This article examines the various processes through which sociomaterial relations constitute the performance of a routine. The study’s theoretical underpinnings are linked to sociomateriality in understanding the dynamics of routine performance. In this study, adaptive space furthers sociomaterial relations and processes, and their dynamics to constitute the routine performance. The findings are based on ethnographic research that was conducted during an international crisis management exercise. The analysis consists of three field episodes that illustrate the different processes in which the sociomaterial matters in routine performance. The article contributes to the theoretical discussion by showing, first, how adaptive space enables going beyond the sociomaterial dualism and transfers the theoretical emphasis to the fluidity and dynamism of these relations. It also draws attention to the sociomaterial processes that constitute the performance of the routine. Third, it further shows how through sociomaterial relations and processes the organizing of professional knowledge co-constitution is performed and managed.
AggerholmHKAsmußB (2016) When ‘good’ is not good enough. In: Howard-GrenvilleJRerupCLangleyA, et al (eds) Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 140–178.
2.
AlvessonM (2009) At-home ethnography: Struggling with closeness and closure. In: YbemaSYanowDWelsH, et al (eds) Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi, India; Singapore: SAGE, 156–174.
3.
AlvessonMSandbergJ (2011) Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review36(2): 247–271.
4.
AntonacopoulouEChivaR (2007) The social complexity of organizational learning: The dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning38(3): 277–295.
5.
ArolesJMcLeanC (2016) Rethinking stability and change in the study of organizational routines: Difference and repetition in a newspaper-printing factory. Organization Science27(3): 535–550.
6.
BaradK (2003) Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society28(3): 801–831.
7.
Ben-AriELevyY (2014) Getting access to the field: Insider/outsider perspectives. In: SoetersJShieldsPMRietjensS (eds) Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies. Oxon; New York: Routledge, 9–18.
8.
BissolaRImperatoriBBiffiA (2017) A rhizomatic learning process to create collective knowledge in entrepreneurship education: Open innovation and collaboration beyond boundaries. Management Learning48(2): 206–226.
9.
BoudDHagerP (2012) Re-thinking continuing professional development through changing metaphors and location in professional practices. Studies in Continuing Education34(1): 17–30.
10.
BucherSVChreimSLangleyA, et al. (2016) Contestation about collaboration: Discursive boundary work among professions. Organization Studies37(4): 1–26.
CollinKSintonenTPaloniemiS, et al. (2011) Work, power and learning in a risk filled occupation. Management Learning42(3): 301–318.
13.
CoorenFFairhurstGTHuëtR (2012) Why matter always matters in (organizational) communication. In: LeonardiPMNardiBAJannisK (eds) Materiality and Organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 296–314.
14.
CurrieGWhiteL (2012) Inter-professional barriers and knowledge brokering in an organizational context: The case of healthcare. Organization Studies33(10): 1333–1361.
15.
D’AdderioL (2008) The performativity of routines: Theorizing the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy37(5): 769–789.
16.
D’AdderioL (2011) Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics7(2): 197–230.
17.
D’AdderioL (2014) The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science25(5): 1325–1350.
18.
D’AdderioLPollockN (2014) Performing modularity: Competing rules, performative struggles and the effect of organizational theories on the organization. Organization Studies35(12): 1813–1843.
19.
DaleK (2005) Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization12(5): 649–678.
20.
Danner-SchröderAGeigerD (2016) Unravelling the motor of patterning work: Toward an understanding of the micro-level dynamics of standardization and flexibility. Organization Science27(3): 633–658.
21.
De VaujanyFX (2016) Afterword: From rules to ethics: Ontological implications for sociomaterial regulation in management and organization studies. In: De VaujanyFXMitevNLanzaraGF, et al. (eds) Materiality, Rules and Regulation: New Trends in Management and Organizational Studies. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 298–306.
22.
De VaujanyFXMitevN (2013) Introduction: Space in organizations and sociomateriality. In: De VaujanyFXMitevN (eds) Materiality and Space: Organizations, Artifacts and Practices. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 1–22.
