Unravelling the Motor of Patterning Work: Toward an Understanding of the Microlevel Dynamics of Standardization and Flexibility

Abstract

T his paper examines how routine patterns are recognized as either stable or flexible and which mechanisms are enacted to maintain this patterning work. We address this question through an ethnographic case study analyzing how a catastrophe management organization enacts routines in a highly dynamic setting. Our findings first of all reveal that patterns described by the participants as either stable or flexible were nevertheless both performed differently in each iteration of the routine. Our microlevel analysis shows that to enact patterns that participants perceive as stable, participants had to carry out specific aligning and prioritizing activities that lock-stepped performances. In contrast, participants perceive patterns as flexible when they enact specific selecting and recombining activities. Building on these observations, we add to extant routine literature by (1) differentiating between stability, standardization, flexibility, and change of routines and by (2) providing new insights on mindfulness in accounting for the microlevel activities enacted to orient toward a pattern that enhances standardization or flexibility in dynamic contexts. Moreover, (3) our insights point to the centrality of knowing for the enactment and recognition of patterning work.

The Challenges of Routinizing for Building Resilient Startups

“…Concerning the second problem, one must routinize an essential process (e.g., strategic reflection) even if outcomes are less predictable because they depend on specific unforeseeable interaction dynamics. Going back to recent research into routines, the recommendation is to use artifacts for tasks and not for workflow codification (Danner‐Schröder and Geiger ). Such artifacts for task codification could be a general agenda or guidelines (Danner‐Schröder and Geiger ).…”

“…Going back to recent research into routines, the recommendation is to use artifacts for tasks and not for workflow codification (Danner‐Schröder and Geiger ). Such artifacts for task codification could be a general agenda or guidelines (Danner‐Schröder and Geiger ). However, from our perspective, such artifacts would be insufficient; instead, we consider incentives to be most important in such cases.…”

Building models of product development processes: An integrative approach to managing organizational knowledge

“…People may have different perceptions about whether a PE is stable or dynamic (e.g., Danner‐Schröder and Geiger).…”

Configuration in smart service systems: A practice‐based inquiry

“…Instead, Reckwitz (2002, p. 249) defines practices as "a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, 'things' and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge." Research that focuses on these concrete "doings" in organization science (Danner-Schröder & Geiger, 2016;Nicolini, 2009;Smets, Jarzabkowski, Burke, & Spee, 2015), information systems (Barrett & Walsham, 1999;Leonardi, 2013;Orlikowski, 2000), and service science (Echeverri & Skalen, 2011;McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, Sweeney, & van Kasteren, 2012;Vargo & Lusch, 2017) is indicative of this broader "practice turn" (Schatzki & Knorr Cetina, 2000;Whittington, 2011). Orlikowski (2000) was among the first researchers to articulate a practice theory lens for research on interactions between human and information technology, arguing that social structures are not embedded in technology designs but are enacted in practices (see also Giddens, 1984).…”