The DOI matches its Crossref record; 126 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 75 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we challenge the traditional understanding of organizational routines as creating inertia in organizations. We adapt Latour's distinction between ostensive and performative to build a theory that explains why routines are a source of change as well as stability. The ostensive aspect of a routine embodies what we typically think of as the structure. The performative aspect embodies the specific actions, by specific people, at specific times and places, that bring the routine to life. We argue that the ostensive aspect enables people to guide, account for, and refer to specific performances of a routine, and the performative aspect creates, maintains, and modifies the ostensive aspect of the routine. We argue that the relationship between ostensive and performative aspects of routines creates an on-going opportunity for variation, selection, and retention of new practices and patterns of action within routines and allows routines to generate a wide range of outcomes, from apparent stability to considerable change. This revised ontology of organizational routines provides a better explanation of empirical findings than existing theories of routines and has implications for a wide range of organizational theories.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
179 Own interpretation · 23 Sources not found · 13 No full text of the sources · 9 Not checked yet · 4 No basis given · 3 Partly supported · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Many scholars have provided empirical evidence of both change and variability in organizational routines (e.g., Suchman, 1983; Miner, 1990; Pentland and Rueter, 1994; Feldman, 2000; Naduzzo, Rocco, and Warglien, 2000; Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano, 2001; Pentland, 2003).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Suchman, 1983 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2 describes an empirical case study of office work, and section 4 concludes that workers determine a procedure’s meaning according to the particulars of each case. This supports variability in how routines are carried out. The paper does not provide empirical evidence that organizational routines change over time. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Miner, 1990 source
- Supportedcites Feldman, 2000 source
In the Introduction (page not provided), Feldman reports field observations in which most studied routines underwent substantial change. She also says her observations found variation to be a common part of organizational routines. This paper therefore serves as an empirical example of both change and variability. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“But routines also change in old, established organizations in stable environments (Feldman, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Feldman, 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports substantial change in routines observed in a large state university’s student housing department. It does not establish that the organization was old or that its external environment was stable. The Conclusion instead notes that the organizational context encouraged and allowed change. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Some variations will be intentional, in the sense that the participants want to change the ostensive aspect of the routine in order to alter the way they do their jobs (Feldman, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Feldman, 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Dynamics of Routines section says participants intentionally alter routines to do their jobs in ways that seem better to them. But the Performative Routines section distinguishes an ostensive definition, which exists in principle, from a performative one created through practice; it does not say participants seek to change the ostensive aspect to alter how they work. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all three metaphors (programs, habits, and genes), we have an image of routines as relatively fixed, unchanging objects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We refer here to something more basic: the inherent capability of every organizational routine to generate change, merely by its ongoing performance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The traditional explanation of organizational routines as a source of cognitive efficiency tends to reinforce the absence of agency within the routine itself.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ostensive aspect of the routine gains in apparent objectivity and concreteness as the views of different participants come into alignment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This ontology builds on the idea that routines, like other social phenomena, embody a duality of structure and agency (Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1977, 1990).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Giddens, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bourdieu, 1977, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For these reasons, the performative aspect of routines can best be understood as inherently improvisational.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In work settings with detailed descriptions of the expected sequence of steps in a procedure, for instance, participants introduce variations (Roy, 1959; Victor, Boynton, and Stephens-Jahng, 2000; Narduzzo, Rocco, and Warglien, 2000).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 50
- Probably not a substantial claim. 87
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Another problem is that the premise of the traditional story is contradicted by observational data. Organizational routines are certainly repetitive, but they are not necessarily fixed or unchanging.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Suchman, 1983 source
The Introduction says the procedural structure of organizational activities is produced through orderly office work, rather than reflecting an enduring structure. Section 2 applies this point to even the most routine clerical work, finding that it cannot readily be specified as a predetermined sequence of steps. Together, these passages support the claim that routine work need not be fixed or unchanging. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Miner, 1990 source
- Supportedcites Feldman, 2000 source
In the Introduction, Feldman says she began with a conception of routines as repeated patterns that change little, but observed that most routines she studied were undergoing substantial change. The Conclusion likewise states that routines are not inert, while noting that the potential for change may not be realized in every case. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Feldman (2000) found that the distinction between ostensive and performative helped to explain why etic and emic descriptions of routines differed.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Feldman (2000) source
