IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v30y2020i3d10.1007_s00191-019-00655-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining the process and effects of new routine introduction with a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Charles Sheldon

    (ESCP Europe)

  • Eric Michael Laviolette

    (TBS Business School)

  • Fabien Geuser

    (ESCP Europe)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to understand the process of new routine introduction and its effects on organizational structure and performance. To achieve this, it proposes a model of new routine introduction based on a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship. The model tracks the source of new routine antecedents, defined as factors motivating the conception and/or adoption of ideas for new routines, tying them to organizational structure and performance. Currently, the literature on routine micro foundations lacks this kind of integrative, holistic model to spur fruitful connections between nascent and dispersed contributions related to the origins of new routines. Applying a process approach in the context of a single case study, the research analyzes 23 instances of new routine introduction at an Australian consulting firm called Secure. The results reveal that ideas for new routines were heavily influenced by endogenous factors such as the personal preferences of enterprising managers and internal pressure. While market-related factors were omnipresent, endogenous factors were remarkably preponderant, influential, and oftentimes mixed with exogenous factors such that an either/or distinction in the origins of flexibility- and efficiency-oriented routines did not hold. The findings also shed light on a paradox related to new routine introduction in which the act of introducing new routines intended to improve performance actually undermines it by inciting conflict. Ultimately the model of new routine introduction bestows a central role on the enterprising manager, showing how they oscillate between managerial and micro-level entrepreneurial action in the pursuit of adaptation and growth. This study’s bringing back of the individual and his or her subjectivity into the routine introduction process is in line with recent calls for further research, as is its provision of an empirically detailed case-based analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Charles Sheldon & Eric Michael Laviolette & Fabien Geuser, 2020. "Explaining the process and effects of new routine introduction with a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 609-642, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:30:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-019-00655-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-019-00655-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-019-00655-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-019-00655-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Felin, Teppo & Foss, Nicolai J., 2009. "Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 157-167, June.
    2. Dorothy Leonard-Barton, 1990. "A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic Use of a Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 248-266, August.
    3. Geoffrey Hodgson & Thorbjørn Knudsen, 2004. "The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and routines," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 281-307, July.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. Waldemar Kremser & Georg Schreyögg, 2016. "The Dynamics of Interrelated Routines: Introducing the Cluster Level," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 698-721, June.
    6. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines: a review of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 643-678, August.
    7. Minet Schindehutte & Michael H. Morris, 2009. "Advancing Strategic Entrepreneurship Research: The Role of Complexity Science in Shifting the Paradigm," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 241-276, January.
    8. Patrick Cohendet & David Grandadam & Laurent Simon & Ignasi Capdevila, 2014. "Epistemic communities, localization and the dynamics of knowledge creation," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(5), pages 929-954.
    9. Nathalie Lazaric & Alain Raybaut, 2005. "Knowledge, hierarchy and the selection of routines: an interpretative model with group interactions," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 393-421, October.
    10. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Nathan R. Furr & Christopher B. Bingham, 2010. "CROSSROADS---Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1263-1273, December.
    11. Lazaric, Nathalie, 2011. "Organizational routines and cognition: an introduction to empirical and analytical contributions," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 147-156, June.
    12. Felin, Teppo & Foss, Nicolai J., 2012. "The (proper) microfoundations of routines and capabilities: a response to Winter, Pentland, Hodgson and Knudsen," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 271-288, June.
