Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics
- Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Chapter 1 What Is Routine Dynamics?
- Part I Theoretical Resources for Routine Dynamics Research
- Part II Methodological Issues in Routine Dynamics Research
- Part III Themes in Routine Dynamics Research
- Part IV Related Communities of Thought
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Part I - Theoretical Resources for Routine Dynamics Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2021
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics
- Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Chapter 1 What Is Routine Dynamics?
- Part I Theoretical Resources for Routine Dynamics Research
- Part II Methodological Issues in Routine Dynamics Research
- Part III Themes in Routine Dynamics Research
- Part IV Related Communities of Thought
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 19 - 100Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
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), 535–550.CrossRefGoogle 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, 78–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 551–572.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), 573–593.Google Scholar
Birnholtz, J., Cohen, M. D. and Hoch, S. (2007). Organizational character: On the regeneration of Camp Poplar Grove. Organization Science, 18(2), 315–332.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago 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), 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1996). Learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. In Cohen, M. D. and Sproull, L. S., eds., Organizational Learning. London: Sage, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.Google Scholar
Bruns, H. (2009). Leveraging functionality in safety routines: Examining the divergence of rules and performance. Human Relations, 62(9), 1399–1426.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), 594–613.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (1997). Understanding knowledge transformation in product development: Making knowledge manifest through boundary objects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Providence, RI: Organization Science.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), 614–632.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. D. (2003). Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: The influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 321–350.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. D. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artifacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37, 769–789.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. D. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. D. (2014). Replication dilemma. Organization Science, 25(5), 1325–1350.CrossRefGoogle 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), 633–658.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), 659–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the creation and recreation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38, 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guérard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678–697.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727–752.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.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
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, 505–513.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309–331.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., and Worline, M. (2016). The practicality of practice theory. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(2), 304–324.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization, 7(2), 211–223.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste. Management Learning, 40(5), 535–550.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. (2012). How to Conduct a Practice-Based Study: Problems and Methods. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2000). To transfer is to transform: The circulation of safety knowledge. Organization, 7, 329–348.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning the trade: A culture of safety in practice. Organization, 9, 191–223.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1996). What do you mean by safety? Conflicting perspectives on accident causation and safety management in a construction firm. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 6, 202–213.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1989). A reply to my critics. In Held, D. and Thompson, J. B., eds., Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, pp. 248–301.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method, 2nd ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hales, M. and Tidd, J. (2009). The practice of routines and representations in design and development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 551–574.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
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K. and Feldman, M. S. (2012). Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, 23(4), 907–927.Google Scholar
Jones, M. R. and Karsten, H. (2003). Review: Structuration theory and information systems research. Working Paper 2003/11, Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698–721.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 264–280.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.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, 872–896.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, 514–534.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. and Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502–513.Google Scholar
Manning, P. K. (1977). Police Work: The Social Organization of Police Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manning, P. K. (1982). Organizational work: Enstructuration of the environment. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, A. A. (2014). The mutual constitution of persons and organizations: An ontological perspective on organizational change. Organization Science, 25(4), 1082–1110.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2010). Medical innovation as a process of translation: A case from the field of telemedicine. British Journal of Management, 21(4), 1011–1026.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D., eds. (2003). Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Practice in research: Phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. and Vaare, E., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–33.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. and Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145–165.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. and Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the IT in IT research – A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121–134.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), 433–474.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. and Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 541–574.Google Scholar
Orr, J. E. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community memory in a service culture. In Middleton, D. S. and Edwards, D., eds., Collective Remembering: Memory in Society. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26(1), 126–166.Google Scholar
