To examine how organizational routines serve as a source for balancing conflicting organizational goals, we use an inductive study of Alessi, an Italian design company, to trace how organizational members simultaneously achieved the conflicting organizational goals of design and efficiency in the new product development routine. Our analysis identified three types of regulatory actions (splicing, activating, and repressing) that participants took to flexibly enact these conflicting organizational goals through the same routine. We observed that the three regulatory actions facilitated new connections between new product development participants, allowing them to create a dynamic truce and accomplish the two conflicting goals in a new product’s origination, evaluation, and development phases. Routine regulation shifts our focus away from the routine as a stable truce to the truce as process, highlighting the role of actions performed by individuals throughout the organizational hierarchy, and moves the conversation away from eliminating goal conflict to elaborating the ongoing actions that people take to manage conflicting organizational goals. Our findings and theoretical insights produce a deeper conceptualization of routines as generative systems by demonstrating how action taken to enact a routine also has the capacity to regulate conflicting organizational goals.
Alessi1988Not in Production, Next to Production. Milan: Electa.
2.
Alessi1994Alessi: The Design Factory. New York: Wiley.
3.
Alessi2003The Dream Factory: Alessi since 1921. Milan: Electa.
4.
AshforthB. E.ReingenP. H.2014 “Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 474–516.
5.
AshforthB. E.RogersK. M.PrattM. G.PradiesC.2014 “Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach.” Organization Science, 25: 1453–1478.
6.
BambergerP. A.PrattM. G.2010 “Moving forward by looking back: Reclaiming unconventional research contexts and samples in organizational scholarship.” Academy of Management Journal, 53: 665–671.
7.
BattilanaJ.LeeM.2014 “Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises.” Academy of Management Annals, 8: 397–441.
8.
BechkyB. A.2003 “Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction.” American Journal of Sociology, 109: 720–752.
9.
BertelsS.Howard-GrenvilleJ.PekS. M.2016 “Cultural molding, shielding and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines.” Organization Science, 27: 573–593.
10.
BirnholtzJ. P.CohenM. D.HochS. V.2007 “Organizational character: On the regeneration of Camp Poplar Grove.” Organization Science, 18: 315–332.
11.
BrownS. L.EisenhardtK. M.1997 “The art of linking continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1–34.
12.
CanalesR.2013 “Weaving straw into gold: Managing organizational tensions between standardization and flexibility in microfinance.” Organization Science, 25: 1–28.
13.
CohenM.BurkhartR.DosiG.EgidiM.MarengoL.WarglienM.WinterS. G.1996 “Contemporary issues in research on routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 5: 653–698.
14.
CSA–Alessi Research Center1995The UIAH Workshop. Crusinallo, Italy: Alessi.
15.
CyertR. M.MarchJ. G.1963A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
D’AdderioL.2014 “The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer.” Organization Science, 25: 1325–1350.
17.
DalpiazE.RindovaV.RavasiD.2016 “Combining logics to transform organizational agency: Blending industry and art at Alessi.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 61: 347–392.
18.
Danner-SchröderA.GeigerD.2016 “Unravelling the motor of patterning work: Toward an understanding of the microlevel dynamics of standardization and flexibility.” Organization Science, 27: 633–658.
19.
EdmondsonA. C.McManusS. E.2007 “Methodological fit in management field research.” Academy of Management Review, 32: 1155–1179.
20.
EthirajS. K.LevinthalD. A.2009 “Hoping for A to Z while rewarding only A: Complex organizations and multiple goals.” Organization Science, 20: 4–21.
21.
FeldmanM. S.2000 “Organizational routines as a source of continuous change.” Organization Science, 11: 611–629.
22.
FeldmanM. S.2016 “Routines as process: Past, present, and future.” In Howard-GrenvilleJ. A.RerupC.LangleyA.TsoukasH. (eds.), Organizational Routines: A Process Perspective. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies, 6: 23–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
FeldmanM. S.PentlandB. T.2003 “Re-theorizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–118.
24.
FeldmanM. S.PentlandB. T.D’AdderioL.LazaricN.2016 “Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics.” Organization Science, 27: 505–513.
25.
FeldmanM. S.RafaeliA.2002 “Organizational routines as sources of connections and understanding.” Journal of Management Studies, 39: 309–331.
26.
Gabra-LiddellM.1998Alessi: The Design Factory, 2d ed. London: Wiley.
27.
GibbonsR.2006 “What the folk theorem doesn’t tell us.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 15: 381–386.
28.
GilbertC. G.2006 “Change in the presence of residual fit: Can competing frames coexist?” Organization Science, 17: 150–167.
29.
Howard-GrenvilleJ. A.RerupC.2017 “A process perspective on organizational routines.” In LangleyA.TsoukasH. (eds.), Handbook of Process Organizational Studies: 323–339. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Howard-GrenvilleJ. A.RerupC.LangleyA.TsoukasH. (eds.) 2016Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
JarzabkowskiP.LeJ.SpeeP.2017 “Taking a strong process approach to analyzing qualitative process data.” In LangleyA.TsoukasH. (eds.), Handbook of Process Organizational Studies: 237–253. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
JensenM. C.2001 “Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14: 8–21.
