The Dynamics of Interrelated Routines: Introducing the Cluster Level

References

• Adler PS (1995) Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organ. Sci. 6(2):147–167.Link, Google Scholar
• Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ. Sci. 10(1):43–68.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(4):604–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashforth BE, Fried Y (1988) The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human Relations 41(4):305–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2003) Managing in an age of modularity. Garud R, Kumaraswamy A, Langlois RN, eds. Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks, and Organizations, 1st ed. (Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA), 149–171.Google Scholar
• Becker GS, Murphy KM (1992) The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. Quart. J. Econom. 107(4):1137–1160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tripsas M (2012) The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: The evolution of digital cameras. Strategic Management J. 33(3):277–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tushman M (2002) Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Admin. Sci. Quart. 47(4):676–707.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Management Rev. 28(2):238–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnholtz JP, Cohen MD, Hoch SV (2007) Organizational character: On the regeneration of camp poplar grove. Organ. Sci. 18(2):315–332.Link, Google Scholar
• Burgelman RA (2002) Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Admin. Sci. Quart. 47(2):325–357.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chell E (2004) Critical incident technique. Cassell C, Symon G, eds. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (Sage Publications, London), 45–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• D’Adderio L (2008) The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Res. Policy 37(5):769–789.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danneels E (2010) Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strategic Management J. 32(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• David PA (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(2):332–337.Google Scholar
• David PA (1994) Why are institutions the “carriers of history”? Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change Econom. Dynam. 5(2):205–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP (2001) Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(4):685–716.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eppinger S, Whitney D, Smith R, Gebala D (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res. Engrg. Design 6(1):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Sci. 50(2):159–173.Link, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D, Roy RR (2008) The dual role of modularity: Innovation and imitation. Management Sci. 54(5):939–955.Link, Google Scholar
• Feldman MS (2000) Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organ. Sci. 11(6):611–629.Link, Google Scholar
• Feldman MS, Orlikowski WJ (2011) Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1240–1253.Link, Google Scholar
• Feldman MS, Pentland BT (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(1):94–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B (2012) Judgment and Decision Making (Earthscan, Abingdon, Oxon, New York).Google Scholar
• Flanagan JC (1954) The critical incident technique. Psych. Bull. 51(4):327–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galunic C, Weeks J (2005) Intraorganizational ecology. Baum JAC, ed. Blackwell Companion to Organizations, 2nd ed. (Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA), 75–98.Google Scholar
• Garud R, Kumaraswamy A, Langlois RN, eds. (2003) Managing in the modular age. Architectures, Networks, and Organizations, 1st ed. (Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA).Google Scholar
• Gersick CJG, Hackman JR (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 47(1):65–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graebner ME, Martin JA, Roundy PT (2012) Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe. Strategic Organ. 10(3):276–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall RI (1984) The natural logic of management policy making: Its implications for the survival of an organization. Management Sci. 30(8):905–927.Link, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):9–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard-Grenville JA (2005) The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organ. Sci. 16(6):618–636.Link, Google Scholar
• Huber GP, Power DJ (1985) Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management J. 6(2):171–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jarzabkowski PA, Lê JK, Feldman MS (2012) Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organ. Sci. 23(4):907–927.Link, Google Scholar
• Jovchelovitch S, Bauer MW (2000) Narrative interviewing. Bauer MW, Gaskell G, eds. Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook (Sage Publications, London), 57–74.Google Scholar
• Kain DL (2004) Owning significance: The critical incident technique in research. DeMarrais KB, Lapan SD, eds. Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences (L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), 69–85.Google Scholar
• Kieser A (1994) Why organization theory needs historical analyses—and how this should be performed. Organ. Sci. 5(4):608–620.Link, Google Scholar
• Koch J (2008) Strategic paths and media management: A path dependency analysis of the German newspaper branch of high quality journalism. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 60(1):50–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 12(1):1–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazaric N, Denis B (2005) Routinization and memorization of tasks in a workshop: The case of the introduction of ISO norms. Indust. Corporate Change 14(5):873–896.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonard-Barton D (1990) A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organ. Sci. 1(3):248–266.Link, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (2000) Organizational capabilities in complex worlds. Dosi G, Nelson RR, Winter SG, eds. The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 363–379.Google Scholar
• Levitt B, March JG (1988) Organizational learning. Annual Rev. Sociology 14(August):319–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luhmann N (1995) Social Systems (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA).Google Scholar
