Sequential Variety in Work Processes
Abstract
This paper introduces the concept of sequential variety as a way to measure variability in the sequence of steps used to perform a work process. There is reason to expect that such variability may influence a range of outcomes, such as flexibility and quality. Two alternative ways to operationalize sequential variety are demonstrated and compared to traditional measures of task variety in four task units. The findings provide empirical support for treating sequential variety as a distinct construct. In particular, sequential variety appears to provide an index of tacit, procedural knowledge, while task variety may relate more closely to explicit, declarative knowledge.
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?
The most routinized task units based on one measure were the least routinized based on the other measure (and vice versa).
“The most routinized task units based on one measure were the least routinized basedon the other measure (and vice versa).”
From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Pentland (2003)
Traditional measures of task variety are more indicative of variations in the content of work, not variations in the pattern of actions used to accomplish the work (Pentland, 2003).
“Pentland (2003) argued that our traditional measures of task variety (Withey, Daft, and Cooper,1983) are more indicative of variations in the content of work, not variations in the pattern of actions used to accomplish the work.”
From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Pentland (2003)
In a study of customer service routines at a large bank, standard survey measures of task variety produced opposite results from measures based on observed sequences of behavior (Pentland, 2003).
“in a study of customer service routines at a large bank, Pentland (2003) found that standard survey measures of task variety produced opposite results from measures based on observed sequences of behavior.”
From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Pentland (2003)
Cites
Explaining Development and Change in Organizations
van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329 · Cited by 3,762 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Self-citationGaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.3.10 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pentland, B. T.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pentland, Brian T.
- ORCID
- Pentland, Brian T.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 528-540
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2133123335
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 10.02
- 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 › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- 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
- task variety, tacit knowledge, procedural knowledge, explicit knowledge, declarative knowledge
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
