Routines: towards the Complexity of Organizational Intentionality

Abstract

The paper explores the topic of organizational routines from a philosophical vantage point to see how the philosophy of action may help improve its understanding in organizational research. The main goal is to show the distinctive complexity of the intentional picture of routines. In this respect, the paper clarifies the interrelations between psychological habits and routines and describes similarities and differences between them. It also highlights the special place of mindfulness as a psycho-cognitive mechanism of action meta-control in intentional explanations of routine complexity.

Evaluating the implementation of a person-centred transition programme for adolescents and young adults with long-term conditions: the role of context and organisational behaviour

“…Feldman and Pentland (2003, p. 93) define organisational routines as “repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions, carried out by multiple actors”. Makowski (2021, p. 1060) suggest that organisational routines “may be more or less automatic” and are closely related to psychological habits. Although organisational routines research considers routines to be different from psychological habits Makowski (2021) point to key similarities such as automaticity, stability and repetition.…”

“…Makowski (2021Makowski ( , p. 1060 suggest that organisational routines "may be more or less automatic" and are closely related to psychological habits. Although organisational routines research considers routines to be different from psychological habits Makowski (2021) point to key similarities such as automaticity, stability and repetition. The literature on organisational routines and habits are both important to understanding and interpreting findings in this study.…”

Strengthening the Theoretical Perspective on Action in Routines Research With the Analytical Philosophy of Agency

“…Some aspects of routine service in an aircraft (Kremser, Pentland, & Brunswicker, 2019) can be explained with the aid of this understanding of collective intentionality. At other times, the collective dimension captures organizational or procedural aspects of highly alienated individual actions, such as routinely wearing a hardhat in construction zones (Makowski, 2021b) or other forms of predesigned ("programmed") behavior (March & Simon, 1958) that can be explained with the aid of the idea of "massively shared agency" (Shapiro, 2014). Here, ATA helps understand that the empirical heterogeneity and diversity of routine actions is a result of different sets of microconstituting factors of collective intentionality those actions need.…”

“…Routines are not only actions, they are collective phenomena and usually involve the activities of many individuals (Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Kremser & Blagoev, 2020; Makowski, 2021b). Although those activities can be studied at the level of practice, which, in some sense, reveals their emergent intentionality (Dittrich & Seidl, 2018), routines also have microfoundations in collective intentionality (Felin et al, 2015).…”

“…The variety of conceptualizations of routines suggests that they involve different kinds of collective actions, such as those that are more or less mindful (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006). In other words, routines are heterogenic (Makowski, 2021b). According to ATA, various kinds of routines require different pictures of collective intentionality.…”