    13. Bridoux, Flore & Coeurderoy, Regis & Durand, Rodolphe, 2016. "Heterogeneous Social Motives and Interactions: The Three Predictable Paths of Capability Development," HEC Research Papers Series 1176, HEC Paris.
    14. Howard Aldrich & Tiantian Yang, 2014. "How do entrepreneurs know what to do? learning and organizing in new ventures," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 59-82, January.
    15. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    16. Stephanie Bertels & Jennifer Howard-Grenville & Simon Pek, 2016. "Cultural Molding, Shielding, and Shoring at Oilco: The Role of Culture in the Integration of Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 573-593, June.
    17. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2003. "The Mystery of the Routine. The Darwinian Destiny of An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 54(2), pages 355-384.
    18. Markus C. Becker, 2005. "The concept of routines: some clarifications," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 29(2), pages 249-262, March.
    19. Peter T. Bryant, 2014. "Imprinting by Design: The Microfoundations of Entrepreneurial Adaptation," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(5), pages 1081-1102, September.
    20. Alva Taylor & Constance E. Helfat, 2009. "Organizational Linkages for Surviving Technological Change: Complementary Assets, Middle Management, and Ambidexterity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 718-739, August.
    21. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    22. Peter Bryant & Nathalie Lazaric & Moustapha Niang, 2012. "When past and present collide: The consequences of conflict between imprinted memory and contemporary experience," Post-Print halshs-00908420, HAL.
    23. John R. Kimberly & Hamid Bouchikhi, 1995. "The Dynamics of Organizational Development and Change: How the Past Shapes the Present and Constrains the Future," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 9-18, February.
    24. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    25. Michael D. Cohen & Paul Bacdayan, 1994. "Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 554-568, November.
    26. Lazaric, Nathalie & Mangolte, Pierre-Andre & Massue, Marie-Laure, 2003. "Articulation and codification of collective know-how in the steel industry: evidence from blast furnace control in France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1829-1847, December.
    27. Nathalie Lazaric & Blandine Denis, 2005. "Routinisation and memorisation of tasks inside a workshop: the case of the introduction of ISO norms," Post-Print hal-00457079, HAL.
    28. Robert J. Jensen & Gabriel Szulanski, 2007. "Template Use and the Effectiveness of Knowledge Transfer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1716-1730, November.
    29. Flore Bridoux & Régis Coeurderoy & Rodolphe Durand, 2016. "Heterogeneous Social Motives and Interactions: The Three Predictable Paths of Capability Development," Working Papers hal-01971050, HAL.
    30. Mark J. Zbaracki & Mark Bergen, 2010. "When Truces Collapse: A Longitudinal Study of Price-Adjustment Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 955-972, October.
    31. Cohen, Michael D, et al, 1996. "Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(3), pages 653-698.
    32. Peter Abell & Teppo Felin & Nicolai Foss, 2008. "Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 489-502.
    33. Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 23-46, Spring.
    34. Martha S. Feldman, 2000. "Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 611-629, December.
    35. Eugenia Cacciatori, 2012. "Resolving Conflict in Problem-Solving: Systems of Artefacts in the Development of New Routines," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(8), pages 1559-1585, December.
    36. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    37. Sidney G. Winter & Gabriel Szulanski, 2001. "Replication as Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(6), pages 730-743, December.
    38. Patrick Cohendet & Patrick Llerena, 2003. "Routines and incentives: the role of communities in the firm," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 271-297, April.
    39. Martha S. Feldman & Brian T. Pentland & Luciana D’Adderio & Nathalie Lazaric, 2016. "Beyond Routines as Things: Introduction to the Special Issue on Routine Dynamics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 505-513, June.
    40. Franz W. Kellermanns & Kimberly A. Eddleston, 2006. "Corporate Entrepreneurship in Family Firms: A Family Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(6), pages 809-830, November.
    41. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines : a review of the literature," Post-Print hal-00279010, HAL.
    42. Witt, Ulrich, 2011. "Emergence and functionality of organizational routines: an individualistic approach," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 157-174, June.
    43. Robert A. Burgelman, 1991. "Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 239-262, August.
