Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:17:01.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Process Theorizing and Routine Dynamics

The Case for Performative Phenomenology

from Part I - Theoretical Resources for Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

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

Summary

In this chapter, I revisit key tenets of Routine Dynamics (RD) research to take stock of its progress and note areas for further development, and then show how strong process-cum-practice perspective, which I have called performative phenomenology, may be drawn upon to advance RD research. I argue that RD research will need to: explore how tacit knowledge affects routine enactment; better understand exogenously originated deliberate change in routines; and take explicitly on board the moral dimension of routine enactment.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicsprocess ontologyphenomenologytacit knowledgeexogenous changemorals
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 37 - 48
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

Balogun, J., Bartunek, J. M. and Do, B. (2015). Senior managers’ sensemaking and responses to strategic change. Organization Science, 26, 960–979.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blattner, W. (2006). Heidegger’s Being and Time. London: Continuum.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colebrook, C. (2005). Actuality. In Parr, A., ed., The Deleuze Dictionary. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
Colebrook, C. (2006). Deleuze: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cooren, F. (2007). Interacting and Organizing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, F. (2012). Conversations for Action and Collected Essays (ed. Flores Letelier, M.). North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing.Google Scholar
Ford, J. and Ford, L. (2009). The Four Conversations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Johnson, M. (1993). Moral Imagination. Chicago: The University of Chicago 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 (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
Klein, G. (2003). The Power of Intuition. New York: Currency/Doubleday.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
MacIntyre, A. (1985). After Virtue. London: Duckworth, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1953). Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962/1945). Phenomenology of Perception (trans. Smith, C.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Moore, G. (2017). Virtue at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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
Paul, L. A. (2014). Transformative Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, F. (1991). Playing by the Rules. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1992). The Moral Commonwealth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (2008). A Humanist Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University 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.Google 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

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
×