In “Performative Routines” (page not provided), Feldman says the ostensive–performative distinction captures some of the difference in perspective between etic and emic approaches. The same section states that those approaches lead to different ideas about what counts as a routine. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overestimating the importance of the ostensive leads managers to underestimate the importance of the adjustments and improvisations that people undertake to make the routine work.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They interpret their actions in order to make sense of what they are doing and, though their choices of how to proceed appear automatic or mindless at times, there is always the possibility of resisting expectations and doing otherwise (Giddens, 1984; Orlikowski, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Giddens, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Orlikowski, 2000 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Changing one does not necessarily lead to a change in the other.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, unless we distinguish between these aspects of routines, we cannot explore the relationship between them.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The omission of agency may be unavoidable because, ironically, there are no people in these traditional metaphors.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existing literature on routines is quite diverse, yet it embodies a fairly consistent way of theorizing about routines.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that organizational routines consist of the resulting performances and the understandings of these performances.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational routines consist of two aspects: the ostensive and the performative.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both aspects are necessary to constitute what we understand to be the routine.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This way of understanding organizational routines provides a convincing explanation of stability in organizations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While routines can be a source of inertia and inflexibility, they can also be an important source of flexibility and change.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Existing theories do not entirely rule out the possibility of variability or change, but neither do they help explain it.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both of these aspects are necessary for an organizational routine to exist.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common mistake is to take the ostensive for the performative, or to mistake the summary of the way tasks are performed for the ways tasks are actually performed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without making this distinction, the parts—either the ostensive or the performative—can be mistaken for the whole.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An organizational routine consists of two related parts. One part embodies the abstract idea of the routine (structure), while the other part consists of the actual performances of the routine by specific people, at specific times, in specific places (agency).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Rules are resources for action, but they do not fully determine action (Zimmerman, 1970; Giddens, 1984; Taylor, 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zimmerman, 1970
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Giddens, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Taylor, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The performance of an academic hiring routine, for instance, is situated in a complex context and must be sensitive to features of this context.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, these metaphors highlight the inertial qualities of routines and tend to minimize the possibility of flexibility and change.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ostensive aspect of a routine shapes our perception of what the routine is.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These metaphors treat organizational routines as mechanisms or abstractions, rather than as collective human activities.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Practices are carried out against a background of rules and expectations, but the particular courses of action we choose are always, to some extent, novel.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While organizational routines are commonly perceived as reenacting the past, the performance of routines can also involve adapting to contexts that require either idiosyncratic or ongoing changes and reflecting on the meaning of actions for future realities.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When people do new things, whether in response to external changes or in response to reflexive self-monitoring, they alter the potential repertoire of activities that creates and recreates the ostensive aspect of the routine.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While we are required by law to state the commitment, if the statement is not followed by action, then the commitment is not part of the hiring routine.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Performing a hiring routine maintains, and in fact develops, many of the capabilities required to perform it.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Agency is apparent in each participant's choice of actions and the reflexive self-monitoring of those actions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, the hiring routine has a core pattern of actions that is repeated in virtually all instances of hiring.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In using it, we create a gloss that summarizes and omits, a story that privileges some activities over others.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The ostensive aspect of routines allows us to explain what we are doing and provides a sense of when it is appropriate to ask for an accounting (Lyman and Scott, 1968; Orbuch, 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lyman and Scott, 1968
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Orbuch, 1997 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hiring for tenure system positions is also affected by policies concerning the use of adjunct or temporary faculty.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People use the ostensive aspect of routines to refer to patterns of activity that would otherwise be incomprehensible.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over time, if no one chooses to read the script or play the music, the capability to do so vanishes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Variations may be hidden or otherwise go unnoticed.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“And, as open systems theory reminds us, the webs of interdependence do not stop at the formal boundary of the organization (Kast and Rosensweig, 1972).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kast and Rosensweig, 1972 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While the instances of hiring may differ, they bear a sufficient family resemblance to cohere as a recognizable category (Wittgenstein, 1958).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wittgenstein, 1958
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As originally conceived by Stene (1940), organizational routines involve the coordination of multiple organizational participants. Thus, organizational routines are not just individual routines that are performed in the context of an organization.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stene (1940) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They also would have no trouble using this hiring routine to account for their own behavior or to ask for accounts from others.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Performances enact the ostensive aspect of the routine, although this is largely an unintended effect of action (Giddens, 1984).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Giddens, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They may or may not get accepted as legitimate alternatives to existing practice.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, a written procedure and the idea it codifies must be performed repeatedly before it becomes an organizational routine.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The involvement of multiple actors introduces the diversity of goals, information, and interpretations, while the interdependence of actions blurs and opens the boundaries of the routine to outside influence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the end, members of the organization may or may not choose to incorporate variations into the ostensive part of the routine.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, even if a pattern of actions repeats, it needs to become recognizable as a pattern.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it is very unlikely that there is a single ostensive understanding or a single goal of any significant organizational routine.