23.
DekenFCarlilePRBerendsH, et al. (2016) Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science27(3): 659–677.
24.
EdmondsonACBohmerRMPisanoGP (2001) Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly46(4): 685–716.
25.
EdwardsA (2007) Relational agency in professional practice: A CHAT analysis. An International Journal of Human Activity Theory1: 1–17.
26.
EmersonRMFretzRIShawLL (2011) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. 2nd edn.Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
27.
EteläpeltoAVähäsantanenKHökkäP, et al. (2013) What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review10(1): 45–65.
28.
FeldmanM (2000) Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science11(6): 611–629.
29.
FeldmanMOrlikowskiW (2011) Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science22(5): 1240–1253.
30.
FeldmanMPentlandBT (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly48(1): 94–118.
31.
FeldmanMS (2016) Routines as process: Past, present, and future. In: Howard-GrenvilleJRerupCLangleyA, et al (eds) Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–46.
32.
FeldmanMSRafaeliA (2002) Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies39(3): 309–331.
33.
FeldmanMSPentlandBTD’AdderioL, et al. (2016) Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science27(3): 505–513.
34.
FenwickT (2010) Re-thinking the ‘thing’: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning22(1–2): 104–116.
35.
FenwickT (2012) Co-production in practice: A sociomaterial analysis. Professions & Professionalism2(2): 1–16.
36.
FenwickT (2014) Rethinking professional responsibility: Matters of account. In: FenwickTNerlandM (eds) Reconceptualising Professional Learning. London; New York: Routledge, 157–170.
37.
FenwickTNerlandM (2014) Sociomaterial professional knowing, work arrangements and responsibility: New times, new concepts? In: FenwickTNerlandM (eds) Reconceptualising Professional Learning: Sociomaterial Knowledges, Practices and Responsibilities. London; New York: Routledge, 1–8.
38.
FenwickTNerlandMJensenK (2012) Sociomaterial approaches to conceptualising professional learning and practice. Journal of Education and Work25(1): 1–13.
39.
GeertzC (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic Books.
40.
GherardiS (2014) Professional knowing-in-practice: Rethinking materiality and border resources in telemedicine. In: FenwickTNerlandM (eds) Reconceptualising Professional Learning. London; New York: Routledge, 11–24.
41.
GioiaDACorleyKGHamiltonA (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods16(1): 15–31.
42.
GioiaDAPriceKNHamiltonAL, et al. (2010) Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly55(1): 1–46.
43.
HäkkinenLKivinenN (2013) Writing spaces – Performativity in media work. In: De VaujanyFXMitevN (eds) Materiality and Space: Organizations Artefacts and Practices. Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 135–156.
44.
HawkinsBPyeACorreiaF (2017) Boundary objects, power, and learning: The matter of developing sustainable practice in organizations. Management Learning48(3): 292–310.
45.
HedlundEÖsterbergJ (2013) Team training, team learning, leadership and psychology safety: A study of team learning and team learning behavior during a Swedish military staff exercise. Sociology Mind3(1): 89–98.
46.
HedlundEBörjessonMÖsterbergJ (2015) Team learning in a multinational military staff exercise. Small Group Research46(2): 179–203.
47.
HeizmannH (2011) Knowledge sharing in a dispersed network of HR practice: Zooming in on power/knowledge struggles. Management Learning42(4): 379–393.
48.
HodgsonGM (2008) The concept of a routine. In: BeckerMC (ed.) Handbook of Organizational Routines. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 15–28.
49.
IntronaLD (2013) Epilogue: Performativity and the becoming of sociomaterial assemblages. In: De VaujanyFXMitevN (eds) Materiality and Space: Organizations Artefacts and Practices. Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 330–342.
50.
JarzabkowskiPBednarekRSpeeP (2016) The role of artifacts in establishing connectivity within professional routines. In: Howard-GrenvilleJRerupCLangleyA, et al (eds) Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117–139.