• March J, Simon H (1958) Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• March JG, Schulz M, Zhou X (2000) The dynamics of rules. Change in Written Organizational Codes (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA).Google Scholar
• McCann JE, Ferry DL (1979) An approach for assessing and managing inter-unit interdependence. Acad. Management Rev. 4(1):113–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKelvey B (1999) Avoiding complexity catastrophe in coevolutionary pockets: Strategies for rugged landscapes. Organ. Sci. 10(3):294–321.Link, Google Scholar
• Milgrom P, Roberts J (1995) Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing: Organizations, incentives, and innovation. J. Accounting Econom. 19(2–3):179–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE, Ross L (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• North DC (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ouchi WG (1980) Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Admin. Sci. Quart. 25(1):129–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parmigiani A, Howard-Grenville J (2011) Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):413–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (Sage Publications, London).Google Scholar
• Pentland BT, Rueter HH (1994) Organizational routines as grammars of action. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(3):484–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pentland BT, Hærem T, Hillison D (2011) The (n)ever-changing world: Stability and change in organizational routines. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1369–1383.Link, Google Scholar
• Pentland BT, Feldman MS, Becker MC, Liu P (2012) Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. J. Management Stud. 49(8):1484–1508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettigrew AM (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organ. Sci. 1(3):267–292.Link, Google Scholar
• Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS (2001) Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Acad. Management J. 44(4):697–713.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Raveendran M, Knudsen T (2012) Organization design: The epistemic interdependence perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 37(3):419–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rerup C, Feldman MS (2011) Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Acad. Management J. 54(3):577–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reynaud B (2005) The void at the heart of rules: Routines in the context of rule-following. The Case of the Paris Metro Workshop. Indust. Corporate Change 14(5):847–871.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts J (2004) The Modern Firm: Organizational Design for Performance and Growth (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salvato C, Rerup C (2011) Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. J. Management 37(2):468–490.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmickl C, Kieser A (2008) How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations? Res. Policy 37(3):473–491.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt RH, Spindler G (2002) Path dependence, corporate governance and complementarity. Internat. Finance 5(3):311–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schulz M (2008) Staying on track: A voyage to the internal mechanisms of routine reproduction. Becker MC, ed. Handbook of Organizational Routines (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK), 228–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N (2002) Evolution toward fit. Admin. Sci. Quart. 47(1):125–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc. 106(6):467–482.Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1973) Applying information technology to organization design. Public Admin. Rev. 33(3):268–278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1977) The New Science of Management Decision (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1997) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 4th ed. (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Smith A (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (W. Strahan, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srikanth K, Puranam P (2014) The firm as a coordination system: Evidence from software services offshoring. Organ. Sci. 25(4):1253–1271.Link, Google Scholar
• Stene EO (1940) An approach to a science of administration. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 34(6):1124–1137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suárez FF, Utterback JM (1995) Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strategic Management J. 16(6):415–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sydow J, Schreyögg G, Koch J (2009) Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Acad. Management Rev. 34(4):689–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sydow J, Windeler A, Müller-Seitz G, Lange K (2012) Path constitution analysis: A methodology for understanding path dependence and path creation. Bus. Res. 5(2):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Tripsas M, Gavetti G (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management J. 21(10–11):1147–1161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner SF, Rindova V (2012) A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organ. Sci. 23(1):24–46.Link, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(3):439–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Utterback JM, Acee HJ (2005) Disruptive technologies: An expanded view. Internat. J. Innovation Management 9(1):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Admin. Sci. Quart. 21(1):1–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weiss HM, Ilgen DR (1985) Routinized behavior in organizations. J. Behavioral Econom. 14(1):57–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winter SG (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management J. 24(10):991–995.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin RK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed. (Sage Publications, London).Google Scholar
• Zaheer S, Albert S, Zaheer A (1999) Time scales and organizational theory. Acad. Management Rev. 24(4):725–741.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zbaracki MJ, Bergen M (2010) When truces collapse: A longitudinal study of price-adjustment routines. Organ. Sci. 21(5):955–972.Link, Google Scholar