Artefacts and the Dynamics of Truces in Organizational Routines

Abstract

Organizational routines can constitute a temporary settlement of individual actors’ diverging interests, described as a truce that enables the routine as a collective accomplishment to proceed. In this regard, scholars have recognized the central but ambiguous role of artefacts; they may be used to coordinate the interactions in routines but may also be mobilized to serve individual interests. Following this line of thinking, this chapter assumes a process perspective to advance our understanding of how such temporal settlements are continuously formed and in particular, the role artefacts play in this process. Based on a single case study over a period of thirty-three months, it analyses the use of a newly implemented artefact that inadvertently impeded smooth routine functioning as the artefact provided content that gave actors leeway to act out their interests in enacting the routine.

Rethinking Resistance as an Act of Improvisation: Lessons from the 1914 Christmas Truce

“…The purpose of this paper was to examine if and how actors can perform resistance in oppressive systems that thwart resistance in order to enhance our understanding of how organizational members can suspend (at least temporarily) structures and rules in organizational settings. We chose the case of the 1914 Christmas Truce, which surprisingly lacks treatment by organization theorists, although the discipline has explored the theme of Christmas (Hancock, 2016; Rosen, 1988), demonstrated a persistent fascination with resistance (Mumby et al, 2017) and examined the dynamics of truces in organizations (Wiedemann et al, 2018; Zbaracki & Bergen, 2010). As an organizational process a truce represents an extreme (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Pettigrew, 1990) and unconventional case (Bamberger & Pratt, 2010) with which to extend organizational theory (Hällgren, Rouleau, & de Rond, 2017) because deviation from the normal challenges taken-for-granted assumptions (Clegg, Courpasson, & Phillips, 2006) and promotes collection of rich information (Stinchcombe, 2005).…”

“…Prior literature argued that mindful and reflective actors (Bucher & Langley, 2016; Dittrich, Guérard, & Seidl, 2016) dynamically incorporate past experiences, projections of the future and/or situational evaluations of the present context (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). In these cases, the ability to fom truces might be embedded in structures as an organizational arrangement in order to reduce operational friction (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Wiedemann et al, 2018). This case, however, shows that truces can also be an expression of resistance to suspend structures that are envisaged by the organization.…”

“…Besides the extended reasoning for truces in organizations, we can contribute to the notion of truces with regard to the intended functional state: Scholars showed that actors who seek to maintain a temporary settlement of hostilities over time will implement formal structures to do so (Wiedemann et al, 2018). The case of the Christmas Truce is an instance of a temporary settlement that did not endure.…”

“…routines, rules) as possible or desirable (Kamoche & Cunha, 2001). The relevance of the perception and interpretation of the respective situation is emphasized because actors purposefully and politically use situations to adhere to or oppose vested interests and improvise accordingly (Wiedemann et al, 2018). With regard to truces, when actions are being shaped, imputations of agents’ motivations are crucial (Cacciatori, 2012; Nelson & Winter, 1982; Zbaracki & Bergen, 2010) if only because the politics of vocabularies of motive and their social ascription are central to the meanings being made (Blum & McHugh, 1971; Mills, 1940).…”

“…Second, we show that improvisation is not only a reaction to an event but can also be a political-motivational expression of the actor. Third, we extend the notion of truces, a temporary settlement among competing interests (Wiedemann, Wiegmann, & Weber, 2018; Zbaracki & Bergen, 2010), not as an end in itself but as an means to achieve a further objective (in this case, an interruption to the merciless slaughter).…”