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Connecting one's behavior to a particular routine legitimates the behavior if it is understood to be part of the routine and de-legitimates it if it is not.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Performing an organizational routine maintains the ostensive aspect of the routine by exercising the capability to enact it.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It enables us to ask others to account for actions that seem unusual and to provide reasonable accounts when we are called to explain.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The performative aspect reflects individual agency.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our theory suggests that routines are both objective and subjective and that the two are integrally related.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the consensus definition strongly suggests the need for the new ontology,irrespective of any other considerations.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Adopting a structuration or practice theory perspective leads us to view the ostensive and performative aspects of organizational routines as recursively related, with the performances creating and recreating the ostensive aspect and the ostensive aspect constraining and enabling the performances.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Giddens, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is because, by definition, individuals engaged in organizational routines do not act alone, or independently.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For practical purposes, everyone understands the routine.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pattern of actions that occurs only once is not a routine.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But it serves only as a guide; it cannot specify the details of the performance, which people must always choose.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The understandings required to make an argument convincing are maintained, in part, by engaging in hiring routines and other related routines (such as promotion routines) and trying out or a a a a a an ag at ed or rejected.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We must take action in the midst of the “booming, buzzing confusion' that surrounds us (James, 1890), and labeling the activity helps us pay attention to a comprehensible and manageable portion of it.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites James, 1890
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, if nobody applies for a job, no hiring can take place.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hiring routine is filled with variations that may be recognized and incorporated into the ostensive aspect of the routine.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In spite of these variations, one can easily recognize the basic pattern as the hiring routine, as opposed to budgeting or some other routine.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The individuals performing the routine do not all have access to the same information, and even if they did, they might not interpret the information in the same way.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When people enact routines, they can maintain the ostensive aspect of the routine, but they can also choose to deviate from it.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, hiring almost always connects to budgeting and planning: a position should not be advertised before the slot has been allocated to the hiring unit and the budget has been approved.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And because it is prohibited, it takes on additional significance: inquiring about a spouse's employment in the context of a job search is often a sign of taking a candidate very seriously.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since our goal is to build on existing insights from the literature, it is important to note that the ostensive/performative ontology is consistent with the definition of organizational routines articulated earlier: repetition, a recognizable pattern of action, multiple participants, and interdependent actions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may be particularly true when it is committed to paper or encoded into some kind of artifact, such as a script or a formal procedure.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, a disconnected collection of performances does not constitute a routine without a corresponding ostensive category that makes the patterns coherent and recognizable as a routine.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They may be regarded as desirable, or not, by key individuals, such as managers or administrators.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because their actions are interdependent, each performance of a routine is a collective performance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When substantive actions are taken (e.g., seeking out underrepresented minority candidates), the words come to life and become meaningful. Otherwise, only the “lip service” itself could be considered part of the routine.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our framework is consistent with current perspectives on agency (Emirbayers and Mische, 1998), which emphasize the active engagement of individuals in on-going practices and the interpenetration of agency with various forms of structure.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Emirbayers and Mische, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The phenomenon we refer to as “hiring” clearly meets the basic definition of an organizational routine: it is a repetitive, recognizable pattern of interdependent actions carried out by multiple actors.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, knowing that one was engaged in a hiring routine would make all the difference in understanding such a question.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, even within a single organization, we must conceptualize hiring as a category with many instances.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may take many years for the idea of a routine to dissipate completely, however, even if it is never performed.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interviewing, for instance, is a skill that people often become better at as they practice it and as they attend to how others practice it and that may dissipate with lack of use.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The artifact that contains the ostensive definition exists, but without on-going performance, it becomes meaningless.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each activity may not be included in every instance (a fast food restaurant may not negotiate terms), and the specific activities will be customized for particular work places (interviewing applicants in a university setting includes the applicant giving a job talk).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On one hand, the “hiring routine” has endless variation: every performance is different. On the other hand, “the hiring routine” has a clear and simple gloss: it is easily recognized and summarized.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no single, objective routine, but a variety of different perspectives on what is involved.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“More generally, rules are not always followed: they can be strategically flaunted in order to convey a particular meaning (Garfinkel, 1967; Heritage, 1984).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garfinkel, 1967
