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-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:04:07.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 31 - Self-Managed Forms of Organizing and Routine Dynamics

from Part III - Themes in Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

By
Waldemar Kremser  and
Jun Xiao
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

How to organize work is a topic at the core of routine dynamics, and studying novel forms of organizing constitutes a prime occasion for theory development. Though self-managed forms of organizing (SMOs) have held perennial interest by scholars and practitioners alike, contemporary SMOs are larger, and more rule driven than their earlier counterparts. Our chapter offers a primer on contemporary SMOs and identifies key issues that a routine dynamics perspective can lend towards seeing, tracing and understanding contemporary SMOs.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicsself-managementdecentralizationnew forms of organizingopennessagilescrumholacracy
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 421 - 432
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

Adler, P. S. and Heckscher, C. (2018). Collaboration as an organization design for shared purpose. In Ringel, L., Hiller, P. and Zietsma, C., eds., Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Vol. 57. Toward Permeable Boundaries Of Organizations? Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 81–111.Google Scholar
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N. and Lee, M. (2016). Beyond the Holacracy Hype: The overwrought claims – and actual promise – of the next generation of self-managed teams. Harvard Business Review, 94(7/8), 38–49.Google Scholar
Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. A. 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1052Google Scholar
Bondarouk, T., Bos-Nehles, A., Renkema, M., Meijerink, J. and Leede, J. de (2018). Organisational Roadmap towards Teal Organisations (Vol. 19): Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1877-6361201819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2393807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, J. and Villines, S. (2017). We the People: Sociocracy: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Info Press.Google Scholar
Bucklow, M. (1966). A new role for the work group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391394Google Scholar
Cohen, S. G. and Ledford, G. E. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 1325–1350. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danner-Schröder, A. (2016). Routine dynamics and routine interruptions: How to create and recreate recognizability of routine patterns. Managementforschung, 26(1), 63–96. https://doi.org/10.1365/s41113-016-0003-2Google 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. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1055Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1051Google Scholar
DeSantola, A. and Gulati, R. (2017). Scaling: Organizing and growth in entrepreneurial ventures. The Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 640–668. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0125Google Scholar
Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M. and Lassenius, C. (2016). Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 119, 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dönmez, D., Grote, G. and Brusoni, S. (2016). Routine interdependencies as a source of stability and flexibility: A study of agile software development teams. Information and Organization, 26(3), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2016.07.001Google Scholar
Dybå, T. and Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9), 833–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006CrossRefGoogle 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., D’Adderio, L., Jarzabkowski, P. and Dittrich, K., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol 61, pp. 99–121.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M. and Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, F. (1980). Designing socio-technical systems for ‘greenfield’ sites. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1(1), 19–27. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/3004061Google 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felin, T. and Powell, T. C. (2016). Designing organizations for dynamic capabilities. California Management Review, 58(4), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.78Google Scholar
Foss, N. J. and Dobrajska, M. (2015). Valve’s way: Vayward, visionary, or voguish? Journal of Organization Design, 4(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.7146/jod.20162Google Scholar
Gino, F. and Staats, B. R. (2014). The Morning Star Company: Self-Management at Work (Harvard Business School Case No. 914-013). Retrieved from https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/914013-PDF-ENGGoogle Scholar
Goh, K. T. and Pentland, B. (2019). From actions to paths to patterning: Toward a dynamic theory of patterning in routines. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1901–1929. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, K. T. and Rerup, C. (2018). The Role of Space and Time in Balancing Conflicting Pressures through Routine Dynamics. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 14067. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. H., Sarnak, D. O. and Burgers, J. S. (2015). Home Care by Self-Governing Nursing Teams: The Netherlands’ Buurtzorg Model (The Commonwealth Fund publ. 1818 No. 14).Google Scholar
Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J. and Siino, 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hærem, T., Pentland, B. T. and Miller, K. D. (2015). Task complexity: Extending a core concept. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0350Google Scholar
Hamel, G. (2011). First, let’s fire all the managers. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48–60. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=67484173&site=ehost-liveGoogle Scholar
