines across Multiple Boundaries: A Flexible Approach. Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 61). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 3153.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594613.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2005). What is tacit knowledge? In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 115128.Google Scholar
Collins, H. (2007). Bicycling on the moon: Collective tacit knowledge and somatic-limit tacit knowledge. Organization Studies, 28(2), 257262.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769789.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 13251350.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2017). Performativity and the innovation–replication dilemma. In The Elgar Companion to Innovation and Knowledge Creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. (2020). Making routines the same: Crafting similarity and singularity in routines transfer. Research Policy, 49(8), 104029.Google Scholar
Danner-Schröder, A. and Geiger, D. (2016). Unravelling the motor of patterning work: Toward an understanding of the microlevel dynamics of standardization and flexibility. Organization Science, 27(3), 633658.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94118.Google Scholar
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A. and Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 18801895. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2016.4007.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J., Davis, G. F., Dyllick, T., Miller, C. C., Thau, S. and Tsui, A. S. (2019). Sustainable development for a better world: Contributions of leadership, management, and organizations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(4), 355366. DOI: 10.5465/amd.2019.0275.Google Scholar
Jensen, R. J. and Szulanski, G. (2007). Template use and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. Management Science, 53(11), 17161730.Google Scholar
Kiwan, L. and Lazaric, N. (2019). Learning a new ecology of space and looking for new routines: Experimenting robotics in a surgical team. In Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
March, J. S. and Simon, H. A. (1958). HA (1958) Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Sidney, G. (2005). Winter 1982: An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (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), 413453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 484–510.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T., Braun, T. and Sydow, J. (2019). Copying routines for new venture creation: How replication can support entrepreneurial innovation. Research in Sociology of Organizations,(61), 5578.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739758.Google Scholar
Stene, E. O. 1940. An approach to a science of administration. American Political Science Review, 34(6), 11241137.Google Scholar
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 2743.Google Scholar
Szulanski, G. and Jensen, R. J. (2004). Overcoming stickiness: An empirical investigation of the role of the template in the replication of organizational routines. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25(6–7), 347363.Google Scholar
Szulanski, G. and Jensen, R. J. (2008). Growing through copying: The negative consequences of innovation on franchise network growth. Research Policy, 37(10), 17321741.Google Scholar
Szulanski, G. and Winter, S. (2002). Getting it right the second time. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 6269.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. and Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6), 730743.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G., Szulanski, G., Ringov, D. and Jensen, R. J. (2012). Reproducing knowledge: Inaccurate replication and failure in franchise organizations. Organization Science, 23(3), 672685.Google Scholar

References

Adler, P. S. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), 147167.Google Scholar
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 4368.Google Scholar
Akrich, M., Callon, M. and Latour, B. (2002). The key to success in innovation part I: The art of interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 187206.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 3958.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E. and Fried, Y. (1988). The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human Relations, 41(4), 305329.Google Scholar
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social-order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78108.Google Scholar
Bartel, C. A. and Garud, R. (2009). The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organization Science, 20(1), 107117.Google Scholar
Bartunek, J. M., Trullen, J., Immediato, S. and Schneider, F. (2007). Front and backstages of the diminished routinization of innovations: What innovation research makes public and organizational research finds behind the scenes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3–4), 295314.Google Scholar
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3), 312330.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 643677.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. and Zirpoli, F. (2009). Innovation routines: Exploring the role of procedures and stable behaviour patterns in innovation. In Becker, M. C. and Lazaric, N., eds., Organizational Routines: Advances in Empirical Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 303339.Google Scholar
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 4057.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223244.Google Scholar
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Cacciatori, E. (2012). Resolving conflict in problem‐solving: Systems of artefacts in the development of new routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 15591585.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442455.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555568.Google Scholar
Christiansen, J. K. and Varnes, C. J. (2009). Formal rules in product development: Sensemaking of structured approaches. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 502519.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), 614632.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. (1996). Overhauling the new product process. Industrial Marketing Management, 25(6), 465482.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage‐gate idea‐to‐launch process update, what’s new, and nexgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213232.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1991). New product processes at leading industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 20(2), 137147.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. and Sommer, A. F. (2016). The Agile–Stage‐Gate hybrid model: A promising new approach and a new research opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 513526.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2001). Crafting the virtual prototype: How firms integrate knowledge and capabilities across organizational boundaries. Research Policy, 30(9), 14091424.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routine dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769789.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197230.Google Scholar
Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H. and Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659677.Google Scholar
Deken, F. and Lauche, K. (2014). Coordinating through the development of a shared object: An approach to study interorganizational innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 11(1).Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re) creation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 181205.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in routine dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111138.Google Scholar
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179202.Google Scholar
Dougherty, D. and Heller, T. (1994). The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms. Organization Science, 5(2), 200218.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 11051121.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202225.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 12401253.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94118.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505513.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309331.Google Scholar
Ford, C. M. and Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26(4), 705732.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Gehman, J. and Kumaraswamy, A. (2011). Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies, 32(6), 737767.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R. and Shapira, Z. B., eds. (1997). Technological Innovation: Oversights and Foresights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garud, R. and Rappa, M. A. (1994). A sociocognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3), 344362.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Tuertscher, P. and Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 775819.Google Scholar
Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 429458.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. R. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149164.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. (2005). Technology brokering and innovation: Linking strategy, practice, and people. Strategy and Leadership, 33(1), 3236.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716749.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. B. and Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476501.Google Scholar
Harvey, S. (2013). A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep level diversity on group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 822832.Google Scholar
Hoekzema, J. (2020). Bridging the gap between ecologies and clusters: Towards an integrative framework of routine interdependence. European Management Review. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/emre.12391Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618636.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. A., , J. K. and Feldman, M. S. (2012). Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, 23(4), 907927.Google Scholar
Jelinek, M. and Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). The Innovation Marathon: Lessons from High Technology Firms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Kahn, K. B., Kay, S. E., Slotegraaf, R. and Uban, S. (2013). The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kannan-Narasimhan, R. (2014). Organizational ingenuity in nascent innovations: Gaining resources and legitimacy through unconventional actions. Organization Studies, 35(4), 483509.Google Scholar
Kannan‐Narasimhan, R. and Lawrence, B. S. (2018). How innovators reframe resources in the strategy‐making process to gain innovation adoption. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 720758.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (2006). Is economics performative? Option theory and the construction of derivatives markets. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 28(1), 2955.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 7187.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2010). Medical innovation as a process of translation: A case from the field of telemedicine. British Journal of Management, 21, 10111026.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D., Mengis, J. and Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612629.Google Scholar
Obstfeld, D. (2012). Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization Science, 23(6), 15711592.Google Scholar
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S. and Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 257279.Google Scholar
Okhuysen, G. A. and Bechky, B. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463502.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. and Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 433474.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413453.Google Scholar
Pavitt, K. (2002). Innovating routines in the business firm: What corporate tasks should they be accomplishing? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 117133.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Designing routines: Artifacts in support of generative systems. Presented in Sofia Antipolis, France, January 21–22.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235250.Google Scholar
Rahman, H. A. and Barley, S. R. (2017). Situated redesign in creative occupations: An ethnography of architects. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(4), 404424.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and 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), 577610.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384409.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170209.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T., Braun, T. and Sydow, J. (2019). Copying routines for new venture creation: How replication can support entrepreneurial innovation. Research in Sociology of Organizations, 55–78.Google Scholar
Sele, K. and Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722738.Google Scholar
Shaw, N., Burgess, T., Hwarng, H. and De Mattos, C. (2001). Revitalising new process development in the UK fine chemicals industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(8), 11331151.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Ingelligence, 4, 181201.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739758.Google Scholar
Thomke, S. H. (1998). Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Management Science, 44(6), 743762.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 2446.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L. and OReilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 832.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590607.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D., Garud, R. and Venkataraman, S. (1999). The Innovation Journey. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (1990). Methods for studying innovation development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program. Organization Science, 1(3), 313335.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, S., Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Romme, A. G. L. and Weggeman, M. (2011). Micro-institutional affordances and strategies of radical innovation. Organization Studies, 32(11), 14851513.Google Scholar