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Heritage, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While interdependence between actions can be viewed as part of structure (Pentland, 1995), it can also generate variety within specific performances.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pentland, 1995 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through repetition and recognition, organizational routines are created.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In an academic context, hiring routines often involve the ability to make a convincing case to one's colleagues about the importance of a particular type of scholarly work and the advisability of interviewing and extending an offer to a particular scholar.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a search fails, as many searches do, external factors are frequently the cause.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we noted earlier, there are many reasons why there will be variation in the performance of any particular task associated with a routine in a specific time and place.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individuals or groups with power to identify particular performances as “routine” have the'power to turn exceptions into rules and, thus, to enact the organization in ways they think appropriate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A theory of organizational routines that includes agency, and, therefore, subjectivity and power, enables us to understand more about the dynamics of organizational routines and how these relate to stability, flexibility, and change in organizations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The difference between ostensive and performative aspects helps to explain these kinds of contradictory findings and adds a level of nuance to what we mean by task variety.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our theory draws attention to mundane features of organizational routines that may be missed when they are seen through other theoretical lenses.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without the performative, nothing ever happens.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, if nobody applies for a particular job, then interviewing is not a realistic possibility for that particular performance of the hiring routine.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other variations will be unintentional (Aldrich, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Aldrich, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowing that there are two aspects to this behavior will help students of organizational routines sort out such contradictions when they occur.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, they are produced by many people with different information, preferences, and interpretation, they are enacted over time and space, and they interact with other streams of action in such a way that it is not always clear where one organizational routine ends and another begins.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conditions for stability and for change may exist in the same organization and may manifest themselves differently from one routine to another.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Managers may also have power to monitor performances and enforce compliance.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To ensure functional adaptation, variation and selective retention requires an effective, consistent, selection mechanism, which may or may not be present in any given situation (Campbell, 1965, 1994).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Campbell, 1965, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By providing a vocabulary for describing the parts of organizational routines and their relationship that is consistent with current concepts in social theory, it allows us to move beyond metaphors as a way of understanding organizational routines.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, it is easy to confuse the ostensive aspect of the routine for the whole routine in much the same way that one might confuse the script for the play or the dictionary for the language.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, the ability to use agency in the context of a performance that is otherwise highly scripted is a potent way of exerting power.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the gene is changing itself, then the information it carries is not stable and unchanging, as required in ecological theory.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The most routinized task units based on one measure were the least routinized basedon the other measure (and vice versa).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pentland (2003) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, managers are usually empowered to create rules and other artifacts that document a particular version of the ostensive aspect.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In organization theory, the emphasis on the ostensive aspects of organizational routines has led to too much emphasis on the stability of routines and insufficient ability to understand their potential for change.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, these constraints are anything but absolute, and performances within organizational routines display a great deal of variety, as the empirical studies of routines show.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To the extent that individuals internalize the managerial version of the ostensive aspect of the routine, overt monitoring and enforcement may be unnecessary.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The role of agency in producing and selecting variation has been noted by Miner (1994) and Miner and Haunschild (1995), who showed that managers exercise agency as they choose both to introduce variations and to select variations produced by others.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Miner (1994) source
- Not matchedcites Miner and Haunschild (1995)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Variation and selective retention has been applied to understanding change over time in organizational forms (Hannan and Freeman, 1983; Aldrich, 1999) and also change within organizations (Baum and Singh, 1994; Miner and Haunschild, 1995; Aldrich, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hannan and Freeman, 1983
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Aldrich, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Baum and Singh, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The capacity of organizational routines to retain history can lead to inertia, but routines also generate variety.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This language, however, has systematically led us away from investigating the role of performances and innovation in creating and shaping routines and thus away from the importance of agency, subjectivity, and power.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While it is true that routines facilitate cognitive efficiency, they also embody a selective retention of history, filtered by subjectivity and power.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The whole idea of continuous improvement could be viewed as a direct application of this basicprocess.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After all, when we talk about the hiring routine or the budget routine, we are talking about the ostensive aspect.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without the ostensive aspect, we cannot name or even see our patterns of activity, much less reproduce them.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Endogenous change has been observed (e.g., Miner and Estler, 1985; Miner, 1991; Burgelman, 1994; Feldman, 2000), but it has been difficult to explain.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Variations are often necessary to manage unexpected contingencies and exceptions (Perrow, 1967); the ability to improvise an effective variation is likely to be a valued skill.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This new understanding of routines has methodological implications relevant to anyone studying organizational routines and substantive implications particularly relevant to scholars interested in the role organizational routines play in organizational stability and change.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our theory encompasses both possibilities because it pron g o ym mes display great inertia and sometimes do not.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The new understanding of organizational routines that we offer has implications for a variety of topics in organization theory.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper relies on this without support.
