Beyond Stability vs. Change Dilemma: Everyday Practices and Routines as Sources of Organizational Life

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this paper is to present the problem of everyday organizational practices and routines as loci of organizational persistence, novelty and transformation. Base on qualitative research the article argue that that spontaneous actions are important factors that introduce organizational change.

Research Design & Methods: The article presents results of a comparative case study. The methodological choice included interviews and non-participant observation. Sample selection was purposive. The enterprises were selected from creative and textile-apparel industries.

Findings: The research illustrates how entrepreneurs respond to everyday phenomena and unplanned situations that co-create their business reality. It turns out that the way of practice reproduction may be of twofold nature: radical and spontaneous or evolution-like and emergent.

Implications & Recommendations: Perceiving organizations through day-to-day processes offers an opportunity to understand the concept of organizational change. The field of practice theory is open to more management issues.

Contribution & Value Added: Elaborating on the practice-based view within organization studies, the concept of everyday practices and routines offers a promising approach within change management.

Keywords

actions, organizational routines, practice-based study, processual approach, organizational change

References

1. Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York, NY: New American Library.
2. Feldman, M.S. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization Science, 11 (6), 611-629.
3. Feldman, M.S., & Pentland, B.T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94-118.
4. Feldman, M.S. (2016). Routines as Process: Past, Present, and Future. In J. Howard-Grenville, C. Rerup, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.). Organizational Routines: How They are Created, Maintained, and Changed (pp. 23-46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2016). Introduction: Advancing a Process Perspective on Routines by Zooming Out and Zooming. In J. Howard-Grenville, C., Rerup, A., Langley and H., Tsoukas (Eds.). Organizational Routines: How They are Created, Maintained, and Changed (pp. 1-22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Howard-Grenville, J. (2005). The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines – The Role of Agency and Organizational Context. Organization Science, 16 (6), 618-636.
7. Gherardi, S. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
8. Gherardi, S. (2015). To start practice theorizing anew: The contribution of the concepts of agencement and formativeness. Organization, 1-19.
9. Guzman, G. (2013). The grey textures of practice and knowledge: review and framework. Europe-an Business Review, 25 (5), 429-452.
10. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Oxford: Blackwell.
11. Hernes, T. (2014). A Process Theory of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Kociatkiewicz, J., Kostera, M. (2013). ZarzÄ…dzanie humanistyczne. Zarys programu. Problemy ZarzÄ…dzania, 11, 4 (44), 9-19.
13. Lazaric, N. (2010). Routines and routinization: an exploration of some micro-cognitive foundations. In M.C. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Routines (pp. 205-227). Cheltenham, North-ampton: Edward Elgar.
14. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11 (4), 404-428.
16. Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines Revisited: Exploring the Capabilities and Practice Perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5 (1), 413-453.
17. Patora-Wysocka, Z. (2016). The Institutionalisation of Practice: A processual Perspective on Value Co-creation. Economics and Business Review, 2 (16), 113-126.
18. Pentland, B.T., & Jung Ju, E. (2016). Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change in Path-Dependent Patterns of Action. In J. Howard-Grenville, C. Rerup, A. Langley, H. Tsoukas (Eds.). Organiza-tional Routines: How They are Created, Maintained, and Changed (pp. 96-116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Pentland, B.T., & Feldman, M. (2007). Narrative networks: Patterns of Technology and Organiza-tion. Organization Science, 18 (5), 781-95.
20. Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond Collective Entities: Multilevel Research on Organizational Routines and Capabilities. Journal of Management, 37 (2), 468-90.
21. Schatzki, T.R. (1996). Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Sewell, W.H. Jr (1992). A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98 (1), 1-29.
23. Simpson, B., & Lorino, P. (2016). Re-Viewing Routines through a Pragmatist Lens. In J. Howard-Grenville, C. Rerup, A. Langley, H. Tsoukas (Eds.). Organizational Routines: How They are Cre-ated, Maintained, and Changed (pp. 47-70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Weick, K.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organising. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
25. Wenting, R. (2009). The inheritance of organizational routines and the emergence of a firm gene-alogy in the fashion design industry. In M. C. Becker, N. Lazaric (Eds.). Organizational Rou-tines: Advancing Empirical Research. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar, 103-128.