The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Routines as a Source of Change in Organizational Schemata: The Role of Trial-and-Error Learning
Abstract
Organizational routines are ubiquitous, yet their contribution to organizing has been underappreciated. Our longitudinal, inductive study traces the relationship between organizational routines and organizational schemata in a new research institution, Learning Lab Denmark. We show how trial-and-error learning can connect routines and schemata through a microfoundation of observable action. Our analysis (1) identifies two processes of trial-and-error learning and (2) strengthens theory about the coevolution of interpretive schemata and routines. By recognizing the complex relationship between routines and schemata and the role that trial-and-error learning processes play in this relationship, organizations can gain a previously overlooked tool for managing change.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Bourdieu, P. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621749 · Cited by 17,271
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020
Self-citationFrom the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not
Suddaby, R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083020 · Cited by 2,859
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Disrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094828 · Cited by 1,729
Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study
Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.4.554 · Cited by 1,393
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm—40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact
Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0280 · Cited by 606
Cited by
Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428112452151 · Cited by 13,227
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0612 · Cited by 1,753
Self-citationTowards a schematic theory of entrepreneurial alertness
Valliere, D. (2013) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.08.004 · Cited by 251
A Reviewer’s Guide to Qualitative Rigor
Nowell, B., & Albrecht, K. (2019) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muy052 · Cited by 185
Metadata
- Authors
- Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 577-610
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2057539754
- Cited by
- 649
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 65.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
