Search results

This paper aims to address how organizational routines paradoxically affect the process of organizational innovation based on a new construct of routines or to investigate the coexistence of both hindering and promoting effects from routines and their differentiated affecting paths.

This paper adopts an interpretive and exploratory case study on the business model innovation of Yimu Technology Company Limited (Yimu Tech) from product standardization to customization. Considering that this innovation reflects a successful down-up rather than traditional up-down innovation, this paper focuses on it to explore how the most micro routines affect the whole process of innovation. Almost two years were spent in collecting data from Yimu Tech and in following the innovation through approaches of semi-structured interviews, archival data and observation; the data were analyzed through a five-step process before a framework showing the paradoxical effects was finally set up.

This research specifies the construct of organizational routines and promotes a five-dimensional concept covering the organizational, collective and individual levels of an organization. It confirms the interaction between the performative and ostensive aspects of routines, by showing that the ostensive aspect may not only guide tasks performing but also allow multiple changes, and the performative aspect may affect the ostensive aspect through the down-up or up-down path. Also, it finds that routines may paradoxically affect all three phases of innovation, with a strong up-down hindering effect but a weak down-up promoting effect in the preparation phase, a strong down-up promoting effect but a weak hindering effect in the emergence phase and both significant effects in the consolidation phase.

This research is constrained by several limitations. The set up framework of routines and their paradoxical effects on innovation need a further confirmation in more contexts or organizations; more elements should be considered in exploring the evolution of routines and their effects on innovations; little attention has been paid to the relationship between these two types of effects, conflicting with each other, joining together or working independently.

The findings offered some valuable insights for further research on organizational routines and organizational innovation and hold important implications for management practices. This research enriched the two-aspect view of routines by constructing a five-dimensional framework; further research studies on routine dynamics by showing the interaction between the performative and ostensive aspects can contribute to the study on effects of organizational routines on innovations by showing how routines promote and hinder innovation simultaneously throughout the whole process. It reminds managers of the strong power from the microlevel of an organization in innovation.

The performative approach views organizational routines as generative systems with internal aspects – ostensive and performative – and dynamics (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). The purpose of this paper is to better understand under which conditions the routine dynamics happens or not.

To deal with this issue, for 13 months, the authors conducted a comparative and longitudinal case studies based on the evolution of the organizational routines in absence management in two departments of a French hospital.

The results show contrasting dynamics in the studied organizational routines: one evolved, the other in contrast, seemed blocked. The authors suggest that the routine dynamics depends on the relative weight of its ostensive and performative aspects: a balance situation makes mutual adaptions possible and an imbalance situation leads to the conservation of defective routine. The research underlines also that, in the hospital context, the capacity of management and teams to discuss and to negotiate the implementation of external rules plays an important role in the balance of the internal dimensions of routine.

While the literature on performative approach focusses on the “how and why” the routine act as a source of continuous change, this research investigates more in depth the working of the routines dynamics itself. The issue of balance or imbalance introduces a new element in the framework of routine dynamics and can constitute an interesting focus for managers looking to transform their organizational routines.

The purpose of this paper is to enhance the eminent work of Burns and Scapens (B&S) by introducing broader conceptualisations on organisational routines and rules into management accounting.

The paper sets out with the B&S framework. The paper is primarily conceptual in nature and with the addition of some more recent literature on organisational routines serves to bolster the underpinnings of the B&S framework. Drawing especially on the work of Feldman and Pentland, the nature of management accounting routines in particular is explored in some detail. By association, rules are also explored.

This paper proposes that an ostensive‐performative distinction of routines augments our conceptualisation of how management accounting routines can represent both a source of stability and of change (simultaneously). Also, by showing how routines can represent both structure and action simultaneously, some light is shed on the ongoing interrelationship between routines and rules as highlighted in the B&S framework and some concerns in recent literature addressed. In particular, a refined view of both routines and rules not only bolsters the work of B&S, but potentially increases its applicability as a theoretical lens to empirical studies in less formal organisations.

The proposed refinements to the B&S framework, which aim to clarify the nature of rules and routines in a management accounting context, may be particularly useful for researchers studying less formalised (or, less rules‐based) organisations. The findings emphasise the potentially more important role of the less formal concept of routines in most organisations.

The paper supports and complements the B&S framework by integrating more recent conceptual developments on organisational routines and offering some potential definitional clarity on rules and routines in management accounting.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptual model to unpack the relationship between organisational routines and strategic foresight integration.