Ortner, S. B. (1989). High Religion: A Cultural and Political History of Sherpa Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Østerlund, C. and Carlile, P. R. (2005). Relations in practice: Sorting through practice theories on knowledge sharing in complex organizations. The Information Society, 21(2), 91–107.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2007). Narrative Networks: Patterns of Technology and Organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 781–795.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(2008), 235–250.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Haerem, T. and Hillison, D. (2010). Comparing organizational routines as recurrent patterns of action. Organization Studies, 31(7), 917–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484–510.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1994). After representation: Science studies in the performative idiom. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the PSA, (2), 413–419.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Towards a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.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 of Journal, 54(3), 577–610Google Scholar
Reynaud, B. (1998). Les propriétés des routines: Outils pragmatiques de decision et modes de co-ordination collective. Sociologie du Travail, 1998(4), 465–477.CrossRefGoogle 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), 847–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384–409.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468–490.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2011). Where the Action Is (on Large Social Phenomena Such as Sociotechnical Regimes). Sustainable Practices Research Group, Working Paper 1, University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2012). A primer on practices: Theory and research. In Higgs, J., Barnett, R., Billett, S., Hutchings, M. and Trede, F., eds., Practice-Based Education: Perspectives and Strategies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 13–26.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E., eds. (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schreyögg, G. and Sydow, J. (2010). CROSSROADS – Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251–1262.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 535–558.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), 722–738.Google Scholar
Sevon, G. (1996). Organizational imitation in identity transformation. In Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G., eds., Translating Organizational Change. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sewell, W. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies, 27(4), 585–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739–758.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), 759–781.Google Scholar
Strati, A. (2007). Sensible knowledge and practice-based learning. Management Learning, 38(1), 61–77.Google Scholar
Swidler, A. (2001). Talk of Love: How Culture Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tyre, M. and Orlikowski, W. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1), 98–118.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Yi, S., Knudsen, T. and Becker, M. C. (2016). Inertia in routines: A hidden source of organizational variation. Organization Science, 27(3), 782–800.Google Scholar
Zbaracki, M. J. and Bergen, M. (2010). When truces collapse: A longitudinal study of price-adjustment routines. Organization Science, 21(5), 955–972.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1970). The practicalities of rule use. In Douglas, J., ed., Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 221–238.Google Scholar
References
Balogun, J., Bartunek, J. M. and Do, B. (2015). Senior managers’ sensemaking and responses to strategic change. Organization Science, 26, 960–979.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, 573–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanche, C. and Cohendet, P. (2019) Remounting a ballet in a different context: A complementary understanding of routines transfer theories. 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. 11–30.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016) The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics, Organization Science, 27, 594–613.Google Scholar
Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2009). Strategy without Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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, 614–632.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (2007). Reading Dewey: reflections on the study of routine. Organization. Studies, 28, 773–786.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (2012). Perceiving and remembering routine action: Fundamental micro-level origins, Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1383–1388.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
Colebrook, C. (2005). Actuality. In Parr, A., ed., The Deleuze Dictionary. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
Danner-Schroder, 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, 633–658.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. D. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artifacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37, 769–789.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the creation and recreation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38, 181–205.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guerard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27, 678–697.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (2000). Responses. In Wrathall, M. and Malpas, J., eds., Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, 313–349. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (2014). Skillful Coping: Essays on the Phenomenology of Everyday Perception and Action. (Wrathall, M. A., ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (2017). On Expertise and Embodiment: Insights from Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Samuel Todes. In Sandberg, J., Rouleau, L., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Skillful Performance: Enacting Capabilities, Knowledge, Competence and Expertise in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–159.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. and Dreyfus, S. E. (2005). Expertise in real world contexts. Organization Studies, 26, 779–792.Google Scholar
Eberhard, J., Frost, A. and Rerup, C. (2019). The dark side of routine dynamics: Deceit and the work of Romeo pimps. 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 Publishing Limited, pp. 99–121.Google Scholar
Egidi, M. (2002) Biases in organizational behavior. In Augier, M. and March, J. G., eds., The Economics of Choice, Change and Organization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 109–146.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. (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. 23–46.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P. (2019). Introduction: Routine dynamics in action. 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 Publishing Limited, pp. 1–10.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
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, 505–513.Google Scholar