Wenzel, M., Danner-Schröder, A. and Spee, A. P. (2020). Dynamic capabilities? Unleashing their dynamic through a practice perspective on organizational routines. Journal of Management Inquiry, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Wheelwright, S. C. and Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E. and Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293321.Google Scholar

References

Baldessarelli, G. (2021). Emotions & Routine Dynamics. In D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., Rerup, C. and Seidl, D., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bapuji, H., Hora, M. and Saeed, A. M. (2012). Intentions, intermediaries, and interaction: Examining the emergence of routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 15861607.Google Scholar
Bapuji, H., Hora, M., Saeed, A. and Turner, S. (2018). How understanding-based redesign influences the pattern of actions and effectiveness of routines. Journal of Management, 45(5), 21322162. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744251.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 643678.Google Scholar
Berglund, H., Bousfiha, M. and Mansoori, Y. (2020). Opportunities as artifacts and entrepreneurship as design. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 825846.Google Scholar
Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 573593.Google Scholar
Bresman, H. (2012). Changing routines: A process model of vicarious group learning in pharmaceutical R&D. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 3561. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0725.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting Routine Dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594613.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (2007). Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organization Studies, 28(5), 773786.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), 614632.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2003). Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: The influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 321350.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769789. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2010). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 13251350.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L., Glaser, V. L. and Pollock, N. (2019). Performing theories, transforming organizations: A reply to Marti and Gond. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 676679.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. (2014). Performing modularity: Competing rules, performative struggles and the effect of organizational theories on the organization. Organization Studies, 35(12), 18131843.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. (2020). Making routines the same: Crafting similarity and singularity in routines transfer. Research Policy, 49(8), 104029. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104029.Google Scholar
Dalsgaard, P. (2014). Pragmatism and design thinking. International Journal of Design, 8, 143155.Google Scholar
Dankfort, Z. (2018, December 4). The Visual Storytelling Toolkit: A Way to Engage Employees with their Organization’s Vision. (Guerreiro Goncalves, M. and Wegener, F., eds.). Delft.Google Scholar
Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H. and Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659677.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1922). Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1933/1998). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. Minton: Balch.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory Of Inquiry (pp. 1550). New York: Henry Holt & Company.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. (2021). Pragmatism & Routine Dynamics. In D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., Rerup, C. and Seidl, D., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re)creation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 181205.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guérard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678697.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in Routine Dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111138.Google Scholar
Dixon, B. S. (2020). Dewey and Design: A Pragmatist Perspective for Design Research (pp. 1208). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 1–13.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261274.Google Scholar
Eckersley, M. (1988). The form of design processes: A protocol analysis study. Design Studies, 9(2), 8694.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281317.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 9621023.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M., Ansell, C. K. and Boin, A. (2015). PERSPECTIVE – pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26(6), 17871804. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1016.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611629.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present, future. In Howard-Grenville, J. A., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Perspectives on Process Organization Studies: Organizational Routines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2346.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 12401253.Google 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.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on Routine Dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505513.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Jain, S. and Tuertscher, P. (2008). Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness. Organization Studies, 29(3), 351371.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2014). Enchanted Algorithms: The Quantification of Organizational Decision-Making. Dissertation, Marshall School of Business.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 21262154.Google Scholar
Gupta, A., Hoopes, D. G. and Knott, A. M. (2015). Redesigning routines for replication. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 851871.Google Scholar
Hales, M. and Tidd, J. (2009). The practice of routines and representations in design and development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 551574.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618636.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (2016). Organizational Routines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
James, W. (1909/1996). A Pluralistic Universe: Hibbert Lectures at Manchester College on the Present Situation in Philosophy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Joas, H. (1996). The Creativity of Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joas, H. and Beckert, J. (2002). A theory of action: Pragmatism and the creativity of action. Transactional Viewpoints, 1(4), 14.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated Routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698721.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. and Denis, B. (2005). Routinization and memorization of tasks in a workshop: The case of the introduction of ISO norms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 873896.Google Scholar
