The Influence of Routine Interdependence and Skillful Accomplishment on the Coordination of Standardizing and Customizing

Abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link 1 THE INFLUENCE OF ROUTINE INTERDEPENDENCE AND SKILLFUL ACCOMPLISHMENT ON THE COORDINATION OF STANDARDIZING AND CUSTOMIZING ABSTRACTThis paper advances understanding of the coordination of interdependence between multiple intersecting routines and its influence on the balancing of coexisting ostensive patterns. Building on a professional service routine -the deal appraisal routine -and its intersections with four related routines, we develop a dynamic framework that explains the coordination of standardization and flexibility in four ways. First, intersecting routines have shifting salience in the performance of a focal routine, and this shifting salience is enacted through professional skill and judgment. Second, each intersection amplifies pressure towards one or the other ostensive pattern thus introducing dynamism into the balancing of competing ostensive patterns. Third, professionals skillfully acknowledge these pressures from intersecting routines to orient towards one ostensive pattern and then reorient the performance of the routine towards the opposite ostensive pattern. Fourth, this balancing act, which we theorize as reciprocal task interdependence, occurs within the moment of performing each task, so providing a highly dynamic understanding of the association between routine interdependence and the coordination of coexisting ostensive patterns.

Introduction: Routine Dynamics in Action

“…These studies show how routines intersect, interact and become interdependent and embedded in many different ways. For example, routines are connected through the traveling of human and non-human actors (Sele & Grand, 2016), through iterative and ad-hoc ways of connecting (Spee, Jarzabkowski, & Smets, 2016) and through recombining parts of different routines (Cohendet & Simon, 2016). Actors take into account the performances of other routines, both inside and outside an organization, and anticipate or respond to the consequences of these performances as they perform, adjust or change a focal routine (Deken, Carlile, Berends, & Lauche, 2016).…”

“…Rather than being fixed or automatic, the interdependence and embeddedness of routines is usefully understood as a situated and effortful accomplishment. Exploring how the connections between routines are accomplished has illuminated why routines are more or less innovative (Sele & Grand, 2016), how they balance customization and standardization (Spee et al, 2016) and how they enable or restrict flexibility and change in organizations (Kremser & Schreyögg, 2016;Turner & Rindova, 2012). In this volume interdependence is a primary theme for two chapters (Kremser, Pentland & Brunswicker, 2019;Eberhard, Frost & Rerup, 2019) and an important secondary theme for five other chapters (see Table 1 at the end of this introduction).…”

Bringing People Back in: How Group Internal Social Capital Influences Routines' Emergence

“…The ostensive aspect refers to participants' individual understandings of the routine, namely, their individual cognitive representations of that routine (Parmigiani and Howard‐Grenville, ). Many different individual ostensive aspects may coexist for a single routine (Feldman and Pentland, ; Miller et al, ; Spee et al , ). As Miller et al (: 1536) explain: ‘Because individuals perform different tasks within routines, their experiences and resulting learning are unique.…”

“…Our research suggests that this ability for endogenous evolution should not be overestimated. Several studies link variety in participants' respective understanding of a routine (i.e., their own individual ostensive aspects) with the extent of variations observed during successive performances of a routine (Feldman and Pentland, ; Miller et al, ; Turner and Rindova, ; Spee et al , ). Our research argues that this variety in ostensive aspects tends to diminish over time due to rising levels of social capital: the ostensive aspects get progressively aligned (yet, not necessarily identical) when direct interactions between people occur and repeat over time, thus suggesting diminishing potential for routines' endogenous evolution.…”

“…Although scholars address the origins and evolution of organizational routines and capabilities at the macro level (Zollo and Winter, ; Romme et al , ), we still need to develop our knowledge about how and why they emerge at the micro level (Salvato and Rerup, ; Witt, ; Bapuji et al , ; Felin et al , ). Yet this is not a trivial question: routines involve multiple actors who may be unevenly willing to participate or not share the same vision of the routine (Feldman and Rafaeli, ; Howard‐Grenville, ; Turner and Rindova, ; Spee et al , ). Two groups thus might not achieve the same degree of routinization or the same pace of routines' emergence, due to such differences between their participants.…”