33.
KaplanS.2015 “Truce breaking and remaking: The CEO’s role in changing organizational routines.” In GavettiG.OcasioW. (eds.), Advances in Strategic Management, 32: 1–45. Bingley, UK: Emerald Insight.
34.
KlagM.LangleyA.2013 “Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research.” International Journal of Management Reviews, 15: 149–166.
35.
LangleyA.1999 “Strategies for theorizing from process data.” Academy of Management Review, 24: 691–710.
36.
LangleyA.SmallmanC.TsoukasH.Van de VenA. H.2013 “Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.” Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1–13.
37.
LangleyA.TsoukasH. (eds.) 2017The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
LazaricN.RaybautA.2005 “Knowledge, hierarchy and the selection of routines: An interpretative model with group interactions.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15: 393–421.
39.
LevinthalD. A.RerupC.2006 “Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning.” Organization Science, 17: 502–513.
40.
MarchJ. G.2008Heroes and History: The Lessons for Leadership from Tolstoy’s War and Peace. A film conceived and written by MarchJ. G., produced and directed by SchecterS. C. Schecter Films (in association with the Yale School of Management and the Copenhagen Business School).
41.
MarchJ. G.SimonH. A.1958Organizations. New York: Wiley.
42.
MendiniA.1979Home Landscape: Alessi Production in the Houseware Industry between 1921 and 1980 (in Italian). Milan: Domus.
43.
NelsonR. R.WinterS. J.1982An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
NicoliniD.2009 “Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections.” Organization Studies, 30: 1391–1418.
45.
NicoliniD.2017 “Is small the only beautiful? Making sense of ‘large phenomena’ from a practice-based perspective.” In HuiA.SchatzkiT.ShoveE. (eds.), The Nexus of Practices: Connections, Constellations, Practitioners: 98–113. London: Routledge.
46.
ParmigianiA.Howard-GrenvilleJ. A.2011 “Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives.” Academy of Management Annals, 5: 413–453.
47.
PentlandB. T.1999 “Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation.” Academy of Management Review, 24: 711–724.
48.
PentlandB. T.FeldmanM. S.2005 “Organizational routines as a unit of analysis.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 14: 793–815.
49.
PentlandB. T.RueterH. H.1994 “Organizational routines as grammars of action.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 484–510.
50.
PettigrewA. M.1990 “Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice.” Organization Science, 1: 267–292.
PondyL. R.1992 “Reflections on organizational conflict.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 257–261.
54.
PooleM. S.LambertN.MuraseT.AsencioR.McDonaldJ.2017 “Sequential analysis of processes.” In LangleyA.TsoukasH. (eds.), Handbook of Process Organizational Studies: 254–270. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
PrattM. G.PradiesC.2011 “Just a good place to visit? Exploring positive responses to psychological ambivalence.” In CameronK. S.SpreitzerG. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship: 924–937. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS.2016 “Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach.” Academy of Management Annals, 10: 65–171.
57.
QuickK. S.FeldmanM. S.2014 “Boundaries as junctures: Collaborative boundary work for building efficient resilience.” Public Administration Research and Theory, 24: 673–695.
58.
RerupC.FeldmanM. S.2011 “Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning.” Academy of Management Journal, 54: 577–610.
59.
SalvatoC.2006 “Micro-foundations of organizational adaptation: A field study in the evolution of product development capabilities in a design firm.’’ Unpublished dissertation, Jönköping International Business School: www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:4096/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
60.
SalvatoC.2009 “Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes.” Organization Science, 20: 384–409.
61.
SalvatoC.RerupC.2011 “Beyond collective entities: Multi-level research on organizational routines and capabilities.” Journal of Management, 37: 468–490.
62.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K.2016 “Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward.” Academy of Management Annals, 10: 5–64.
63.
SmetsM.JarzabkowskiP.BurkeG.SpeeP.2015‘‘Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice.’’ Academy of Management Journal, 58: 932–970.
64.
SmithW. K.2014 “Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes.” Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1592–1623.
65.
SpeeP.JarzabkowskiP.SmetsM.2016 “The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing.” Organization Science, 27: 759–781.
66.
StephensJ. P.HeaphyE.DuttonJ. E.2011 “High quality connections.” In CameronK.SpreitzerG. (eds.), Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship: 385–399. New York: Oxford University Press.
67.
StraussA.CorbinJ.1998Basics of Qualitative Research, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
TurnerS. F.RindovaV.2012 “A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change.” Organization Science, 23: 24–46.
70.
ZbarackiM. J.BergenM.2010 “When truces collapse: A longitudinal study of price adjustment routines.” Organization Science, 21: 955–972.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
