Cited by 936Management and Organizational StudiesManagement Theory and PracticeInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Organizational Routines as Grammars of Action

Pentland, Brian T., Rueter, Henry H.·1994·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

The authors wish to thank Stephen Barley, Michael Cohen, Connie Gersick, Barbara Lawrence, Lance Sandelands, Robert Sutton, Burt Swanson, Karl Weick, Elaine Yakura, and the anonymous ASO reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We would also like to thank Linda Pike for her editorial advice, and Louise Soe and Sidne Ward for their help with the data analysis. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Las Vegas, August 1992. This paper explores the sequential structure of work processes in a task unit whose work involves high numbers of exceptions, low analyzability of search, frequent interruptions, and extensive deliberation and that cannot be characterized as routine under any traditional definition. Yet a detailed analysis of the sequential pattern of action in a sample of 168 service interactions reveals that most interactions follow a repetitive, functionally similar pattern. This apparent contradiction presents a challenge to our theoretical understanding of routines: How can apparently nonroutine work display such a high degree of regularity? To answer this question, we propose a new definition of organizational routines as a set of functionally similar patterns and illustrate a new methodology for studying the sequential structure of work processes using rule-based grammatical models. This approach to organizational routines juxtaposes the structural features of the organization against the reflective age…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2393300

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Agency is always enacted in the context of organizational and institutional structures that define a set of possibilities for participants.

    “Agency is always enacted in the context of organizational and institutional structures that define a set of possibilities for the participants (Pentland and Rueter, 1994).”

    From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Pentland and Rueter, 1994

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1994-09
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
484
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2330657662
Cited by
936
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 43
FWCI
8.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
organizational routines, service interaction, reflective agency, deliberation

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