In every organization with employees, hiring occurs more than once and is repeated over time.
“In every organization with employees, hiring occurs more than once. It is repeated over time.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Everyone cannot know everything.
“Everyone cannot know everything.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Inquiring about a person's spouse's employment in the context of the hiring routine is a violation of anti-discrimination rules.
“In the context of the hiring routine, however, it is a violation of anti-discrimination rules.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Even though prohibited, inquiring about a spouse's employment is frequently asked in the context of a job search.
“Still, even though it is prohibited, this question is frequently asked.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The intent and motivation of people performing a hiring routine is not to create, maintain, or modify the ostensive aspect of the routine but to try to hire someone.
“The intent and motivation of people performing a hiring routine is not to create, maintain, or modify the ostensive aspect of the routine but to try to hire someone.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“ES implementations require the interpretation and enactment of best practices, as well as configuration of technology, that are subject to improvisations and change at the enterprise level as well as local adaptations (Feldman and Pentland 2003).”
From Enterprise System Implementation and Employee Job Performance: Understanding the Role of Advice Networks1 (2014) · cites this paper as Feldman and Pentland 2003
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Viewing open source licences only as ostensive objects obscures the negotiated and dynamic activities by which they are created, changed, and how people react to these changes (Wenger 1998;Feldman and Pentland 2003;Pentland and Feldman 2008;Arazy et al. 2020).”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Feldman and Pentland 2003
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
Outline of a Theory of Practice
Bourdieu, P. (1977) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812507 · Cited by 27,606
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Loasby, B. J., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1983) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232409 · Cited by 21,426
Bourdieu, P. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621749 · Cited by 17,271
Gioia, D. A., Mehra, A., & Weick, K. E. (1996) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259169 · Cited by 15,616
Outline of a Theory of Practice.
Frank, A. W., & Bourdieu, P. (1980) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2066038 · Cited by 14,591
The Social Construction of Reality
Rose, D. M., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/323448 · Cited by 13,850
Wallace, A. F. C., & Garfinkel, H. (1968) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092245 · Cited by 12,413
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Gouldner A. W., 1954, Patterns of Industrial Democracy
- Hannan M. T., 1983, American Sociological Review, 29, 149
- Latour B., 1986, Power, Action and Belief, 264
- March J. G., 1958, Organizations
- Orlikowski W., 2000, Science, 11, 404
- Selznick P., 1949, TVA and the Grassroots
- Simon H., 1981, The Sciences of the Artificial
- Thompson J. D., 1967, Organizations in Action
- Tushman M., 1985, Research on Organizational Behavior, 7, 171
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 2,201–2,300 of 3,998
The Co-evolution of Institutions and TechnologyPreprint
Desierto, D. A. (2005) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.17863/cam.5461 · Cited by 5
Power and organisational change: a case study
Oliveira, J. P. (2010) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) · doi:10.34626/2ct5-jv37 · Cited by 5
Berente, N. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2521233 · Cited by 5
Castro, G., & Enrique, J. (2017) · ERA · Cited by 5
The electronic patient record : a linguistic ethnographic study in general practice
Swinglehurst, D. (2012) · Cited by 5
Yan, L., Li, W., Hou, J., & Tan, S. (2024) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-05-2024-0623 · Cited by 4
Richards, O. K., & Veinot, T. C. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3719347 · Cited by 5
Mahringer, C. A. (2025) · International Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1142/s1363919625400031 · Cited by 4
Zhou, J. H., Cao, Q., & Wang, H. (2025) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08049-7 · Cited by 4
Greenhalgh, T., Nishio, A. A., Clarke, A., Byng, R., Dakin, F., Faulkner, S. D., Hanson, I., Hemmings, N., Hughes, G., Husain, L., et al. (2025) · Health and Social Care Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/qqtt4411 · Cited by 4
Adaptive Secrecy in the Making of the Atomic Bomb: Toward a Process View of Secretive Innovation
Borpujari, R. (2025) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2023.17687 · Cited by 5
Toward Sustainable Organizations: Routines to Embed Sustainability in Corporate Culture
Marco, D. D., & Cagliano, R. (2026) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/caim.70047 · Cited by 6
Hertel, C. J., Vedula, S., Bacq, S. C., & Rocchino, R. (2026) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2024.0282 · Cited by 4
Power, M. (2026) · doi:10.1093/9780197681527.001.0001 · Cited by 6
A Routine-Based Theory of Routine Replication
Grandinetti, R. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14148254 · Cited by 5
Organizational routines: between change and stability—Introduction to the special section
Koumakhov, R., & Luigi Marengo, B. (2023) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtad058 · Cited by 8
Alter, S. (2012) · USF Scholarship Repository (University of San Francisco) · Cited by 4
Alter, S. (2012) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 4
van Loon, E. (2015) · Cited by 3
