Organizational routines are the patterns of behavior and actions that individuals and groups follow in their daily work. These routines help organizations to maintain stability, consistency, and predictability. However, they can also be an obstacle to change and innovation. In their seminal work, Feldman and Pentland (2003) proposed a conceptual framework for understanding the nature of routines in organizations, distinguishing between two types of routines: ostensive and performative.
Organizational routines are the patterns of behavior and actions that individuals and groups follow in their daily work. These routines help organizations to maintain stability, consistency, and predictability. However, they can also be an obstacle to change and innovation. In their seminal work, Feldman and Pentland (2003) proposed a conceptual framework for understanding the nature of routines in organizations, distinguishing between two types of routines: ostensive and performative. This paper discusses the concept of ostensive and performative routines, their implications for organizational change, and the potential criticisms of the framework.
The Concept of Ostensive and Performative Routines
Feldman and Pentland (2003) argue that routines have two dimensions: ostensive and performative. The ostensive dimension refers to the declarative knowledge that individuals possess about how to carry out a particular task or activity. In other words, it is the knowledge that individuals have about what they are supposed to do. The performative dimension, on the other hand, refers to the procedural knowledge that individuals possess about how to carry out a particular task or activity. In other words, it is the knowledge that individuals have about how to do what they are supposed to do.
According to Feldman and Pentland (2003), the distinction between ostensive and performative routines is important because it helps to explain why some routines are more resistant to change than others. Ostensive routines are more easily changed because they are based on declarative knowledge that can be easily communicated and understood. In contrast, performative routines are more difficult to change because they are based on procedural knowledge that is often tacit and difficult to articulate. Therefore, changing performative routines often requires changing the underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions of individuals and groups.
Implications for Organizational Change
The concept of ostensive and performative routines has important implications for organizational change. First, it suggests that changing routines requires more than simply changing the rules or procedures that govern them. Instead, it requires changing the underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions of individuals and groups. This may involve changing the culture of the organization, which can be a difficult and time-consuming process.
Second, the concept of ostensive and performative routines suggests that different strategies may be needed to change different types of routines. For example, changing an ostensive routine may involve providing individuals with new information or training, while changing a performative routine may involve providing individuals with opportunities to practice new behaviors and receive feedback.
Third, the concept of ostensive and performative routines suggests that organizational change may be more successful if it is approached in a gradual and incremental manner. This is because changing performative routines often requires changing the underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions of individuals and groups, which can be a slow and difficult process.
Critique of the Conceptual Framework
While the concept of ostensive and performative routines has been influential in the field of organizational change, it has also been subject to criticism. One criticism is that the framework is too simplistic and does not capture the complexity of organizational routines. For example, Feldman and Pentland (2003) do not consider the role of social context in shaping organizational routines. Furthermore, they do not consider the role of power and politics in shaping organizational routines.
Another criticism is that the framework assumes that routines are inherently stable and resistant to change. This may not always be the case, as some routines may be more adaptable than others. Furthermore, the framework does not consider the role of external factors, such as technological change or changes in the regulatory environment, in shaping organizational routines.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of ostensive and performative routines proposed by Feldman and Pentland (2003) is an important framework for understanding the nature of organizational routines and their implications for organizational change. The distinction between ostensive and performative routines highlights the different types of knowledge that individuals possess about how to carry out tasks and activities, and how this can impact the ease or difficulty of changing routines. The framework suggests that changing routines requires more than just changing rules or procedures and may require changes to underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions. However, the framework has also been subject to criticism for oversimplifying the complexity of organizational routines and for assuming that routines are inherently stable and resistant to change.
Despite these criticisms, the concept of ostensive and performative routines remains a valuable tool for understanding the nature of organizational routines and their implications for organizational change. The framework highlights the importance of considering the different types of knowledge that individuals possess about how to carry out tasks and activities and how this can impact organizational change efforts. Furthermore, it suggests that organizational change efforts may require different strategies for changing different types of routines and that a gradual and incremental approach may be more successful.
In addition to the framework proposed by Feldman and Pentland (2003), other researchers have proposed additional frameworks and approaches for understanding organizational routines and their implications for organizational change. For example, Nelson and Winter (1982) proposed a framework based on the idea of routines as heuristics, or problem-solving procedures that have been learned and become routinized through repeated use. This framework highlights the importance of understanding how routines develop over time and how they can become entrenched in organizational processes. Other researchers have proposed approaches that focus on the role of social context, power, and politics in shaping organizational routines (e.g., Feldman and Orlikowski, 2011; Langley et al., 2013).
The concept of ostensive and performative routines proposed by Feldman and Pentland (2003) provides a valuable framework for understanding the nature of organizational routines and their implications for organizational change. While the framework has been subject to criticism, it remains a useful tool for understanding the different types of knowledge that individuals possess about how to carry out tasks and activities and how this can impact organizational change efforts. By understanding the nature of routines and their implications for change, organizations can develop more effective change strategies that are tailored to the specific challenges they face.
Customer ID: 100351