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
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 34 - Dynamic Capabilities and Routine Dynamics

  • from Part IV - Related Communities of Thought
  • Edited by Martha S. Feldman, University of California, Irvine, Brian T. Pentland, Michigan State University, Luciana D'Adderio, University of Edinburgh, Katharina Dittrich, University of Warwick, Claus Rerup, David Seidl
  • Book:
    Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics
    Published online:
    11 December 2021
    Print publication:
    16 December 2021, pp 460-480

  • Summary

    In the strategic management tradition, dynamic capabilities are interpreted as grounded in high-level routines, while in the routine dynamics framework routines are seen as inherently dynamic. Despite the apparent convergence of constructs and interests, these two approaches to understanding routines and the dynamism that they embody and engender have not been building on each other. In this chapter I analyse commonalities and differences between the two views in relation to their ontologies, their focal interests, and their levels of theory, measurement and analysis. I also describe how the two views contribute—although from different angles—to answering the same questions on routines emergence and change, on their role in inhibiting and promoting creativity and novelty, and in maintaining pattern and variety. Finally, I provide directions for future research on routine participants, ecologies of routines, and routines performance, which build on both views, without necessarily integrating them.