Responding to State Mandates around Instruction
Roegman, R., Lee, S.-Y. S., Hatch, T., Štumberger, N., & Hill, K. (2018) · Journal of School Leadership · doi:10.1177/105268461802800505 · Cited by 4
Schröder, A., & Geiger, D. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-06173-9_10 · Cited by 4
Assessing the role of managerial feedback in changing routines in small and medium enterprises
Blakçori, F., & Aroles, J. (2021) · Journal of Organizational Change Management · doi:10.1108/jocm-08-2020-0235 · Cited by 4
Making Creativity, Not Innovation. Lessons from the Field of Fashion
Hasse, R., & Nyfeler, J. (2021) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x20210000075021 · Cited by 4
Video Methods and Routine Dynamics
Lebaron, C. D., & Christianson, M. K. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108993340.012 · Cited by 4
Schouten, H., Benders, J., & Heusinkveld, S. (2022) · Journal of Organizational Change Management · doi:10.1108/jocm-11-2021-0344 · Cited by 4
Moore, O. A., Susskind, A. M., & Margolin, D. (2022) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.12418 · Cited by 4
Shah, P., & Thapa, N. (2023) · Journal of Business Venturing Insights · doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2023.e00417 · Cited by 4
The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Internship Experiences of Principal Candidates in Texas
Rangel, V. S., & Butcher, K. A. (2023) · Journal of Research on Leadership Education · doi:10.1177/19427751231192668 · Cited by 4
Niang, M., Gagnon, M., & Dupéré, S. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16729-x · Cited by 6
Bong, K. H., & Park, J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2024.3370726 · Cited by 4
Research Hidden in Plain Sight: Theorizing Latent Use as a Form of Research Use
Bohannon, A. X., Coburn, C. E., & Spillane, J. P. (2024) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312241237455 · Cited by 6
Resisting by not resisting: Constructing inconsistencies to resist dual mandated changes
Skov, M. B., & Lê, J. K. (2024) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/00187267241248529 · Cited by 4
The evolution of the Wellcome Trust and market-based philanthropy in the UK
Brooks, C., & Buckley, T. R. (2024) · Business History · doi:10.1080/00076791.2024.2351085 · Cited by 6
Negotiating the gray zone: Ski guiding routine dynamics
Løland, S., & Hällgren, M. (2024) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2024.103858 · Cited by 5
Disempowering Marketplaces: How School Choice Enrollment Routines Legitimize Educational Inequality
Cuddy, M., Lewis, A. E., & Krysan, M. (2025) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312241308545 · Cited by 5
se-gu, O., Lee, S. B., & Hwang, S. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13040274 · Cited by 4
Regeln in interorganisationalen Projekten: Eine qualitative Studie
Dischner, S., Sieweke, J., & Süß, S. (2013) · Managementforschung · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-02998-2_5 · Cited by 4
Unravelling learning within multinational corporations
Saka‐Helmhout, A. (2008) · Development in Learning Organizations An International Journal · doi:10.1108/dlo.2008.08122bad.004 · Cited by 4
An Industry-level Examination of Information Technology Outsourcing in Services and Manufacturing
Wimble, M. (2012) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 4
The Role of Formal Routines in Organizational Innovation
Blakçori, F. (2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.18533/ijbsr.v4i2.363 · Cited by 4
Fallah, N. (2012) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.335 · Cited by 4
Le management de l'oubli dans la conduite des organisations
Hafsi, T., & Lambert, G. (2012) · Revue française d économie · doi:10.3917/rfe.124.0149 · Cited by 5
A Contingency View of Transferring and Adapting Best Practices within Online Communities
Zhu, H., Kraut, R. E., & Kittur, A. (2016) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2818048.2819976 · Cited by 4
Toward an Understanding of Online Community Participation through Narrative Network Analysis
Weeks, M. R. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0312-7.ch006 · Cited by 4
Rutyna relacyjna w świetle podejścia ewolucyjnego i relacyjnego
Stańczyk-Hugiet, E. (2015) · Marketing i Rynek · Cited by 4
Fueglistaller, U. B., & Schrettle, T. (2008) · Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) · Cited by 4
The challenge of building (real) state capability for implementation
Andrews, M., Pritchett, L. H., & Woolcock, M. J. V. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747482.003.0007 · Cited by 25
Huh, D., & Park, S. O. (2017) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1301661 · Cited by 4
Six Work System Lenses for Describing, Analyzing, or Evaluating Important Aspects of IS Security
Alter, S. (2017) · International Journal of Systems and Society · doi:10.4018/ijss.2017070106 · Cited by 4
Strategizing Routine Revisited: Theoretical Roots, Determinants, and Consequences
Stańczyk-Hugiet, E. (2018) · Journal of Economics and Management · doi:10.22367/jem.2018.32.07 · Cited by 4
Governing major transformation portfolios in practice: illustrations from the UK central government
Kortantamer, D. (2019) · International Journal of Managing Projects in Business · doi:10.1108/ijmpb-09-2018-0174 · Cited by 4
Exploring antecedents and consequences of care coordinated pathways using organization routines
Prakash, G., & Srivastava, S. (2019) · International Journal of Healthcare Management · doi:10.1080/20479700.2019.1615272 · Cited by 4
Iglesias, G. (2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/3-540-27468-5_71 · Cited by 4
Wulf, J., & Winkler, T. J. (2020) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00613 · Cited by 5
Supporting Digital Innovations By Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurial Learning
Hamburg, I. (2020) · Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal · doi:10.14738/assrj.74.8046 · Cited by 4
How Do Technologies Change Organizations?