Hauw, S. de and Vos, A. de (2010). Millennials’ career perspective and psychological contract expectations: Does the recession lead to lowered expectations? Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9162-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingvaldsen, J. A. and Rolfsen, M. (2012). Autonomous work groups and the challenge of inter-group coordination. Human Relations, 65(7), 861–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712448203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, P., Schlatmann, B. and Mahadevan, D. (2017). ING’s agile transformation. McKinsey Quarterly, 2017, 42–51.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Blagoev, B. (2020). The Dynamics of Prioritizing: Person-Roles, Routines, and the Emergence of Temporal Coordination in Complex Work Settings. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi/10.1177/0001839220948483Google Scholar
Kremser, W., Pentland, B. T. and Brunswicker, S. (2019). Interdependence within and between routines: A performative perspective. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P. A., eds., Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Vol. 61. Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698–721. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness, 1st ed. Brussels: Nelson Parker.Google Scholar
Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<563::AID-JOB31>3.0.CO;2-HGoogle Scholar
Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159588Google Scholar
Lee, G. and Xia, W. (2010). Toward Agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M. Y. and Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.002Google Scholar
Lee, M. Y., Mazmanian, M. and Perlow, L. (2020). Fostering positive relational dynamics: The power of spaces and interaction scripts. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 96–123. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leffingwell, D. (2018). Safe Reference Guide: Scaled Agile Framework for lean Software and Systems Engineering : Safe 4.5. Always Learning. Boulder, CO: Scaled Agile Inc; Pearson Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Lindkvist, L., Bengtsson, M., Svensson, D. M. and Wahlstedt, L. (2017). Replacing old routines: How Ericsson software developers and managers learned to become Agile. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(4), 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw038Google Scholar
Lindvall, M., Muthig, D., Dagnino, A., Wallin, C., Stupperich, M., Kiefer, D., … Kahkonen, T. (2004). Agile software development in large organizations. Computer, 37(12), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2004.231Google Scholar
Mahringer, C. (2019). Exploring Routine Ecologies: A Characterization and Integration of Different Perspectives on Routines (Dissertation). University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Martela, F. (2019). What makes self-managing organizations novel? Comparing how Weberian bureaucracy, Mintzberg’s adhocracy, and self-organizing solve six fundamental problems of organizing. Journal of Organization Design, 8(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-019-0062-9Google Scholar
Pearce, J. A. and Ravlin, E. C. (1987). The design and activation of self-regulating work groups. Human Relations, 40(11), 751–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678704001104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2007). Narrative networks: Patterns of technology and organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Liu, P., Kremser, W. and Haerem, T. (2020). The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14458Google Scholar
Puranam, P., Alexy, O. and Reitzig, M. (2014). What’s ‘new’ about new forms of organizing? Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puranam, P. and Håkonsson, D. D. (2015). Valve’s way. Journal of Organization Design, 4(2), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.7146/jod.20152Google Scholar
Rawlins, C., Indvik, J. and Johnson, P. (2011). Understanding the new generation: What the millennial cohort absolutely, positively must have at work. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 39(2), 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2011.5876176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J. and Noble, A. (2018). Agile at scale. Harvard Business Review. (May/June), 88–96.Google Scholar
Robertson, B. J. (2015). Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World, 1st ed. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Rosales, V. (2020). The interplay of roles and routines: situating, performances and patterning in the emergency department. Journal of Health Organization and Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-12-2019-0342Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217707738Google Scholar
Schwaber, K. and Beedle, M. (2002). Agile Software Development with Scrum. Series in Agile Software Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2017). The Scrum Guide: The Definitive Guide to Scrum:The Rules of the Game. Retrieved from www.scrumguides.org/docs/scrumguide/v2017/2017-Scrum-Guide-US.pdfGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and Creativity: From Dualism to Duality. Organization Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1044Google Scholar
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M. and Cremer, D. de (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. The Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752–788. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095Google Scholar
Syed-Abdullah, S., Holcombe, M. and Gheorge, M. (2006). The impact of an Agile methodology on the well being of development teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 11(1), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-006-5968-5Google Scholar
Trist, E. L. and Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: An examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400101Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. and Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zbaracki, M. J. and Bergen, M. (2010). When truces collapse: A longitudinal study of price-adjustment routines. Organization Science, 21(5), 955–972. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0513Google 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
×