51.
JonesM (2013) Untangling sociomateriality. In: CarlilePRNicoliniDLangleyA, et al (eds) How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197–226.
52.
KaplanS (2011) Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science22(2): 320–346.
53.
KauppilaOPRajalaRJyrämäA (2011) Knowledge sharing through virtual teams across borders and boundaries. Management Learning42(4): 395–418.
54.
KingA (2015) On cohesion. In: KingA (ed.) Frontline: Combat and Cohesion in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–23.
55.
KirkeC (2013) Insider anthropology: Theoretical and empirical issues for the researcher. In: CarreirasHCastroC (eds) Qualitative Methods in Military Studies. London; New York: Routledge, 17–30.
56.
LangleyA (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review24(4): 691–710.
57.
LangleyA (2007) Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization5(3): 271–282.
58.
LangleyASmallmanCTsoukasH, et al. (2013) Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal56(1): 1–13.
59.
LatourB (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LefebvreH (1991 [1974]) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
62.
LeonardiPM (2011) When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly35(1): 147–167.
63.
LeonardiPM (2012) Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them? In: LeonardiPMNardiBAJannisK (eds) Materiality and Organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–48.
64.
LeonardiPM (2013) The emergence of materiality within formal organizations. In: CarlilePRNicoliniDLangleyA, et al (eds) How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142–170.
OrlikowskiW (2009) The sociomateriality of organizational life: Considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics34(1): 125–141.
73.
OrlikowskiWScottS (2008) Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals2(1): 433–474.
74.
OrlikowskiWJGashDC (1994) Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems12(2): 174–207.
75.
PentlandBFeldmanM (2008) Issues in empirical field studies of organizational routines. In: BeckerMC (ed.) Handbook of Organizational Routines. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 281–300.
76.
PentlandBTSinghH (2012) Materiality: What are the consequences? In: LeonardiPMNardiBAJannisK (eds) Materiality and Organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 287–295.
77.
PentlandBTFeldmanMSBeckerMC, et al. (2012) Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies49(8): 1484–1508.
78.
PickeringA (1993) The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology99(3): 559–589.
79.
Raulet-CrosetN (2013) When urban space becomes organizational space: A space-based coordination to deal with volatile and recurring problems of urban incivility. In: De VaujanyFXMitevN (eds) Materiality and Space: Organizations Artefacts and Practices. Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 157–178.
80.
ReckwitzA (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory5(2): 243–263.
81.
RerupCFeldmanM (2011) Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal54(3): 577–610.
82.
SørensenE (2009) The Materiality of Learning: Technology and Knowledge in Educational Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83.
ScottSVOrlikowskiW (2013) Sociomateriality – Taking the wrong turning? A response to Mutch. Information and Organization23(2): 77–80.
84.
SergiV (2016) Who’s leading the way? Investigating the contributions of materiality to leadership-as-practice. In: RaelinJA (ed.) Leadership-as-practice: Theory and Application. New York; London: Routledge, 110–131.
85.
StraussAGorbinJ (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
86.
SuchmanL (2000) Embodied practices of engineering work. Mind, Culture and Activity7(1): 4–18.
87.
Uhl-BienMArenaM (2017) Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics46(1): 9–20.
88.
WeickKERobertsKH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly38(3): 357–381.
89.
YbemaSKamsteegF (2009) Making the familiar strange: A case for disengaged organizational ethnography. In: YbemaSYanowDWelsHKamsteegF (eds) Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. Los Angeles, CA; London; New Delhi, India; Singapore; Washington, DC: SAGE, 101–119.
90.
YinRK (2009) Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
91.
ZorinaAAvisonD (2013) Redefining agency: Indeterminacy and the role of extra-organizational dynamics in organizational routines and technologies. In: De VaujanyFXMitevN (eds) Materiality and Space: Organizations, Artefacts and Practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 274–301.
