CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,048Team Dynamics and PerformanceInnovative Education and Learning PracticesManagement Theory and Practice

Habitual routines in task-performing groups

Gersick, Connie J.G, Hackman, J.Richard·1990·Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
DOI 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-d
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Groups, like individuals, often develop habitual routines for dealing with frequently encountered stimuli. Although such routines are consequential for group life and work, little is known about them. This paper reconnoiters the territory of habitual behavior in groups that perform work within organizations. We offer a definition of group habits, identify their functions and dysfunctions, suggest how they develop and are maintained, and identify the circumstances when they are likely to be altered or abandoned. Throughout, we give special attention to the social nature of habitual routines in groups, to the interaction between habitual behavior and group life cycle phenomena, and to the role of the organizational context in prompting, shaping, and terminating habitual routines.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-d

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Because routines have been treated as fixed, unified entities, change has been conceived of as driven by exogenous forces.

    “Because routines have been treated as fixed, unified entities, change has been conceived of as driven by exogenous forces such as market changes or new technologies (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985; Barley, 1986, 1990; Gersick and Hackman, 1990; Orlikowski, 1992; Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano, 2001).”

    From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Gersick and Hackman, 1990

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Gersick, Connie J.G
Venue
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1990-10
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
65-97
ISSN
0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-d
OpenAlex
W2074684231
Cited by
1,048
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 55
FWCI
8.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
Keywords
group work, organizational routines, group life cycle, social routines, organizational context, routine maintenance, routine change, task performance
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Group Processes, Habits, Humans, Psychology, Industrial, Social Behavior, Task Performance and Analysis, Work

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review