Three moderating factors, actors mindfulness, organisational context and organisational ambidexterity, are used in a Routines-Foresight Model to explain how and when organisational routines might influence strategic foresight integration. In addition, the interactions between the ostensive and performative aspects of routines are linked to the concept of routines as generative structures to provide a solid theoretical foundation for the relationship between routines and foresight.

The success (or failure) of foresight integration is partly a result of the nature of interaction between the ostensive and performative aspects of routines within a focal organisation. As a result of the characteristic embeddedness of routines in organisations however, certain factors further act as moderators to contribute to a holistic explanation of how the ostensive and performative interaction influence foresight integration success.

This paper proposes that routines, whether seen from a change or stability-inducing perspective, could lead to success or failure in foresight integration depending on how the moderating factors (actor’s mindfulness, organisational context and organisational ambidexterity) are managed to accommodate feedback from an organisation’s external environment. In this way, the model proposed challenges present perceptions of routines as leading to successful change behaviours if flexibility is allowed or to failure if they are rigid and unchanging.

Cultivating strategic foresight involves the integration of foresight into organisational decisions and requires organisations to pay attention to understanding the organizing logic of its organizing routines and the contextual factors within which these routines are performed.

The paper draws on the organisational routines literature to develop new insights into the cultivation of organisational foresightfulness.

The purpose of this paper is to address the extant and arguably excessive focus on routines in management accounting research and a relative neglect of rules. It seeks to advance our understanding of how rules and routines may interact in the technology-enabled context of management accounting and control of contemporary organizations.

The authors draw on, and develop, insights from extant literature and from two case studies to explore how rules and routines may interact.

The paper proposes a framework on the interactions of rules and routines across multiple dimensions. The authors adopt a wide notion of rules to include formal rules, rules as internal cognitive structures of human actors and rules technologically embedded in non-human actors. The authors argue that rules underlie and may precede routines, distinguish between repeated practices and routines and explore the role of technology in today’s management accounting practices.

This research shows how the process of routinization and, ultimately, institutionalization of practices involves multiple dimensions of rules, as well as both human and non-human actors. With this understanding, researchers and practitioners will be better equipped to, respectively, understand nuances of management accounting change and actually achieve change in practice.

This paper highlights the importance of rules in the routinization and institutionalization of management accounting practices and proposes a framework which explores the interactions of rules and routines across three realms: material, action and psychological. Including a material realm, related with technologically embedded rules, in the proposed framework contributes to institutional theory by acknowledging today’s increasing role of technology in organizational life.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a process model on how mindfully performed organisational routines can simultaneously enable organisational stability and organisational change.

Via conceptual analysis, the authors develop several propositions and a process model integrating the theory of mindfulness and performative aspects of organisational routines with organisational stability and change. To do so, the authors review the literature on organisational routines, mindfulness, stability, inertia and change.

First, the authors demonstrate that, based on levels of mindfulness employed, performative aspects of organisational routines can be categorised as mindless, mindful and collectively mindful (meta-routines). Second, in the process model, the authors position the mindless performance of routines as enabling organisational stability, mediated through inertial pressure and disabling change, mediated through constrained change capacities. Finally, the authors state that engaging routines with mindfulness at an individual (mindful routines) or collective (meta-routines) level reduces inertia and facilitates change. Such simultaneous engagement leads to either sustaining stability when required or implementing continuous organisational change.

The framework uses continuous, versus episodic, change; future research can consider the model’s workability with episodic change. Future research can also seek to empirically validate the model. The authors hope that this model informs research in organisational change and provides guidance on addressing organisational inertia.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to categorise the performative aspects of organisational routine based on the extent of mindfulness employed and propose that mindfulness-based practice of routines stimulates either inertia-induced or inertia-free stability and continuous change.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

The success (or failure) of foresight integration is partly a result of the nature of interaction between the ostensive and performative aspects of routines within a focal organization. As a result of the characteristic embeddedness of routines in organizations, however, certain factors further act as moderators to contribute to a holistic explanation of how the ostensive and performative interaction influence foresight integration success.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world’s leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

To study the learning processes and mechanisms involved in sustainability-oriented supplier development (SSD), including how knowledge is transmitted by the buyer and how it is received, understood and internalised by the supplier.

An exploratory longitudinal multi-case study approach is adopted. The research context is a social SSD project focusing on occupational health and safety (OHS) management at four supplier factories. The paper draws on the constructs of absorptive capacity and boundary objects.