Barley, S. R. (2020) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198795209.003.0002 · Cited by 5
Mutation des trajectoires des entreprises et innovation : capital savoir et opportunités financières
Laperche, B. (2020) · Marché et organisations · doi:10.3917/maorg.039.0091 · Cited by 4
Mæhle, P. M., Hanto, I. K. S., & Smeland, S. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17249199 · Cited by 5
How Small and Medium Sized Firms Walk the Path to Hybridity
Punstein, A. M., & Glückler, J. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13052511 · Cited by 4
A Contingency Perspective on Organizational Ambidexterity
鈴木, 修., & Suzuki, O. (2012) · Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · Cited by 4
Professional Identity and Routine Dynamics
Karali, E. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108993340.031 · Cited by 4
Filho, M. A. L. C. (2022) · Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1080/08276331.2022.2037063 · Cited by 4
From Reactive to Proactive Use of Social Media in Emergency Response
Boersma, K., Diks, D., Ferguson, J., et al. (2016) · Advances in IT personnel and project management · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9867-3.ch014 · Cited by 4
Managing inconsistencies in medical decision-making: An eight-fold typology
Svensson, M. G. A., & Jacobsson, M. (2022) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.008 · Cited by 3
Makowski, P. T. (2023) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063231157328 · Cited by 4
Allied Attestations: Troubling a Progressive Goodwill and ‘Duty to Speak Out’
Chang, E., Serrano, U., & Kasper, J. (2023) · Equity & Excellence in Education · doi:10.1080/10665684.2023.2192982 · Cited by 4
THE STRATEGY-AS-PRACTICE THROUGH THE LENS OF THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES
Cardoso, F. E., Rossetto, C. R., & Silva, J. R. (2023) · REAd Revista Eletrônica de Administração (Porto Alegre) · doi:10.1590/1413-2311.371.111410 · Cited by 4
Feather, J., Kaehne, A., & Kiernan, J. (2023) · Journal of Health Organization and Management · doi:10.1108/jhom-03-2023-0095 · Cited by 4
Stingl, V., Christiansen, L., Hansen, A. K., Lassen, A. H., & Cheng, Y. (2024) · Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · doi:10.1108/jmtm-09-2022-0332 · Cited by 6
Rudmark, D., Sandberg, J., & Watson, R. T. (2023) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.185 · Cited by 4
Capturing Transient Knowledge in Design and Innovation Processes
Lanzara, G. F. (2006) · Cited by 4
A participative method for knowledge elicitation in collaborative innovation projects
Movahedian, F., Front, A., Rieu, D., et al. (2017) · International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) · doi:10.1109/rcis.2017.7956543 · Cited by 4
Organizational routines and context alteration: a reconciliation
Stańczyk-Hugiet, E., Piórkowska, K., & Stańczyk, S. (2017) · Argumenta Oeconomica · doi:10.15611/aoe.2017.2.14 · Cited by 4
van Aaken, D., Kirsch, W., & Seidl, D. N. (2015) · Die Unternehmung · doi:10.5771/0042-059x-2015-1-54 · Cited by 4
Importance of dynamic managerial capabilities on the performance of small family businesses
Treviño, S., & Zapata‐Cantu, L. (2019) · Contaduría y Administración · doi:10.22201/fca.24488410e.2020.2132 · Cited by 6
Katic, M., Çetindamar, D., Agarwal, R., & Sick, N. (2019) · Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) · doi:10.23919/picmet.2019.8893715 · Cited by 4
Coordinating transnational futurework in fashion design
Hoppe, A. D. (2020) · Socio-Economic Review · doi:10.1093/ser/mwaa046 · Cited by 4
Les grands courants en management stratégique
Warnier, V. (2019) · EMS Editions eBooks · doi:10.3917/ems.liar.2019.01.0071 · Cited by 4
Chae, H., & Park, J. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20043160 · Cited by 4
Patterns of Connectivity: The Enactment of Organisational Routines in Greenfield Projects
Bygdås, A. L. (2016) · Knowledge and Process Management · doi:10.1002/kpm.1531 · Cited by 4