Leutenegger, C., Tuckermann, H., Gutzan, S. and Ruegg-Sturm, J. (2018). Organizational routine design in a hospital: A narrative-based study of ostensive routine dimensions in the making. Presented at the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies, Halkidiki, Greece.Google Scholar
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Perspective – Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907918.Google Scholar
Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lorino, P. and Mourey, D., (2013). The experience of time in the inter-organizing inquiry: A present thickened by dialog and situations, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29(1), 4862.Google Scholar
Lorino, P., Tricard, B. and Clot, Y. (2011). Research methods for non-representational approaches to organizational complexity: The dialogical mediated inquiry. Organization Studies, 32(6), 769801.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. and Monteiro, P. (2016). The practice approach: For a praxeology of organisational and management studies. In The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 127.Google Scholar
Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26, 126166.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413453.Google Scholar
Paton, B. and Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6), 573587.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793815.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235250.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Hærem, T. (2015). Organizational routines as patterns of action: Implications for organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 465487.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Jung, E. J. (2016). Evolutionary and revolutionary change in path-dependent patterns of action. In Organizational Routines. Oxford University Press, pp. 96113.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Recker, J. and Wyner, G. (2015) A thermometer for interdependence: Exploring patterns of interdependence using networks of affordances. In Carte, T., Heinzl, A. and Urquahart, C., eds., Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems (AIS), http://aisel.aisnet.org/, pp. 111.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Rein, M. and Schön, D. A. (1977). Problem setting in policy research. In Weiss, C. H., ed., Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 235251.Google Scholar
Rein, M. and Schön, D. A. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 85104.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and 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), 577610.Google Scholar
Reynaud, B. (2005). The void at the heart of rules: Routines in the context of rule-following. The case of the Paris Metro Workshop. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 847871. http://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth073.Google Scholar
Romme, A. G. L. (2003). Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science, 14(5), 558573.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2010). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468490.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1984a). Design: A process of enquiry, experimentation and research. Design Studies, 5(3), 130131.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1984b). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 132136.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design, 3(3), 131147.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 2634. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40165285.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial (1st edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1988). The science of design: Creating the artificial. Design Issues, 4(1/2), 6782.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. (2009). Pragmatism, Mead and the practice turn. Organization Studies, 30(12), 13291347.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. (2017). Pragmatism: A philosophy of practice. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 5468.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. and Lorino, P. (2016). Re-viewing routines through a pragmatist lens. In Howard-Grenville, J. A., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Perspectives on Process Organization Studies: Organizational Routines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 4770.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions (2nd edition). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 2743. http://doi.org/10.2307/2486989.Google Scholar
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 927. http://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2884.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2021). How to make Routine Dynamics research more dynamic: Advancing theorizing through performative phenomenology. In D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., Rerup, C. and Seidl, D., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. C. H. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567582. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. P. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 2446.Google Scholar
van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. (2019). Problem framing expertise in public and social innovation. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(1), 2943.Google Scholar
van Hulst, M. and Yanow, D. (2015). From policy ‘frames’ to ‘framing’. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 92112.Google Scholar
van Kuijk, K. (2019, October 18). Designing a Live Routine. (Hende, E. A. and Wegener, F. E., eds.). Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Wegener, F. (2019). When designing routines: Dealing with the challenges of interdependency and affordances through design experiments. Presented at 11th International Process Symposium Organization in the Digital Age: Understanding the Dynamics of Work, Innovation, and Collective Action (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
Wegener, F. and Cash, P. (2020). The future of design process research? Exploring process theory and methodology. Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference 2020.Google Scholar
Wegener, F., Guerreiro Goncalves, M. and Dankfort, Z. (2019). Reflection-in-action when designing organizational processes: Prototyping workshops for collective reflection-in-action. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1(1), 12551264.Google Scholar
Wegener, F. and Lorino, P, (2021). Capturing the experience of living forward through ‘withness’. In Reinecke, J., Suddaby, R., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Vol. 7: About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1999). That ’s moving: Theories that matter. J ournal of Management Inquiry, 8(2), 134142.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2013). Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 120137.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. and Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6), 730743. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.6.730.10084.Google Scholar