    44. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    45. Felin, Teppo & Foss, Nicolai J., 2011. "The endogenous origins of experience, routines, and organizational capabilities: the poverty of stimulus," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 231-256, June.
    46. R. Duane Ireland & Jeffrey G. Covin & Donald F. Kuratko, 2009. "Conceptualizing Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 19-46, January.
    47. Robert A. Burgelman, 1983. "Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a Process Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1349-1364, December.
    48. Markus C. Becker & Thorbjørn Knudsen & James G. March, 2006. "Schumpeter, Winter, and the sources of novelty," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(2), pages 353-371, April.
    49. Shaker Zahra & Kathleen Randerson & Alain Fayolle, 2013. "Corporate Entrepreneurship : Where are we? Where can we go from here?," Post-Print hal-02313120, HAL.
    50. Markus C. Becker, 2005. "The concept of routines : some clarifications," Post-Print hal-00279160, HAL.
    51. S. A. Zahra & K. Randerson & A. Fayolle, 2013. "Corporate Entrepreneurship: Where are we? Where can we go from here?," Post-Print halshs-01061372, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Davies, Andrew & Frederiksen, Lars & Cacciatori, Eugenia & Hartmann, Andreas, 2018. "The long and winding road: Routine creation and replication in multi-site organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1403-1417.
    2. Aura Parmentier-Cajaiba & Nathalie Lazaric & Giovany Cajaiba-Santana, 2021. "The effortful process of routines emergence: the interplay of entrepreneurial actions and artefacts," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 33-63, January.
    3. Dehua Gao & Flaminio Squazzoni & Xiuquan Deng, 2018. "The Intertwining Impact of Intraorganizational and Routine Networks on Routine Replication Dynamics: An Agent-Based Model," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-23, November.
    4. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    5. Rouslan Koumakhov & Adel Daoud, 2017. "Routine and reflexivity: Simonian cognitivism vs practice approach," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(4), pages 727-743.
    6. David Obstfeld, 2012. "Creative Projects: A Less Routine Approach Toward Getting New Things Done," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1571-1592, December.
    7. Dehua Gao & Aliakbar Akbaritabar, 2022. "Using agent-based modeling in routine dynamics research: a quantitative and content analysis of literature," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 521-550, February.
    8. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1119-1154, September.
    9. Lazaric, Nathalie, 2011. "Organizational routines and cognition: an introduction to empirical and analytical contributions," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 147-156, June.
    10. Roberto Grandinetti, 2022. "A Routine-Based Theory of Routine Replication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.
    11. Andrea Furlan & Roberto Grandinetti, 2018. "Can routines be inherited? A microfoundational approach to spinoffs," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0217, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    12. Burr, Wolfgang & Frohwein, Torsten, 2012. "Regelbrüche in Organisationen," Research Papers on Innovation, Services and Technology 1/2012, University of Stuttgart, Institute of Business Administration, Department I - Institute of Research & Development and Innovation Management.
    13. Neil M Kay, 2018. "We need to talk: opposing narratives and conflicting perspectives in the conversation on routines," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(6), pages 943-956.
    14. Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    15. Nathalie Lazaric, 2021. "Cognition and Routine Dynamics," Post-Print halshs-03402421, HAL.
    16. Gilstrap, J. Bruce & Hart, Timothy A., 2020. "How employee behaviors effect organizational change and stability," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 120-131.
    17. Martha S. Feldman & Brian T. Pentland & Luciana D’Adderio & Nathalie Lazaric, 2016. "Beyond Routines as Things: Introduction to the Special Issue on Routine Dynamics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 505-513, June.
    18. Daniel A. Levinthal & Alessandro Marino, 2015. "Three Facets of Organizational Adaptation: Selection, Variety, and Plasticity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 743-755, June.
    19. Jensen, Are & Clausen, Tommy H., 2017. "Origins and emergence of exploration and exploitation capabilities in new technology-based firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 163-175.
    20. Lysander Weiss & Dominik Kanbach, 2022. "Toward an integrated framework of corporate venturing for organizational ambidexterity as a dynamic capability," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 1129-1170, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:30:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-019-00655-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.