Cited by 4,020Management and Organizational StudiesInnovation and Knowledge ManagementInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

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 access
Feldman, Martha S., Pentland, Brian T.·2003·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.2307/3556620

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

7 of 75 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 110 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 50
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 87
123 of 123
  • 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.”
5 of 5

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 126 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Gouldner A. W., 1954, Patterns of Industrial Democracy
  2. Hannan M. T., 1983, American Sociological Review, 29, 149
  3. Latour B., 1986, Power, Action and Belief, 264
  4. March J. G., 1958, Organizations
  5. Orlikowski W., 2000, Science, 11, 404
  6. Selznick P., 1949, TVA and the Grassroots
  7. Simon H., 1981, The Sciences of the Artificial
  8. Thompson J. D., 1967, Organizations in Action
  9. Tushman M., 1985, Research on Organizational Behavior, 7, 171

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 2,601–2,700 of 3,999

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
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
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