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. and Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structures, Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1351–1374.Google Scholar
Flores, F. (2012). Conversations for Action and Collected Essays (ed. Flores Letelier, M.). North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gkeredakis, E., Nicolini, D. and Swan, J. (2014). Moral judgments as organizational accomplishments: Insights from a focused ethnography in the English healthcare sector. In Cooren, F., Vaara, E., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Language and Communication at Work: Discourse, Narrativity and Organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–324.Google Scholar
Hadjimichael, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2019). Towards a better understanding of tacit knowledge in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 672–703.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1962/1927). Being and Time (Macquarrie, J. and Robinson, E., Trans.). New York: SCM Press.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (eds.) (2016). Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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: Sage, pp. 323–339.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 (Research in the Sociology of Organizations), Vol. 61. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 173–189.Google Scholar
Klein, G. (1998). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langley, A., Smallman, H., Tsoukas, H. and Van de Ven, A. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1–13.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. London: Sage, pp. 1–25.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, 514–534.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962/1945). Phenomenology of Perception (trans. Smith, C.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Narduzzo, A., Rocco, E. and Warglien, M. (2000). Talking about routines in the field. In Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G., 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: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 413–453.Google Scholar
Parr, A. (2005). Repetition. In Parr, A., ed., The Deleuze Dictionary. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 223–225.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 577–610.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384–409.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 170–209.Google Scholar
Sandberg, J. and Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36, 338–360.Google Scholar
Sandberg, J. and Tsoukas, H. (2020). Sensemaking reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organization Theory, 1, 1–34.Google Scholar
Sayer, A. (2011). Why Things Matter to People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2000). Coping with others with folk psychology. In Wrathall, M. and Malpas, J., eds., Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 29–52.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1992). The Moral Commonwealth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, T. (2015). Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27, 739–758.Google Scholar
Spinosa, C., Flores, F. and Dreyfus, H. L. (1997). Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1985). Human Agency and Language, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A. and Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2011). How should we understand tacit knowledge? A phenomenological view. In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M., eds., Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management. Chichester: Wiley, 2nd Edition, pp. 453–476.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making strategy: Meta-theoretical insights from Heideggerian phenomenology. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. and Vaara, E., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd Edition, pp. 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2018). Strategy and virtue: Developing strategy-as-practice through virtue ethics, Strategic Organization, 16, 323–351.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2019). Philosophical Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567–582.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, 24–46.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (2001). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations. In Weick, K. E., ed., Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 100–124.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations (Anscombe, G. E. M., Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1979). On Certainty (ed. Anscombe, G. E. and von Wright, G. H., trans. Paul, D. and Anscombe, E. M.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yanow, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection-in-action? A phenomenological account. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1339–1363.Google Scholar
References
Anderson, R. J. and Sharrock, W. (2018). Action at a Distance: Studies in the Practicalities of Executive Management. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Best, K. and Hindmarsh, J. (2019). Embodied spatial practices and everyday organization: The work of tour guides and their audiences. Human Relations, 72(2), 248–271.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), 594–613.Google Scholar
Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11(3), 373–393.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), 769–789.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), 197–230.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), 678–697.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. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present, and future. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Tsoukas, H. and Langley, A., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.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.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution Of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2126–2154.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000a). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000b). Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 19–36.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000c). Vision and Inscription in Practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 1–3.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2011). Contextures of action. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D., eds., Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.Google Scholar
Heath, C. and Luff, P. (2013). Embodied action and organisational interaction: Establishing contract on the strike of a hammer. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 24–38.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge; New York: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J. and Heath, C. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade: The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P. and Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 489–503.Google Scholar
