Organisational routines are an important aspect of organisational learning as they help us to understand the interplay between an organisation’s structure, its processes and its actions. Originally, routines were associated with an organisation’s operating proce- dures and resembled the mechanical notions of computer programs with their routines and subroutines (Cyert and March 1963; March and Simon 1958). This included an organisation’s norms, conventions, rules and procedures and the way it operates on a daily basis. They helped contribute to an organisation’s stability. These routines were embedded in the organisation’s culture, beliefs and frameworks and could often contradict rules found in operating manuals. In general, the routines were seen as independent of individual actors and capable of surviving significant turnover in personnel (Levitt and March 1988). Routines also explained the inertia within organis- ations through repeated patterns of behaviour bound by rules and customs (Nelson and Winter 1982). Such routines were seen as regular and predictable patterns of behaviour.
In new circumstances, an organisation might draw from a pool of alternative routines (Levitt and March 1988).
Routines can be communicated through a variety of channels such as imitation, socialisation, education and personalisation processes, and become part of the collec- tive memory. It was initially assumed that organisational routines did not change, but increasing empirical research shows that routines are subject to change (Feldman 2000;
Pentland and Rueter 1994). A number of definitions of this phenomenon are forwarded in the literature:
UNLEARNING
Disconfirm linkages between stimuli
and response PEOPLE
OPPORTUNITIES PROBLEMS UNSTABLE
Disconfirm stimuli and world views
Disconfirm linkages between responses
STAGNATION INERTIA
SUCCESSFUL TEAMS STABLE
LEARNING OUTCOMES
TRIGGERS ENVIRONMENT
Figure 5.9 Environments and unlearning
‘An executable capability for repeated performance in some context that has been learned by an organization in response to selective pressures.’ (Cohen et al. 1996)
‘An organizational routine is not a single pattern but, rather, a set of possible patterns – enabled and constrained by a variety of organizational, social, physical and cognitive struc- tures – from which organizational members enact particular performances.’ (Pentland and Rueter 1994)
‘Recurring patterns of behaviour of multiple organizational members involved in performing organizational tasks.’ (Feldman and Rafaeli 2002)
Cohen and Bacdayan (1994) have argued that organisational routines are stored as procedural memory. They make a distinction between ‘procedural’ memory and
‘declarative’ memory arising in the psychology literature. Procedural memory stores the cognitive and motor skills associated with an individual’s skilled actions and could be considered as the individual ‘know how’. By nature, it is tacit, relatively automatic and difficult to articulate. In contrast, declarative memory is the repository of facts, proposi- tions and events and similar to an individual’s ‘know what’ or explicit knowledge. The difference is similar to the more static notion of ‘organisation’ compared with the more dynamic process of ‘organising’ (Weick 1979).
Routines are an important part of an organisation’s competence and without them organisations would lack efficient methods of collective action. However, routines can have detrimental consequences if they are automatically transferred to inappropriate new situations. Working routines are seen as much more than standard operating pro- cedures as official documents may or may not be followed. What happens in reality is similar in distinction between espoused theories and theories-in-use in organisations (Argyris and Schon 1978). They are produced gradually over time through multi-actor learning engaged in a particular routine. The tacit and multi-actor nature of organ- isational routines makes them difficult to research effectively as the problem entails surfacing, verbalising and externalising an organisation’s ‘unconscious’ memory (Cohen and Bacdayan 1994). Changes in habitual routines in groups can be triggered in a number of ways (Gersick and Hackman 1990):
●
● encountering a novel state of affairs;
●
● experiencing a failure;
●
● reaching a milestone in the life or work of the group;
●
● receiving an intervention that calls members’ attention to their group norms;
●
● having to cope with change in the structure of the group itself.
Critical thinking and reflection
as human beings, we have been considered as creatures of habit. Such habits in organisational terms may be considered as routines. How do you believe that such stable patterns of behaviour or organisational routines can aid or hinder organisations?
From your experience, do you feel that all processes, no matter how new or innovative, inevitably lead to organisational routines? is it worth actively discouraging such routines in organisations? if so, how?
Chapter 5 / organisational learning 143 An alternative conception of organisational routines is one that resembles a set of possible patterns that are neither fixed nor automatic. A novel representation of rou- tines is to use a grammatical model (Pentland and Rueter 1994). The ‘grammar’ analogy to routines allows actors to use a set of possibilities to accomplish a task without speci- fying a fixed outcome. This model acknowledges the importance of both the structure and agency (actor) within routines rather than the earlier fixation on operating proce- dures and the traditional elements of stimulus and automatic response. This approach concurs with social theory that regards routines in social activity as achieved through considerable effort (Giddens 1984).
A similar metaphor which demonstrates the stability and adaptability of routines is the ballroom dance (Feldman and Rafaeli 2002). Individual actions in dances are scripted beforehand but dances can allow flexibility depending on the context. Dancers will adapt their styles to this context depending on the number of other dancers on the floor, any obstructions in the floor, the competence of their partner and whether or not they have danced the particular number before. Communication between the dancers (similar to organisational routines) will allow flexibility in the dance to occur.
Empirical research suggests that changes in organisational routines can occur due to a number of reasons (Feldman 2000):
●
● Repairing routines so that participants can produce intended and desired outcomes.
This occurs when actions do not produce the intended outcome or produce an unde- sirable outcome.
●
● Expanding routines so that participants can produce new possibilities from outcomes.
The changed routine takes advantage of new possibilities.
●
● Striving routines so that participants can respond to outcomes that fall short of ideals. This attempts to attain something that is difficult by nature.
Success and failure in outcomes can have a major impact on routines. Favourable performance with an inferior routine can lead to its perpetuation and the denial of a superior routine can lead to a competency trap (Levitt and March 1988). Sub-optimal performance may persist with the use of familiar procedures, practices and technolo- gies. Success reinforces successful routines whilst inhibiting other routines. As outlined earlier in this chapter, failure or significant performance gaps may be the necessary determinant to change organisational routines as organisations search for ones that can match their desired outcomes.
Recent research has tried to unravel the processes that contribute to the stabil- ity and change of organisational routines (Feldman and Rafaeli 2002). The starting point in this theory is that organisational routines are a form of coordination used in organisations. The routines make ‘connections’ where connections are defined as the interactions between people that enable them to transfer information. The outcomes of the connection process are social support and information transfer (note the similarity to social capital and knowledge transfer). The encounters in connections create varia- tions in strong and weak ties between organisational members.
The connections enable shared understandings to occur. These arise through verbal as well as non-verbal communication. The coming together of people in a routine allows different interpretations to be explored and the development of a common
understanding. These understandings include aspects of the organisational context, performance expectations, power relations and organisational identity. The organis- ational context concerns what an organisation does and why, as well as who are the critical stakeholders. The power relations allow participants to understand the hierar- chy and their status within the organisation. This theory assumes a time delay between routines and their development of connections and shared understandings and rather like the same notion in social theory needs to be worked on over time. A model provid- ing a synthesis of the organisational routine literature is shown in Figure 5.10 (Cohen and Bacdayan 1994; Feldman and Rafaeli 2002). A useful anology to describe organis- ational routines was expressed vividly by an anonymous reviewer as follows:
‘Routines are like ruts in a well-travelled road. They do not exactly determine where the next wagon will go, but neither do they merely describe where past wagons have gone.’
(Pentland and Rueter 1994)