The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The (N)Ever-Changing World: Stability and Change in Organizational Routines
Abstract
This paper uses data on invoice processing in four organizations to distinguish empirically between two competing theories of organizational routines. One theory predicts that routines should generate patterns of action that are few in number and stable over time, and that atypical patterns of action are driven primarily by exceptional inputs. The competing theory predicts the opposite. By modeling the routines as networks of action and using a first-order Markov model to test for stationarity, we find support for the competing theory. The routines generated hundreds of unique patterns that changed significantly during a five-month period without any apparent external intervention. Changes did not appear to reflect improved performance or learning. Furthermore, we found that exogenous factors (such as large invoices from unusual vendors) are not associated with atypical patterns of action, but endogenous factors (such as the experience of the participants) are. We also found that increased automation can increase variation under some circumstances. These findings offer empirical support for endogenous change in organizational routines and underscore the importance of the sociomaterial context in understanding stability and change.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
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
Self-citationOuellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54 · Cited by 3,480
Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840607081138 · Cited by 3,248
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study
Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.4.554 · Cited by 1,393
Habits in everyday life: Thought, emotion, and action.
Wood, W., Quinn, J. M., & Kashy, D. A. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1281 · Cited by 1,028
Cited by
Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
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
Digital governance: A conceptual framework and research agenda
Hanisch, M., Goldsby, C. M., Fabian, N. E., & Oehmichen, J. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113777 · Cited by 267
Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.3.10 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T., & Hillison, D.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1369-1383
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W1991987922
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 20.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.