Yanow, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection‐in‐action? A phenomenological account. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 13391364.Google Scholar

References

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S. and Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367403.Google Scholar
Ames, M. G. (2018). Deconstructing the algorithmic sublime. Big Data & Society, 5(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718779194.Google Scholar
Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y. and King, J. L. (2016). Routines as shock absorbers during organizational transformation: Integration, control, and NASA’s Enterprise Information System. Organization Science, 27(3), 551572.Google Scholar
Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 9771008.Google Scholar
Buhmann, A., Paßmann, J. and Fieseler, C. (2019). managing algorithmic accountability: Balancing reputational concerns, engagement strategies, and the potential of rational discourse. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04226-4.Google Scholar
Burke, A. (2019). Occluded algorithms. Big Data & Society, 6(2), 115.Google Scholar
Cabantous, L. and Gond, J.-P. (2011). Rational decision making as performative praxis: Explaining rationality’s éternel retour. Organization Science, 22(3), 573586.Google Scholar
Cabantous, L., Gond, J.-P. and Johnson-Cramer, M. (2010). Decision theory as practice: Crafting rationality in organizations. Organization Studies, 31(11), 15311566.Google Scholar
Cacciatori, E. (2012). Resolving conflict in problem-solving: Systems of artefacts in the development of new routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 15591585.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1980). Struggles and negotiations to define what is problematic and what is not. In Knorr, K. D., Krohn, R. and Whitley, R., eds., The Social Process of Scientific Investigation: Sociology of the Sciences, a Yearbook. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 197219. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9109-5_8Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In Callon, M., Law, J. and Rip, A., eds., Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 1934.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (2017). Markets, marketization and innovation. In Bathelt, H., Cohendet, P., Henn, S. and Simon, L., eds., The Elgar Companion to Innovation and Knowledge Creation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781782548515/9781782548515.00048.xmlGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (2020). The Rise of Algorithmic Work: Implications for Organizational Control and Worker Autonomy. Dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Christin, A. (2020). Metrics at Work: Journalism and the Contested Meaning of Algorithms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. (2006). Power and Organizations. London: SAGE.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), 614632.Google Scholar
Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L. and Neysen, N. (2020). Working for an algorithm: Power asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(3), 644676.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2001). Crafting the virtual prototype: How firms integrate knowledge and capabilities across organisational boundaries. Research Policy, 30(9), 14091424.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on Routines Dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769789.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(Special Issue 02), 197230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 13251350.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L., Glaser, V. and Pollock, N. (2019). Performing theories, transforming organizations: A reply to Marti and Gond. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 676679.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. (2020). Making routines the same: Crafting similarity and singularity in routines transfer. Research Policy, 49(8), 104029.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. (2014). Performing modularity: Competing rules, performative struggles and the effect of organizational theories on the organization. Organization Studies, 35(12), 18131843.Google Scholar
Davenport, T. H. (2018). The AI Advantage: How to Put the Artificial Intelligence Revolution to Work, 1st edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in Routine Dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111138.Google Scholar
Dourish, P. (2016). Algorithms and their others: Algorithmic culture in context. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 111.Google Scholar
Elgammal, A. (2018, December 6). AI is blurring the definition of artist. American Scientist. www.americanscientist.org/article/ai-is-blurring-the-definition-of-artist.Google Scholar
Fei, H., Li, Q. and Sun, D. (2017). A survey of recent research on optimization models and algorithms for operations management from the process view. Scientific Programming. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7219656.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016) Routines as process: past, present, and future. In Rerup, C. and Howard-Grenville, J., eds., Organizational Routines and Process Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 12401253.Google Scholar
Fourcade, M. and Healy, K. (2017). Seeing like a market. Socio-Economic Review, 15(1), 929.Google Scholar
Garud, R. and Gehman, J. (2019). Performativity: Not a destination but an ongoing journey. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 679684.Google Scholar
Géron, A. (2017). Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn and TensorFlow: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques to Build Intelligent Systems, 1st edition. Beijing; Boston; Farnham; Sebastopol; Tokyo: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 1st edition. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gillespie, T. (2016). Algorithm. In Peters, B., ed., Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 1830.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2014). Enchanted Algorithms: The Quantification of Organizational Decision-Making. Dissertation, Marshall School of Business.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 21262154.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L., Pollock, N. and D’Adderio, L. (2021). The biography of an algorithm: Performing algorithmic technologies in organizations. Organization Theory, 2, 127.Google Scholar
Grint, K. and Woolgar, S. (1997). The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers; Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gusterson, H. (1997). Studying up revisited. Studying Up Revisited, 20(1), 114119.Google Scholar
Hales, M. and Tidd, J. (2009). The practice of routines and representations in design and development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 551574.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. (2005). Technology brokering and innovation: Linking strategy, practice, and people. (Knight, D. and Randall, R. M., eds.)Strategy & Leadership, 33(1), 3236.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441456.Google Scholar
