Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:19:21.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergence and functionality of organizational routines: an individualistic approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2010

ULRICH WITT
ULRICH WITT*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute of Economics Jena, Germany
*
*Email: witt@econ.mpg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Organizational routines coordinate the interactions and use of knowledge within firms. Efficient routines can imply a competitive advantage for a firm, deficient ones a disadvantage. This depends not only on how smoothly the intra-organizational interactions are in fact orchestrated, but also on what goals this orchestration serves: the organizational objectives or the convenience, effort minimization, or other idiosyncratic goals of involved organization members. Since organizational routines represent a case of collective action, the conditions under which organizational routines emerge cannot be neglected. They hinge on cognitive and motivational attitudes of the organization members suggesting an individualistic perspective on organizational routines.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 7 , Special Issue 2: Business Routines , June 2011 , pp. 157 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2010

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

Abell, P., Felin, T., and Foss, N. J. (2008), ‘Building Micro-foundations for the Routines, Capabilities, and Performance Links’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 29: 489–502.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action – A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. (2004), ‘Organizational Routines: A Review of the Literature’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 13: 643–677.Google Scholar
Bradach, J. L. (1997), ‘Using the Plural Form in the Management of Restaurant Chains’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 276–303.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2001), ‘Knowledge and Organization: A Social-practice Perspective’, Organization Science, 12: 198–213.Google Scholar
Cohendet, P. and Llerena, P. (2008), ‘The Role of Teams and Communities in the Emergence of Organizational Routines’, in Becker, M.C. (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Routines, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 256–277.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. and Bacdayan, P. (1994), ‘Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study’, Organization Science, 5: 554–568.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M., and Winter, S. (1996), ‘Routines and other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 5: 653–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewoold Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003), ‘Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–118.Google Scholar
Felin, T. and Hesterly, W. S. (2007), ‘The Knowledge-based View, Nested Heterogeneity, and New Value Creation: Philosophical Considerations on the Locus of Knowledge’, Academy of Management Review, 32: 195–218.Google Scholar
Gavetti, G. and Levinthal, D. (2000), ‘Looking Forward and Look Backward: Cognitive and Experiential Search’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, H. R. (2007), ‘Organizational Routines and Performance Feedback’, in Becker, M. C. (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Routines, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 187–204.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. and Wageman, R. (1995), ‘Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual, and Practical Issues’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 309–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005), ‘The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context’, Organization Science, 16 (6): 618–636.Google Scholar
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), ‘Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology’, Organization Science, 3: 383–397.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. (2000), ‘The Role of Routines, Rules and Habits in Collective Learning: Some Epistemological and Ontological Considerations’, European Journal of Economic and Social Systems, 14 (2): 157–171.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. 205–227.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. and Raybaut, A. (2005), ‘Knowledge, Hierarchy and the Selection of Routines: An Interpretative Model with Group Interactions’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15: 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loasby, B. J. (1999), Knowledge, Institutions and Evolution in Economics, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958), Organizations, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. S. (1994), ‘Competition, Fisher's Principle and Increasing Returns in the Selection Process’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4: 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miner, A. S., Ciuchta, M. P., and Gong, Y. (2008), ‘Organizational Routines and Organizational Learning’, in Becker, M. C. (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Routines, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 152–186.Google Scholar
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), ‘Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage’, Academy of Management Review, 23: 242–266.Google Scholar
Narduzzo, A., Rocco, E., and Warglien, M. (2000), ‘Talking About Routines in the Field: The Emergence of Organizational Capabilities in a New Cellular Phone Network Company’, in Dosi, G., Nelson, R., and Winter, S. (eds.), The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterloh, M. and Frey, B. S. (2000), ‘Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms’, Organizational Science, 11: 538–550.Google Scholar
Postrel, S. (2002), ‘Islands of Shared Knowledge: Specialization and Mutual Understanding in Problem-Solving Teams’, Organizational Science, 13: 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radner, R. and Rothschild, M. (1975), ‘On Allocation of Effort’, Journal of Economic Theory, 10: 358–376.Google Scholar
Spender, J. C. (1996), ‘Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17: 45–62.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (1996), ‘The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Constructionist Approach’, Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509–534.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (1988), ‘On Coase, Competence, and the Corporation’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 4: 163–180.Google Scholar
Witt, U. (2000), ‘Changing Cognitive Frames – Changing Organizational Forms: An Entrepreneurial Theory of Organizational Development’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 9: 733–755.Google Scholar
Zollo, M. and Winter, S. G. (2002), ‘Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamics Capabilities’, Organization Science, 13: 339–351.Google Scholar