Kameo, N. and Whalen, J. (2015). Organizing documents: Standard forms, person production and organizational action. Qualitative Sociology, 38(2), 205–229.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2011). Understanding understanding in action. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 435–437.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C. and Feltovich, P. (2011). ‘Can you see the cystic artery yet?’ A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 521–541.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford; New York: 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), 514–534.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2011). Commentary: On understanding understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 553–555.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2015). Garfinkel’s Studies of Work. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.ehess.fr/sg12/WebPro1516/Draft%20-%20Garf%20book.pdf.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2019). Garfinkel, Sacks and formal structures: Collaborative origins, divergences and the history of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Human Studies, 42(2), 183–198.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011a). The interactional production of multiple spatialities within a participatory democracy meeting. Social Semiotics, 21(2), 289–316.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011b). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014a). Cooking instructions and the shaping of things in the kitchen. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. and Rauniomaa, M., eds., Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity: Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014b). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.Google Scholar
Moore, R. J., Whalen, J. and Gathman, E. C. H. (2010). The work of the work order: Document practice in face-to-face service encounters. In Llewellyn, N. and Hindmarsh, J., eds., Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.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 & Organization, 18(4), 235–250.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), 1484–1508.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
Rawls, A. W. (2002). Editor’s introduction. In Garfinkel, H.. Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 1–64.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2006). Respecifying the study of social order: Garfinkel’s transition from theoretical conceptualization to practices in details. In Garfinkel, H., ed., Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, pp. 1–97. Rawls, A. W. (2008). Harold Garfinkel, ethnomethodology and workplace studies. Organization Studies, 29(5), 701–732.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2011). Harold Garfinkel. In Ritzer, G. and Stepnisky, J., eds., The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists. Vol. 2 Contemporary Social Theorists. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 89–124.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), 577–610.Google Scholar
Smith, D. E. (2001). Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions. Studies in Cultures, Organizations & Societies, 7(2), 159–198.Google Scholar
Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D., eds., Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (1996). Constituting shared workspaces. In Engeström, Y. and Middleton, D., eds., Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (1997). Centers of coordination: A case and some themes. In Resnick, L. B., Säljö, R., Pontecorvo, C. and Burge, B., eds., Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition. Berlin; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tulbert, E. and Goodwin, M. H. (2011). Choreographies of attention: Multimodality in a routine family activity. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D., eds., Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
Ueno, N. (2000). Ecologies of inscription: Technologies of making the social organization of work and the mass production of machine parts visible in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 59–80.Google Scholar
Whalen, J., Whalen, M. and Henderson, K. (2002). Improvisational choreography in teleservice work. The British Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 239–258.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2010). Philosophical Investigations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, Y. and Hiramoto, T. (2016). Reflexivity of routines: An ethnomethodological investigation of initial service encounters at sushi bars in Tokyo. Organization Studies, 37(10), 1473–1499.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, Y. and Hiramoto, T. (2021). Performative achievement of routine recognizability: An analysis of order taking routines at sushi bars. Journal of Management Studies, 57(8), 1610–1642.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1970). The practicalities of rule use. In Douglas, J. D., ed., Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 221–238.Google Scholar
References
Bernstein, R. J. (1992). The resurgence of pragmatism. Social Research, 59(4), 813–840.Google Scholar
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (2007a). Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organisation Studies, 28(5), 773–786.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (2007b). Administrative behavior: Laying the foundations for Cyert and March. Organization Science, 18(3), 503–506.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963/1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.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), 197–230.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1917). The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy. In Dewey, J., ed., Creative Intelligence: Essays in the Pragmatic Attitude. New York: Holt, pp. 3–69.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1922). Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Random House/The Modern Library.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1981). The Philosophy of John Dewey. (McDermott, J. J., ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. D. (2017). Symbolic interactionism. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 144–159.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. D. and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2019). Acting in a Dynamic World: Pragmatism and Routine Dynamics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 8–12 August 2019, Boston.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), 189–205.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in routine dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111–138.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Maynard, D. W. (2011). Pragmatism and ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 34, 221–261.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Miche, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M., Ansell, C. and Boin, A. (2015). Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26(6), 1787–1804.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. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present and future. In Rerup, C., Howard-Grenville, J., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How they are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.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