Workflow-aware attention tracking to enhance collaboration management
Fan, S., Kang, L., & Zhao, J. L. (2015) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-015-9565-2 · Cited by 4
Das Driften von Regeln, Standards und Routinen
Ortmann, G. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-01652-4_2 · Cited by 4
Understanding Innovation Deployment and Evaluation in Healthcare: The Triality Framework
Sharma, U., Barnett, J. C., & Clarke, M. (2012) · InTech eBooks · doi:10.5772/35671 · Cited by 4
Networks, Persistence and Change—A Path Dependence Perspective
Sydow, J. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-05014-6_5 · Cited by 4
Urasadettan, J. (2015) · Management & Avenir · doi:10.3917/mav.080.0015 · Cited by 4
Understanding Agility in ISD Projects
Vial, G., & Rivard, S. (2015) · International Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 4
Education Policy and the Learning Sciences: The Case for a New Alliance
Stein, M. K., Crowley, K., & Resnick, L. Β. (2016) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107707221.010 · Cited by 4
Valuing of knowledge in organizations and its embedding into organizational practices and routines
Cherman, A., & da Rocha-Pinto, S. R. (2016) · Review of Business Management · doi:10.7819/rbgn.v18i61.2966 · Cited by 4
Inter-team coordination in large-scale agile development
Crowston, K., Chudoba, K. M., Watson‐Manheim, M. B., & Rahmati, P. (2016) · Scientific Workshops of the International Conference on Agile Software Development (XP) · doi:10.1145/2962695.2962697 · Cited by 4
Business Patterns and Strategic Change
Beynon‐Davies, P., Jones, P. K., & White, G. R. T. (2016) · Strategic Change · doi:10.1002/jsc.2101 · Cited by 4
France, V. (2008) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203117668-10 · Cited by 1
Transferring ERP's best practices: An organizational memory mismatch approach
van Stijn, E. J., & Wensley, A. K. P. (2005) · University of Twente Research Information · Cited by 4
Friend and foe? Self-deception in organisations
Kuntz, J., & Dehlin, E. (2019) · Journal of Management Development · doi:10.1108/jmd-04-2018-0122 · Cited by 4
Applying a life cycle approach to project management methods
Biggins, D. R., Trollsund, F., & Høiby, A. L. (2016) · Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) · Cited by 4
Wessel, L., & Gersch, M. (2015) · Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) · doi:10.18151/7217528 · Cited by 4
Aggeri, F., & Labatut, J. (2011) · HAL · Cited by 4
Molina, D. K. (2010) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 4
An organizational change approach for enterprise system implementations
Katsma, C. (2008) · doi:10.3990/1.9789036526807 · Cited by 4
Building Capability Systems in New Businesses: The Role of Capability ArchitecturePreprint
Bakhru, A., & Grant, R. M. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2576531 · Cited by 4
Co-constructive consulting : a pragmatic, relational constructionist approach
Hicks, J. (2010) · doi:10.3990/1.9789036529921 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Michigan State University (US)
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94-118
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3815
- OpenAlex
- W2153981305
- Semantic Scholar
- d5e65a384ca9810b1cf1fac932890421db43527a
- Cited by
- 4,020
- References
- 126
- Citations by year
- 2026: 259 · 2025: 195 · 2024: 191 · 2023: 196 · 2022: 227 · 2021: 258 · 2020: 240 · 2019: 225 · 2018: 230 · 2017: 215 · 2016: 242 · 2015: 234 · 2014: 206 · 2013: 205 · 2012: 193
- FWCI
- 71.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.escholarship.org
- Locations
- Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- organizational routines, organizational inertia, organizational change, organizational stability, Bruno Latour, practice theory, variation and selection, organizational flexibility
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
