Virginia Rosales , Medhanie Gaim , Marco Berti , Miguel Pina e Cunha
{"title":"橡皮筋效应:处理日常事务中的稳定-变化悖论","authors":"Virginia Rosales , Medhanie Gaim , Marco Berti , Miguel Pina e Cunha","doi":"10.1016/j.scaman.2022.101194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Organizational routines embody the stability-change duality: for routines to be consistent, actors performing them must improvise to adjust to changing conditions. While these interdependent aspects are often intuitively navigated by organizational actors, sometimes they can manifest as contradictory, paradoxical requirements. Using a paradox lens, this paper explores how individuals deal with tensions as they oscillate between preserving and altering routines. Building on an ethnography of an emergency room, we unpack routine dynamics and identify three tensions with paradoxical attributes: learning vs. efficiency, flexibility vs. compliance, and autonomy vs. control. When triggers render tensions salient, organizational members rely on three responses (avoiding, shrinking, and stretching) to deal with tensions while performing routines. Based on these findings, we contribute to the routines and paradox literatures by discussing how routines are used as rubber bands in balancing tensions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47759,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The rubber band effect: Managing the stability-change paradox in routines\",\"authors\":\"Virginia Rosales , Medhanie Gaim , Marco Berti , Miguel Pina e Cunha\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.scaman.2022.101194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Organizational routines embody the stability-change duality: for routines to be consistent, actors performing them must improvise to adjust to changing conditions. While these interdependent aspects are often intuitively navigated by organizational actors, sometimes they can manifest as contradictory, paradoxical requirements. Using a paradox lens, this paper explores how individuals deal with tensions as they oscillate between preserving and altering routines. Building on an ethnography of an emergency room, we unpack routine dynamics and identify three tensions with paradoxical attributes: learning vs. efficiency, flexibility vs. compliance, and autonomy vs. control. When triggers render tensions salient, organizational members rely on three responses (avoiding, shrinking, and stretching) to deal with tensions while performing routines. Based on these findings, we contribute to the routines and paradox literatures by discussing how routines are used as rubber bands in balancing tensions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095652212200001X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095652212200001X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
The rubber band effect: Managing the stability-change paradox in routines
Organizational routines embody the stability-change duality: for routines to be consistent, actors performing them must improvise to adjust to changing conditions. While these interdependent aspects are often intuitively navigated by organizational actors, sometimes they can manifest as contradictory, paradoxical requirements. Using a paradox lens, this paper explores how individuals deal with tensions as they oscillate between preserving and altering routines. Building on an ethnography of an emergency room, we unpack routine dynamics and identify three tensions with paradoxical attributes: learning vs. efficiency, flexibility vs. compliance, and autonomy vs. control. When triggers render tensions salient, organizational members rely on three responses (avoiding, shrinking, and stretching) to deal with tensions while performing routines. Based on these findings, we contribute to the routines and paradox literatures by discussing how routines are used as rubber bands in balancing tensions.
期刊介绍:
The Scandinavian Journal of Management (SJM) provides an international forum for innovative and carefully crafted research on different aspects of management. We promote dialogue and new thinking around theory and practice, based on conceptual creativity, reasoned reflexivity and contextual awareness. We have a passion for empirical inquiry. We promote constructive dialogue among researchers as well as between researchers and practitioners. We encourage new approaches to the study of management and we aim to foster new thinking around management theory and practice. We publish original empirical and theoretical material, which contributes to understanding management in private and public organizations. Full-length articles and book reviews form the core of the journal, but focused discussion-type texts (around 3.000-5.000 words), empirically or theoretically oriented, can also be considered for publication. The Scandinavian Journal of Management is open to different research approaches in terms of methodology and epistemology. We are open to different fields of management application, but narrow technical discussions relevant only to specific sub-fields will not be given priority.