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B., 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.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Worline, M. (2016). The practicality of practice theory Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(2), 304–324.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26(4), 657–684.Google Scholar
Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J. and Siimo, R. M. (2015). Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 136–168.Google Scholar
Hernes, T., Simpson, B. and Soderland, J. (2013). Managing and temporality. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 1–6.Google 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
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, pp. 323–339.Google Scholar
James, W. (1878). Remarks on Spencer’s definition of mind as correspondence. The Journal of Speculative Psychology, 12(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longman, Green and Co.Google Scholar
James, W. (1908). The pragmatist theory of truth and its misunderstanders. The Philosophical Review, 17(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and Social Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joas, H. and Knobl, W. (2009). Social Theory: Twenty Introduction Lectures. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langley, A. H. 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. London: Sage Publications, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded Theory in Management Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. and Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R. and Goldsmith, H. H., eds., Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 619–642.Google Scholar
Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1935). The philosophy of John Dewey. International Journal of Ethics, 46(1), 64–81.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and zooming out: A package of method and theory to study work practices. In Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H. and Kamsteeg, F., eds., Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 120–138.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1992). The Essential Peirce, Vol 1 (1867–1893). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce, Vol 2 (1893–1913). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.Google Scholar
Reck, A. J. (1963). The philosophy of George Herbert Mead. In Studies in Recent Philosophy. Tulane Studies in Philosophy Series, Volume 12. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 5–51.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Sandberg, J. and Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and Savigny, E. V., eds., The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 10–23.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies , 27 (4), 585–604.Google Scholar
Shotter, J. (2010). Situated dialogic action research: Disclosing ‘beginnings’ for innovative change in organizations. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 268–285.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. and Lorino, P. (2016). Re-viewing routines through a pragmatist lens. In Rerup, C., Howard-Grenville, J., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How they are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–70.Google Scholar
Thayer, H. S. (1982). Pragmatism: The Classic Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.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), 1407–1434.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), 24–46.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2018). Watching the clock: Action timing, patterning, and routine performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1253–1280.Google Scholar
Wegener, F. and Lorino, F. (2020). Capturing the experience of living forward from within the flow: Fusing ‘withness’ approach & pragmatist inquiry. 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, pp. 138–168.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Westley.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (2003). Theory and practice in the real world. In Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 453–475.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2013). Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 120–137.Google Scholar
References
Abbott, A. D. (2004). Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: Norton & Company.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), 187–206.Google Scholar
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), 535–550.Google Scholar
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.Google Scholar
Baron, L. F. and Gomez, R. (2016). The associations between technologies and societies: The utility of actor-network theory. Science, Technology and Society, 21(2), 129–148.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), 573–593.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. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowksi, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 11–30.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), 594–613.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), 1559–1585.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1980). The state and technical innovation: A case study of the electrical vehicle in France. Research Policy, 9(4), 358–376.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieux Bay. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196–233.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In Law, J., ed., A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge, pp. 132–161.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1998a). An essay on framing and overflowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology. The Sociological Review, 46(S1), 244–269.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? MacKenzie, D., Muniesa, F. and Siu, L., eds., Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Callon, M. and Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In Knorr, K. and Cicourel, A., eds., Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 277–303.Google Scholar
Callon, M. and Law, J. (1982). On interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counter-enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 615–625.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), 614–632.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Czarniawska, B. (2017). Actor-network theory. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing, 160–173.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), 769–789.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), 197–230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 1325–1350.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
De Laet, M. and Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225–263.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), 659–677.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.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. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present and future. In Rerup, C. and Howard-Grenville, J. A., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.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. and Pentland, B. T. (2005). Organizational routines and the macro-actor. In Czarniawska, B. and Hernes, T., eds., Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. Copenhagen: Liber, pp. 91–111.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.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), 1880–1895.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization, 7(2), 211–223.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2005). Actor-networks: Ecology and entrepreneurs. In Czarniawska, B. and Hernes, T., eds., Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. Copenhagen: Liber, pp. 285–306.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2126–2154.Google Scholar