Hyysalo, S., Pollock, N. and Williams, R. A. (2019). Method matters in the social study of technology: Investigating the biographies of artifacts and practices. Science & Technology Studies, 32(3), 225.Google Scholar
Iansiti, M. and Lakhani, K. R. (2020, January 1). Competing in the Age of AI. Harvard Business Review, (January–February 2020). https://hbr.org/2020/01/competing-in-the-age-of-ai.Google Scholar
Introna, L. D. (2007). Towards a post-human intra-actional account of socio- technical agency (and morality). Prepared for the Moral Agency and Technical Artifacts Scientific Workshop, NIAS, Hague, 22.Google Scholar
Kellogg, K., Valentine, M. and Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174.Google Scholar
Kiviat, B. (2019). The moral limits of predictive practices: The case of credit-based insurance scores. American Sociological Review, 84(6), 11341158.Google Scholar
Kling, R. (1991). Computerization and social transformations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(3), 342367.Google Scholar
Kling, R. (1992). Audiences, narratives, and human values in social studies of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17(3), 349365.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1042.Google Scholar
Labatut, J., Aggeri, F. and Girard, N. (2012). Discipline and change: How technologies and organizational routines interact in new practice creation. Organization Studies, 33(1), 39.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1986). Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. In Kuklick, H., ed., Knowledge and Society Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present. Bingley: JAI Press, 140.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 225258.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369381.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leonardi, P. M., Bailey, D. E. and Pierce, C. S. (2019). The coevolution of objects and boundaries over time: Materiality, affordances, and boundary salience. Information Systems Research, 30(2), 665686.Google Scholar
Lindebaum, D., Vesa, M. and den Hond, F. (2019). Insights from the machine stops to better understand rational assumptions in algorithmic decision-making and its implications for organizations. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0181.Google Scholar
MacCormick, J. (2012). Nine Algorithms That Changed the Future: The Ingenious Ideas That Drive Today’s Computers (2nd edition). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Marti, E. and Gond, J.-P. (2018). When do theories become self-fulfilling? Exploring the boundary conditions of performativity. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 487508.Google Scholar
Martin, K. (2019). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4), 835850.Google Scholar
Mayer-Schonberger, V. and Cukier, K. (2013). Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, 1st ed. London: Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, M., Cohn, M. and Dourish, P. (2014). Dynamic reconfiguration in planetary exploration: A sociomaterial ethnography. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 38(3), 831848.Google Scholar
Murray, A., Rhymer, J. and Sirmon, D. forthcoming. Humans and Technology: Forms of Conjoined Agency in Organizational Routines. Academy of Management Review.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society (Reprint edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235250.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Hærem, T. (2015). Organizational routines as patterns of action: Implications for organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 465487.Google Scholar
Pollock, N. and Williams, R. (2009). Software and Organisations: The Biography of the Enterprise-Wide System or How SAP Conquered the World. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pollock, N. and Williams, R. (2016). How Industry Analysts Shape the Digital Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and 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), 577610.Google Scholar
Rieder, B. (2017). Scrutinizing an algorithmic technique: The Bayes classifier as interested reading of reality. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 100117.Google Scholar
Schildt, H. (2020). The Data Imperative: How Digitalization Is Reshaping Management, Organizing, and Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 112.Google Scholar
Sele, K. and Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722738.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1970). The Sciences of the Artificial, 1st edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739758.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd edition. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wenzel, M., Krämer, H., Koch, J. and Reckwitz, A. (2020). Future and Organization Studies: On the rediscovery of a problematic temporal category in organizations. Organization Studies.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. and Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6), 730743.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G., Szulanski, G., Ringov, D. and Jensen, R. J. (2011). Reproducing knowledge: Inaccurate replication and failure in franchise organizations. Organization Science, 23(3), 672685.Google Scholar
Zbaracki, M. J. and Bergen, M. (2010). When truces collapse: A longitudinal study of price-adjustment routines. Organization Science, 21(5), 955972.Google Scholar
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, 1st edition. New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar

References

Archer, M. S. (2010). Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. The British Journal of Sociology, 61, 225252.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. and Zirpoli, F. (2008). Applying organizational routines in analyzing the behavior of organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66(1), 128148.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 4052.Google Scholar
Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Neumann, G. and Reijers, H. A. (2006). A discourse on complexity of process models. In Eder, J. and Dustdar, S., eds., Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2006: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4103. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 115126.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial information processing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191233.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554571.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L. and Macintosh, N. B. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 207224.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202225.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611629.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016a). Routines as process: Past, present, and future. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: A Process Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2346.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016b). Making process visible: Alternatives to boxes and arrows. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage, 625635.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94118.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505513.Google Scholar
Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the Measure of Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for Organizational Research and Diagnosis. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Forrester, J. W. (1997). Industrial dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(10), 10371041.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
Gao, D., Deng, X., Zhao, Q., Zhou, H. and Bai, B. (2015). Multi-agent based simulation of organizational routines on complex networks. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(3), 17.Google Scholar
Gao, D., Squazzoni, F. and Deng, X. (2018). The role of cognitive artifacts in organizational routine dynamics: An agent-based model. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 24(4), 473499.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google 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), 19011929.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1969). Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. Acta Psychologica, 31, 97128.Google Scholar
Hansson, M., Pentland, B. T. and Hærem, T. (2018, June). Identifying and describing characteristics of organizational routines as repertoires of action patterns, degree of routinization, and enacted complexity. Academy of Management Global Proceedings. https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amgblproc.surrey.2018.0037.absGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. and Rerup, C. (2017). A process perspective on organizational routines. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 323339.Google Scholar
Hærem, T., Pentland, B. T. and Miller, K. D. (2015). Task complexity: Extending a core concept. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 446460.Google Scholar
Hærem, T. and Rau, D. (2007). The influence of degree of expertise and objective task complexity on perceived task complexity and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 13201331.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, G. (1988). Problem solving and creativity. In Grønhaug, K. and Kaufmann, G., eds., Innovation: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective. Norway: Norwegian University Press, pp. 87137.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. and Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional Scaling (Vol. 11). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691710.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Miller, C. C., Glick, W. H., Wang, Y. D. and Huber, G. P. (1991). Understanding technology-structure relationships: Theory development and meta-analytic theory testing. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 370399.Google Scholar
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D. and Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A Theory of Behavior in Organizations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, C. R. and Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S. and Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257279.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413453.Google Scholar
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194208.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (2003). Sequential variety in work processes. Organization Science, 14(5), 528540.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Hærem, T. (2015). Organizational routines as patterns of action: Implications for organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 465487.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T. and Hillison, D. W. (2009). Using workflow data to explore the structure of an organizational routine. In Becker, M. C. and Lazaric, N., eds., Organizational Routines: Advancing Empirical Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 4767.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T. and Hillison, D. (2010). Comparing organizational routines as recurrent patterns of action. Organization Studies, 31(7), 917940.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T. and Hillison, D. (2011). The (n)ever-changing world: Stability and change in organizational routines. Organization Science, 22(6), 13691383.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Liu, P., Kremser, W. and Hærem, T. (2020). The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 1947.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484510.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Vaast, E. and Wolf, J. R. (2021). Theorizing process dynamics with directed graphs: A Diachronic analysis of digital trace data. MIS Quarterly, 45(2), 967984.Google Scholar
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. NewYork: Wiley.Google Scholar
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G. and Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689709.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567582.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L. and Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613624.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. and Delbecq, A. L. (1974). A task contingent model of work-unit structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(2), 183197.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L. and Koenig, R. Jr (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41(2), 322338.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. and Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and Assessing Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1965). Laboratory experimentation with organizations. In March, J. G., ed., Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 194260.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Withey, M., Daft, R. L. and Cooper, W. H. (1983). Measures of Perrow’s work unit technology: An empirical assessment and a new scale. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 4563.Google Scholar
Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 6082.Google Scholar

References

Aroles, J. and McLean, C. (2016). Rethinking stability and change in the study of organizational routines: Difference and repetition in a newspaper-printing factory. Organization Science, 27(3), 535550.Google Scholar
Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R. and Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 164.Google Scholar
Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y. and King, J. L. (2016). Routines as shock absorbers during organizational transformation: Integration, control, and NASA’s enterprise information system. Organization Science, 27(3), 551572.Google Scholar
Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 573593.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594613.Google Scholar
Cohendet, P. and Simon, L. (2016). Always playable: Recombining routines for creative efficiency at Ubisoft Montreal’s video game studio. Organization Science, 27(3), 614632.