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-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:06:09.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 18 - Cognition and Routine Dynamics

from Part III - Themes in Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

By
Nathalie Lazaric
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

Cognition is critical for finding different solutions to problems and providing new, robust patterns of action for the performance of routines. Routine Dynamics research provides significant empirical evidence about patterns and performance, and reveals how practices are permanently co-shaped using the notions of artefacts, reflection, replication of knowledge and intentionality. The notions of reflective action and reflective thinking have been identified as critical for current patterns of interdependent actions, thus offering an opportunity to reshape both cognition and the representation of routines that is far from the original conception of the Carnegie School.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicscognitionproblem solvingagency
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 255 - 265
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. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Archer, M. S. (2007). Making Our Way through the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C., Knudsen, T. and March, J. G. (2006). Schumpeter, Winter, and the sources of novelty. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15, 353–371.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, 23, 573–593.Google Scholar
Brette, O., Lazaric, N. and de Vierera, V. (2017). Habit, decision making and rationality: Comparing Thorstein Veblen and early Herbert Simon, Journal of Economic Issues, 3, 567–587.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacciatori, E. (2012). Resolving conflict in problem-solving: Systems of artefacts in the development of new routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1559–1585.Google Scholar
Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as practical coping : A Heideggerian perspective. Organization Studies, 27(5), 635–654.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (1991). Individual learning and organizational routine: Emerging connections. Organization Science, 2(1), 135–139.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (2007). Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organization Studies, 28(5), 773–786.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963/1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011) Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economy, 7, 197–230.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37, 769–789.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25, 1325–1350.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, 659–677.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re)creation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionalist 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(3), 678–697.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in Routine Dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 111–138.Google Scholar
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, 147–162.Google Scholar
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 281–317.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.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.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. 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 of the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 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
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D. and Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390.Google Scholar
Fuller, C. (2013). Reflexivity, relative autonomy and the embedded individual in economics. Journal of Institutional Economics, 9(1), 109–129.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 2126–2154.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R. (2008). Organizational routines and performance feedback. In Becker, M. C., ed., Handbook of Organizational Routines. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 187–204.Google Scholar
Gupta, A., Hoopes, D. G. and Knott, A. M. (2015). Redesigning routines for replication. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 851–871.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. A. and Rerup, C. (2017). A process perspective on organizational routines. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Sage Handbook of Process Organizational Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 323–339.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A., eds. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 173–189.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. (2008). Routines and routinization: An exploration of some micro-cognitive foundations. In Becker, M. C., ed., Handbook of Organizational Routines. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 205–227.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. (2011). Organizational routines and cognition: An introduction to empirical and analytical contributions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 147–156.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N. and Denis, B. (2001). How and why routines change: Some lessons from the articulation of knowledge with ISO 9002 implementation in the food industry. Economie et Sociétés, 585–612.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, 873–896.Google Scholar
Lazaric, N., Mangolte, P-A. and Massué, M-L. (2003). Articulation and codification of collective know-how in the steel industry: Evidence from blast furnace control in France. Research Policy, 32, 1829–1847.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. and Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17, 502–513.Google Scholar
March, J. and Simon, H. (1958). Organizations, NY: Wiley, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (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
Obstfeld, D. (2012). Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization Science, 23(6), 1571–1592.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.Google Scholar
Parmentier Cajaiba, A., Lazaric, N. and Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2021). The effortful process of routines emergence: The interplay of entrepreneurial actions and artefacts, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 31(1), 33–63.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. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 527–548.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (1995). Grammatical models of organizational processes. Organization Science, 6(5), 541–556.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., 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 Ju Jung, E. (2016). Evolutionary and revolutionary change in path-dependent patterns of action. 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. 96–113.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H.H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484–510.Google Scholar
Possas, M. L, Salles-Filho, S. and Silveira, da J. M. (1996). An evolutionary approach to technological innovation in agriculture: Some preliminary remarks. Research Policy, 25, 933–945.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schema: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577–610.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20, 384–409.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37, 468–490.Google Scholar
Sent, E.-M. (2000). Herbert A. Simon as a Cyborg scientist. Perspectives on Science, 8(4), 380–406.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. [1947] (1976). Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. [1947] (1997). Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press, 4th edition.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment, Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational – Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49, 53–283.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1991). Theories of bounded rationality. In McGuire, C. B. and Radner, Roy, eds., Decision and Organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, pp. 161–176.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. and Lorino, P. (2016) Re-viewing routines through a Pragmatist lens. 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. 47–70.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. New York: The Century Co,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 Cacciatori, E. (2016). The multiplicity of habit: Implications for routines research. 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. 71–95.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
Winter, S. G. (1964). Economic ‘natural selection’ and the theory of the firm. Institute of Public Policy Studies, University of Michigan, 4, 225–272.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2013). Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 120–137.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. and Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730–743.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×