Gond, J.-P. and Cabantous, L. (2015). Performativity: Towards a performative turn in organizational studies. Mir, R., Willmott, H. and Greenwood, M., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 508–516.Google Scholar
Hetherington, K. and Law, J. (2000). After networks. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, 127–132.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R. and Spee, P. (2016). The role of artifacts in establishing connectivity within professional routines: A question of entanglement. In Rerup, C. and Howard-Grenville, J., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–131.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698–721.Google Scholar
Lannacci, F. (2014). Routines, artefacts and technological change: Investigating the transformation of criminal justice in England and Wales. Journal of Information Technology, 29(4), 294–311.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1986). The powers of associations. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 264–280.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1), 103–131.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1996a). Aramis, or, the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1996b). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications plus more than a few complications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1999a). On recalling ANT. In Law, J. and Hassard, J., eds., Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 15–25.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1999b). Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2018). Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Law, J., ed. (1986). Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T., eds., The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2002). Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. and Callon, M. (1988). Engineering and sociology in a military aircraft project: A network analysis of technological change. Social Problems, 35(3), 284–297.Google Scholar
Law, J. and Hassard, J., eds. (1999). Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Law, J. and Singleton, V. (2014). ANT, multiplicity and policy. Critical Policy Studies, 8(4), 379–396.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life. New York: Continuum Books.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. A., Muniesa, F. and Siu, L. (2007). Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McLean, C. and Hassard, J. (2004). Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: Critical notes on the production of actor-network accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 41(3), 493–519.Google Scholar
Mitzscherling, L. (2019). Dynamiken und Entstehung von inter-organisationalen Routinen in Innovationsnetzwerken. Dissertation Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Mol, A. (2010). Actor-network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft, 50, 253–269.Google Scholar
Mol, A. and Law, J. (1994). Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 24(4), 641–671.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.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), 235–250.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
Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384–409.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170–209.Google Scholar
Seidl, D. and Whittington, R. (2014). Enlarging the Strategy-as-Practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1407–1421.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), 722–738.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), 759–781.Google Scholar
Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In Law, J., ed., A Sociology of Monster: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge, pp. 26–56.Google Scholar
Steen, J., Coopmans, C. and Whyte, J. (2006). Structure and agency? Actor-network theory and strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 4(3), 303–312.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (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), 24–46.Google Scholar
Whittle, A. and Spicer, A. (2008). Is actor network theory critique? Organization Studies, 29(4), 611–629.Google Scholar
Yeow, A. and Faraj, S. (2014). Technology and sociomaterial performation. Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 48–65.Google Scholar
References
Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In Bijker, W. E. and Law, J., eds., Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 205–224.Google Scholar
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), 535–550.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, 1586–1607.Google Scholar
Bapuji, H., Hora, M., Saeed, A. and Turner, S. F. (2019). How understanding-based redesign influences the pattern of actions and effectiveness of routines. Journal of Management, 45(5), 2132–2162.Google Scholar
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bechky, B. A. (2003a). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3), 312–330.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), 551–572.Google Scholar
Berg, M. (1997). Of forms, containers, and the electronic medical record: Some tools for a sociology of the formal. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22(4), 403–433.Google Scholar
Berg, M. (1998). The politics of technology: On bringing social theory into technological design. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 23(4), 456–490.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, 573–593.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), 315–332.Google 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, 11–30.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, 31–53.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowker, G. C. and Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1996). Learning and communities-of- practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. In Cohen, M. D. and Sproull, L. S., eds., Organizational Learning. London: Sage, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1988). Engineering design process. In Dubinskas, F. A., ed., Making Time: Ethnographies of High-Technology Organisations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 92–122 (Chapter 3).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), 594–613.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.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), 1559–1585.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 67–83.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1998). An essay on framing and overflowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology. In Callon, M., ed., The Laws of the Markets. London: Blackwell, pp. 244–269.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In MacKenzie, D., Muniesa, F. and Siu, L., eds., Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Callon, M. and Muniesa, F. (2005). Economic markets as calculative collective devices. Organization Studies, 26(8), 1229–1250.