One More Ill-Defined, Un-Measured (?) Core Construct: Routines
25 April 2009 at 10:37 am Nicolai Foss 6 comments
| Nicolai Foss |
It seems that O&M may usefully introduce a new category: “Constructs that are central to one or more management fields, but so far have not been measured.” Yesterday, we blogged on opportunity discovery, and could report only one existing scale in the entrepreneurship literature. Today the focus is on routines, a frequently discussed topic here on O&M.
Routines are, of course, absolutely central in much management research, notably strategic management, international business, technology strategy, organizational theory and much else. The construct itself was essentially introduced to management research in Nelson and Winter’s 1982 book, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, although it is often argued that it originates somewhat earlier, namely with the behavioralists (Simon, Cyert, & March; for a critique of this interpretation, see this paper).
The boundaries of the concept are, even for management research, highly ill-defined and virtually everything in an organization, save for physícal capital, that has some degree of stability has been called a routine by some author. As if this extreme inclusiveness wasn’t enough, it has even been argued that routines can be “sources of continuous change.”
Such conceptual fuzziness would seem to imply that almost anything goes, empirically speaking. In fact, there is quite a lot of empirical work on routines, and of a rather diverse nature. However, it all seems to be qualitative in nature (e.g., this recent paper), as least as far as I can see.
So, do you know of any attempts to grapple empirically with routines in the sense of actual measurement? Are there any scales out there?
Entry filed under: - Foss -, Management Theory.
6 Comments Add your own
Leave a comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1. David Chen | 27 April 2009 at 7:49 am
At the risk of saying something so obvious it goes without saying, the challenge might be in sampling, not measuring.
2. David G. Hoopes | 28 April 2009 at 3:44 pm
There is always more room for first class empirical work. So everyone feel free to join in.
3. spostrel | 29 April 2009 at 7:03 pm
Best shot I’ve seen at a micro-level is Pentland and Reuter deploying a grammatical approach at a product-support call center:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393300?seq=15
Very direct approach, really makes you think about what the heck you want a routine to mean.
4. Peter Klein | 30 April 2009 at 10:20 am
To come up with some new metrics, why not offer some financial incentive:
http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/005833.php
5. sorry, peter klein, social science is a fuzzy business « orgtheory.net | 12 May 2009 at 10:27 pm
[…] Evil twin conspirators Peter Klein and Nicolai Foss have been ragging on management scholars for using ill-defined concepts, like routines and leadership. When I read the post, I thought it was odd – aren’t all social science concepts a […]
6. meandering through an idea or two… « Innovation Leadership Network | 18 May 2009 at 3:49 am
[…] & Markets blog have been on the warpath against fuzzy concepts in management studies – the latest target being the idea of routines. Teppo’s collaborators at orgtheory.net responded to this by saying that all social science […]