The role of routines, rules and habits in collective learning: Some epistemological and ontological considerations

Abstract

Abstract. -In this article the role of habits, rules and norms for collective learning will be discussed. These concepts, although usually shown as being quite different, have certain similarities and complementarities. Routines and habits in the Veblenian tradition are two inseparable notions. In Simon's work, routines are explained more as a cognitive tool to avoid exhaustive deliberation. Rules and routines in Simon's work are identified using the artificialist approach and defined with analogy to the computer. This perspective, which is quite different to that proposed by Veblen, can be used to explain human problem solving and bounded rationality in organizations. The definition of routines from a cognitive perspective proposed by Nelson and Winter in 1982 is far removed from the Veblenian legacy and Simon's work. Here the notion of tacit knowledge is introduced in order to show that it is difficult to duplicate routines and that the artificialist approach cannot always be used to tackle the many different kinds of knowledge anchored in routines. Despite the important work conducted by Nelson and Winter, routines are nevertheless difficult to decipher in organizations and their different ontological levels (concrete and abstract levels) can give rise to some confusion for observers. For this reason, most authors now admit that it is possible to describe routines using the concrete level on the one hand and with their formal representation on the other (as a general rule). Notions of rules, routines and habits are sometimes assimilated, sometimes distinguished/separated depending on the ontological or epistemological level which is being referred to. Although the debate surrounding this issue is important, it is crucial not to forget the existence of the cognitive and political dimensions of every rule, routine and habit in collective learning. This is probably the main conclusion of this article, beyond the epistemological and ontological discussion.

MANAGING SMEs IN A TURBULENT CONTEXT: A CASE STUDY FROM A KOSOVAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY

“…So, in theoretical stance, knowledge is a conducive factor that helps organizations divest of complexity, instability, animosity and ambiguity toward embracing a new useful approach (Garetti & Taisch, 2012) that determines organizational outcomes as an upshot of continuous improvements (Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011). As literature provides evidence that in operation sphere, particularly in the manufacturing context, knowledge is prioritized in enhancing the technical aspect of implementing tasks through socialization (Lazaric, 2000) where notions, ideas, concepts and thoughts are exchanged. This also helps in reducing fear (Greta & Karahanna, 2013) as a preamble of practically implementing any service innovation in the context of SMEs (Harrigan et al, 2011).…”

Rotinas – Uma Revisão Teórica

“…Para Lazaric (2000), a história e as tradições sociais têm selecionado um conjunto cognitivo dominante que direciona os hábitos correntes. Indivíduos possuem padrões de comportamento automaticamente ativados e hábitos que são mobilizados diariamente.…”

“…Nesse sentido, é possível afirmar que as rotinas podem estar distribuídas. Elas constituem o produto de diferentes processos e padrões que conduzem à produção, por exemplo (ZOLLO; WINTER, 2002;REUTER, 1994;LAZARIC;MANGOLTE, 1998).…”

Do the Right Thing”: Innovation Diffusion and Risk Dimensions in the Passage From Conventional to Organic Agriculture

“…Internal risks usually derives from firm's inner structural capability/vulnerability towards changes or the introductions of innovations due to unwillingness (fear to change, consolidated and ossified interests, cultural and mental factors) and/or an inability (organizational problems, difficulties in decision making processes or incapability in perceiving opportunities and need to change) to take risk choices. Firms characterized by high risk aversion levels essentially try to avoid a violation of predictability in the (internal/external) operative context risky choices may erode mainly confiding to familiar standards, routines and patterns sometimes even when potentially better alternatives have become available [31,41,51]. Relying on routines and on familiar patterns may be a positive strategy for managing risk but when routines are too rigid and ossified, they may become a symptom of an excessive and pathological conservative firm behaviour.…”