The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context
Abstract
Once regarded as stable and inflexible, organizational routines are increasingly seen as capable of being adapted to the situation at hand and a potentially important source of endogenous change in organizations. This paper considers why routines that are performed flexibly may nonetheless persist over time. Drawing on data from participant observation of a high-tech manufacturing company, I identify factors that contribute to both the flexibility and persistence of a routine. First, individuals and groups approach routines with different intentions and orientations, suggesting that agency shapes particular routine performances. Second, routine performances are embedded in an organizational context that, while it may not restrict the flexible use of a routine, may constrain its ongoing adaptation. Finally, accounting for the relative power of individuals sheds light on the interaction between agency and context in routine performance and explains why the actions of some individuals, but not others, can change routines. This paper draws on recent work that conceptualizes routines as ongoing accomplishments, and it extends it by identifying how actors and contexts shape both individual performances of routines and contribute to their persistence or change over time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Newly developed solutions do not automatically lead to changes in the organizational patterns of action.
“research shows that newly developed solutions-regardless of how carefully they are designed-do not automatically lead to changes in the organizational patterns of action (Feldman 2003;Howard-Grenville 2005;Pentland and Feldman 2008).”
From Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization (2020) · cites this paper as Howard-Grenville 2005
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449 · see citing works
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 · Cited by 4,957 · see citing works
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760 · see citing works
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020 · see citing works
Disrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094828 · Cited by 1,729 · see citing works
Creed, W. E. D., Scully, M. A., & Austin, J. R. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.5.475.7814 · Cited by 614 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization
Duchek, S. (2020) · Business Research · doi:10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7 · Cited by 2,027 · see citing works
“…and quick implementation (Smart and Vertinsky 1977); however, research shows that newly developed solutions—regardless of how carefully they are designed—do not automatically lead to changes in the organizational patterns of action (Feldman 2003; Howard-Grenville 2005; Pentland and Feldman 2008).”
BackgroundLeonardi, P. M. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23043493 · Cited by 1,889 · see citing works
Humans and Technology: Forms of Conjoined Agency in Organizations
Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0186 · Cited by 518 · see citing works
Gond, J., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12074 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Dynamic Capabilities in Public Organizations: A literature review and research agenda
Piening, E. P. (2013) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.708358 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Role of routines in collaborative work in healthcare organisations
Greenhalgh, T. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a2448 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Shaw, S., Papoutsi, C., Vijayaraghavan, S., & Stones, R. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/16093 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
- Authors
- Howard-Grenville, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Howard-Grenville, Jennifer A.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 618-636
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2102664883
- Cited by
- 585
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 21.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- organizational routines, agency, organizational context, endogenous change, routine performance, personal power, high-tech manufacturing
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