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., War- glien, M. and Winter, S. (1996). Routines and other recurring patterns of organisations: contemporary research issues. IIASA Working Paper, March 1996.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), 614–632.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2001). Crafting the virtual prototype: How firms integrate knowledge and capabilities across organisational boundaries. Research Policy, 30(9), 1409–1424.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), 321–350.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37fs(5), 769–789.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), 197–230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 1325–1350.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2017). Performing the Innovation-Replication Dilemma in Routines Transfer. Companion Book on Innovation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.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), 676–679.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), 1813–1843.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), 633–658.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), 659–677.Google Scholar
De Laet, M. and Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225–263.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in Routine Dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111–138.Google Scholar
Dourish, P. (2016). Algorithms and their others: Algorithmic culture in context. Big Data & Society, 3(2). doi: 10.1177/2053951716665128.Google Scholar
Ewenstein, B. and Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30.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. (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., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P. (2019). Introduction. Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 61). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 1–10.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing Practice and Practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.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.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2126–2154.Google Scholar
Glaser, V., Pollock, N. and D’Adderio, L. (2021). The Biography of an Algorithm. Working Paper. Organization Theory. doi: 10.1177/26317877211004609.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.Google Scholar
Hales, M. and Tidd, J. (2009). The practice of routines and representations in design and development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 551–574.Google 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
Hutchins, E. (1991). Organizing work by adaptation. Organization Science, 2 (1), 14–39.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
Jones, M. R. (2013). Untangling sociomateriality. In Carlile, P., Nicolini, D., Langley, D. and Tsoukas, H., eds., How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts and Materiality in Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197–226.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 Publishing Limited, pp. 191–213.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 (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 61). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 191–213.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action and Belief. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts, 18, 151–180.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1987). Technology, closure and heterogeneous engineering: The case of the Portuguese expansion. In Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T. J., eds., The Social Construction of Technological Systems, New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17(5), 251–267.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), 665–686.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (2006). An Engine, not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Markus, M. L. and Silver, M. S. (2008). A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10/11), 609–632.Google Scholar
Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, A., Rhymer, J. and Sirmon, D. G. (2020). Humans and technology: Forms of conjoined agency in organizations. 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
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Commun. ACM, 19(3), 113–126.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. and Scott, S. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization, The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, J. E. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community memory in a service culture. In Middleton, D. S. and Edwards, D., eds., Collective Remembering: Memory in Society. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Orr, J. (1996). Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 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), 413–453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.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), 235–250.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, 465–487.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice, agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559–589.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice, Time, Agency and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2011). The spaces of practices and large social phenomena. Alexander von Humboldt Lecture Department of Philosophy, University of Kentucky Lexington, USA, Monday, September 12th.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T., Braun, T. and Sydow, J. (2019). Copying routines for new venture creation: How replication can support entrepreneurial innovation. 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 Publishing Limited, pp. 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), 722–738.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1970). The Sciences of the Artificial (1st edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739–758.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), 759–781.Google Scholar
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (1983). Office procedure as practical action: Models of work and system design. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 1(4), 320–328.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Action: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions (2 edition). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1993). To follow a rule …. In Calhoun, C., LiPuma, E. and Postone, M., eds., Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 45–59.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), 24–46.Google Scholar
Wenzel, M., Danner-Schröder, A. and Spee, A. P. (2020). Dynamic capabilities? Unleashing their dynamics through a practice perspective on organizational routines. Journal of Management Inquiry (online 4 May 2020).Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (1995). Four Rs of profitability: Rents Resources, Routines and Replication, unpublished working paper IIASA, WP-95-07.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. and Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6), 730–743.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: Public Affairs.Google Scholar