Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:28:05.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 24 - Complexity in Routine Dynamics

from Part III - Themes in Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

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

Summary

In this chapter, we show how different conceptualizations of routine complexity can produce different insights into the study of the dynamics of routines. Based on a selective review of the literature, we identify three different approaches to routine complexity that has been applied in empirical research: that is, complexity as (a) a perceptual characteristic of routines, (b) a function of idealized characteristics of routines, and (c) a function of enactments. Our review shows that early studies of routines have predominantly treated complexity as a perceptual phenomenon, whereas in only a few studies have complexity been conceived of as a more objective characteristic of routines. More recently, a stream of research has begun to capture the complexity of routines as an enacted phenomenon, in line with the practice-turn in routine research. We scrutinize the underlying assumptions in each of these approaches and outline the potential directions for future investigations on the complexity of routines.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicsRoutine complexitytask complexityprocess complexity,
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 329 - 342
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

Archer, M. S. (2010). Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. The British Journal of Sociology, 61, 225–252.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), 128–148.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40–52.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. 115–126.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, 191–233.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle 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), 207–224.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.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. 23–46.CrossRefGoogle 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, 625–635.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), 94–118.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), 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the Measure of Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for Organizational Research and Diagnosis. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrester, J. W. (1997). Industrial dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(10), 1037–1041.CrossRefGoogle 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), 473–499.CrossRefGoogle 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), 1901–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1969). Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. Acta Psychologica, 31, 97–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 323–339.Google Scholar
Hærem, T., Pentland, B. T. and Miller, K. D. (2015). Task complexity: Extending a core concept. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 446–460.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), 1320–1331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 87–137.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), 691–710.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), 370–399.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, 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194–208.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (2003). Sequential variety in work processes. Organization Science, 14(5), 528–540.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), 465–487.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. 47–67.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T. and Hillison, D. (2010). Comparing organizational routines as recurrent patterns of action. Organization Studies, 31(7), 917–940.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), 1369–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Liu, P., Kremser, W. and Hærem, T. (2020). The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 19–47.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484–510.Google Scholar
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), 967–984.CrossRefGoogle 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), 689–709.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.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), 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. and Delbecq, A. L. (1974). A task contingent model of work-unit structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(2), 183–197.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), 322–338.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. 194–260.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), 45–63.Google Scholar
Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 60–82.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

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

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×