The development of a supplier's absorptive capacity for OHS management is triggered by the transfer of boundary objects that are created by the buyer. Findings suggest that each supplier starts explorative learning in a similar and passive way in order to accept the knowledge, but then each supplier proactively transforms and exploits the knowledge through continuous sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring loops that develop the boundary objects in a way that fits their own needs and contexts, incorporating the objects into organisational structures and routines.

The research furthers the understanding of the development of supplier absorptive capacity for sustainability via SSD projects, including how it is triggered and sustained. The impact of ostensive and performative aspects of boundary objects on knowledge transfer is presented. Finally, insight is provided into how absorptive capacity and dynamic capabilities are linked in the context of SSD.

Buying firms should seek to develop boundary objects that can trigger and maintain learning momentum for sustainability at supplier organisations in addition to effectively transferring SSD-related sustainability knowledge. There is also a need to allow for sufficient flexibility in the design of the boundary objects, and to pay sufficient attention to how suppliers contextualise and embed them into their own organisations, providing support for this process where necessary. For the supplier, establishing structures and routines for OHS management can help to prepare for future audits, thereby reducing audit fatigue.

The paper contributes to the supply chain learning literature by exploring the development of supplier absorptive capacity for sustainability triggered by the focal buying firm. It sheds new light on the role of boundary objects for facilitating knowledge transfer and learning between supply chain members in the context of SSD projects.

In an ever-complexifying business context, organizations need to continuously adapt, adjust and change their routines in order to remain competitive. Drawing upon a qualitative study focusing on three Southeastern European countries (Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia), this paper explores the role played by managerial feedback on routine change within small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

The authors draw from an in-depth qualitative study of six manufacturing SMEs located in three Southeastern European countries: Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. The process of data collection, which spanned over a period of fifteen months, was centred around both interviews and observations.

The authors argue that feedback is a powerful and constructive managerial practice that sets to initiate changes in routines through three different means: (1) making sense of the changes required (by channelling information), (2) rationalizing the decision for changing the unproductive routines and (3) reviewing the process of change through the legitimization of situational routines. In addition to this, the authors found that managers perceive that routines need to change for four main reasons: inability to meet targets (e.g. performance); too cumbersome to deal with complex environments; inflexibility and failing to provide control; obsolete in terms of providing a sense of confidence.

This research provides evidence that feedback is an important managerial means of changing routines in informal, less bureaucratic and less formalized workplaces such as SMEs. Managers might embrace deformalized approaches to feedback when dealing with routines in SMEs. Working within a very sensitive structure where the majority of changes on routines need to be operationalized through their hands, managers and practitioners should deploy feedback in order to highlight the importance of routines as sources of guiding actions, activities and operations occurring in SMEs that create better internal challenges and processes.

The authors’ research suggests that routines are subject of change in dynamic and turbulent situations. Perceiving routines as antithetical to change fails to capture the distinctive features of change such as its fluidity, open-endedness, and inseparability. Likewise, the authors claim that routines are socially constructed organizational phenomena that can be modulated in different ways in SMEs.

The first purpose of this short essay is to respond to Howells and Scholderer’s (2016) harsh critique that organizational unlearning is a superfluous concept. The second purpose is to establish a relationship between organizational unlearning and the learning organization.

To respond to Howells and Scholderer’s critique, the author carefully examines their arguments – focusing on their comments on the author’s previous publications – and checks whether the arguments are logical and coherent. To establish a relationship between organizational unlearning and the learning organization, the author draws on his own research of international joint ventures in China.

Howells and Scholderer seriously miscited the ideas in one of the author’s publications, and their main arguments are blatantly flawed. Moreover, they are unaware that many of the faults they find in the organizational unlearning literature are also present in the organizational learning literature. As to the second part of this essay, the study of the acquisition type of joint ventures clearly indicates the presence of organizational unlearning. Moreover, for such ventures to be learning organizations, the unlearning step has to be well managed.

As mentioned, the author’s response to Howells and Scholderer’s critique focuses on their comments on the author’s publications. It is highly likely that they have made other erroneous arguments that this essay fails to capture. The author’s discussion of unlearning and learning organizations is constrained by the context of acquisition joint ventures.

This essay forcefully rebuts Howells and Scholderer’s critique, which can become an obstacle in the development of organizational unlearning research. The dynamics of knowledge transfer in acquisition joint ventures suggest that skills of unlearning, and not just learning, are essential to reaching the goal of being a learning organization.