In this chapter we set out to analyse the rich and diverse stream which makes up the topic of routines as truces. This involves addressing not only those contributions which directly deal with the construct of truces and their dynamics, but also those for which truces might not be the central focus but which have contributed to our understanding of truce dynamics through the lens of related concepts. These topics include the influence of conflicting interests, goals and motivations; the emergence and resolution of tensions and struggles between and across organizational communities and culture(s); and the role of artifacts and materiality in addressing organizational conflict.

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

This chapter considers how facets of occupations and professions manifest in routine dynamics. Whilst the salience of occupations and professions on routines has been recognized in extant research on routine dynamics, it remains largely scattered. To illuminate the salience of occupations and professions in the literature on routine dynamics, which is multifaceted, we focus on three prominent research themes: skilful accomplishment (i.e., how actors perform tasks), interdependence (i.e., how actors collaborate to accomplish tasks) and truces (i.e., how actors compete to make exclusive claims to perform certain activities). We turn to the literature on professions and occupations to draw out theoretical and empirical intersections with research advocating routine dynamics. The analytical framework, comprised of a becoming lens, a doing lens and a relating lens corresponds with and provides the basis to advance research themes within routine dynamics. We suggest a stronger emphasis on occupations and professions holds promise for deepening knowledge about routine dynamics, which we articulate by proposing several avenues for future research, including the expansion of the concept of routines and a distinction between organizational and professional routines.