Aroles, J. and McLean, C. (2016). Rethinking stability and change in the study of organizational routines: Difference and repetition in a newspaper-printing factory. Organization Science, 27(3), 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y. and King, J. L. (2016). Routines as shock absorbers during organizational transformation: Integration, control, and NASA’s Enterprise Information System. Organization Science, 27(3), 551–572.Google Scholar

Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 573–593.Google Scholar

Birnholtz, J., Cohen, M. D. and Hoch, S. (2007). Organizational character: On the regeneration of Camp Poplar Grove. Organization Science, 18(2), 315–332.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1987). Choses dites. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (2005). The Social Structures of the Economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1996). Learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. In Cohen, M. D. and Sproull, L. S., eds., Organizational Learning. London: Sage, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.Google Scholar

Bruns, H. (2009). Leveraging functionality in safety routines: Examining the divergence of rules and performance. Human Relations, 62(9), 1399–1426.Google Scholar

Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The Interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594–613.Google Scholar

Carlile, P. R. (1997). Understanding knowledge transformation in product development: Making knowledge manifest through boundary objects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar

Carlile, P. R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Providence, RI: Organization Science.Google Scholar

Cohendet, P. S. and Simon, L. O. (2016). Always playable: Recombining routines for creative efficiency at Ubisoft Montreal’s Video Game Studio. Organization Science, 27(3), 614–632.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. D. (2003). Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: The influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 321–350.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. D. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artifacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37, 769–789.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. D. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. D. (2014). Replication dilemma. Organization Science, 25(5), 1325–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Danner-Schröder, A. and Geiger, D. (2016). Unravelling the motor of patterning work: Toward an understanding of the microlevel dynamics of standardization and flexibility. Organization Science, 27(3), 633–658.Google Scholar

Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H. and Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147.Google Scholar

Dionysiou, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the creation and recreation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38, 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dittrich, K., Guérard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678–697.Google Scholar

Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.Google Scholar

Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727–752.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’ Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the Special Issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27, 505–513.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309–331.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S., and Worline, M. (2016). The practicality of practice theory. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(2), 304–324.Google Scholar

Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization, 7(2), 211–223.Google Scholar

Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste. Management Learning, 40(5), 535–550.Google Scholar

Gherardi, S. (2012). How to Conduct a Practice-Based Study: Problems and Methods. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar

Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2000). To transfer is to transform: The circulation of safety knowledge. Organization, 7, 329–348.Google Scholar

Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning the trade: A culture of safety in practice. Organization, 9, 191–223.Google Scholar

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1996). What do you mean by safety? Conflicting perspectives on accident causation and safety management in a construction firm. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 6, 202–213.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1989). A reply to my critics. In Held, D. and Thompson, J. B., eds., Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, pp. 248–301.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method, 2nd ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Hales, M. and Tidd, J. (2009). The practice of routines and representations in design and development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 551–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618–636.Google Scholar

Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K. and Feldman, M. S. (2012). Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, 23(4), 907–927.Google Scholar

Jones, M. R. and Karsten, H. (2003). Review: Structuration theory and information systems research. Working Paper 2003/11, Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698–721.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 264–280.Google Scholar

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lazaric, N. and Denis, B. (2005). Routinization and memorization of tasks in a workshop: The case of the introduction of ISO norms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14 5, 872–896.Google Scholar

LeBaron, C., Christianson, M. K., Garrett, L. and Ilan, R. (2016). Coordinating flexible performance during everyday work: An ethnomethodological study of handoff routines. Organization Science, 27, 514–534.Google Scholar

Levinthal, D. and Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502–513.Google Scholar

Manning, P. K. (1977). Police Work: The Social Organization of Police Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Manning, P. K. (1982). Organizational work: Enstructuration of the environment. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Michel, A. A. (2014). The mutual constitution of persons and organizations: An ontological perspective on organizational change. Organization Science, 25(4), 1082–1110.Google Scholar

Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418.Google Scholar

Nicolini, D. (2010). Medical innovation as a process of translation: A case from the field of telemedicine. British Journal of Management, 21(4), 1011–1026.Google Scholar

Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D., eds. (2003). Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Practice in research: Phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. and Vaare, E., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–33.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. and Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145–165.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. and Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the IT in IT research – A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121–134.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. and Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. and Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 541–574.Google Scholar

Orr, J. E. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community memory in a service culture. In Middleton, D. S. and Edwards, D., eds., Collective Remembering: Memory in Society. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26(1), 126–166.Google Scholar

Ortner, S. B. (1989). High Religion: A Cultural and Political History of Sherpa Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Østerlund, C. and Carlile, P. R. (2005). Relations in practice: Sorting through practice theories on knowledge sharing in complex organizations. The Information Society, 21(2), 91–107.Google Scholar

Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2007). Narrative Networks: Patterns of Technology and Organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 781–795.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(2008), 235–250.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T., Haerem, T. and Hillison, D. (2010). Comparing organizational routines as recurrent patterns of action. Organization Studies, 31(7), 917–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484–510.Google Scholar

Pickering, A. (1994). After representation: Science studies in the performative idiom. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the PSA, (2), 413–419.Google Scholar

Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41(155), 1–18.Google Scholar

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Towards a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.Google Scholar

Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management of Journal, 54(3), 577–610Google Scholar

Reynaud, B. (1998). Les propriétés des routines: Outils pragmatiques de decision et modes de co-ordination collective. Sociologie du Travail, 1998(4), 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reynaud, B. (2005). The void at the heart of rules: Routines in the context of rule-following. The Case of the Paris Metro Workshop. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 847–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384–409.Google Scholar

Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468–490.Google Scholar

Schatzki, T. R. (2011). Where the Action Is (on Large Social Phenomena Such as Sociotechnical Regimes). Sustainable Practices Research Group, Working Paper 1, University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar

Schatzki, T. R. (2012). A primer on practices: Theory and research. In Higgs, J., Barnett, R., Billett, S., Hutchings, M. and Trede, F., eds., Practice-Based Education: Perspectives and Strategies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 13–26.Google Scholar

Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E., eds. (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Schreyögg, G. and Sydow, J. (2010). CROSSROADS – Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251–1262.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 535–558.Google Scholar

Sele, K. and Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722–738.Google Scholar

Sevon, G. (1996). Organizational imitation in identity transformation. In Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G., eds., Translating Organizational Change. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Sewell, W. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.Google Scholar

Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies, 27(4), 585–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P. and Smets, M. (2016). The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organization Science, 27(3), 759–781.Google Scholar

Strati, A. (2007). Sensible knowledge and practice-based learning. Management Learning, 38(1), 61–77.Google Scholar

Swidler, A. (2001). Talk of Love: How Culture Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Tyre, M. and Orlikowski, W. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1), 98–118.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Yi, S., Knudsen, T. and Becker, M. C. (2016). Inertia in routines: A hidden source of organizational variation. Organization Science, 27(3), 782–800.Google Scholar

Zbaracki, M. J. and Bergen, M. (2010). When truces collapse: A longitudinal study of price-adjustment routines. Organization Science, 21(5), 955–972.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, D. H. (1970). The practicalities of rule use. In Douglas, J., ed., Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 221–238.Google Scholar

Balogun, J., Bartunek, J. M. and Do, B. (2015). Senior managers’ sensemaking and responses to strategic change. Organization Science, 26, 960–979.Google Scholar

Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016) Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines, Organization Science, 27, 573–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blanche, C. and Cohendet, P. (2019) Remounting a ballet in a different context: A complementary understanding of routines transfer theories. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations), Vol. 61. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar

Blattner, W. (2006). Heidegger’s Being and Time. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016) The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics, Organization Science, 27, 594–613.Google Scholar

Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2009). Strategy without Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cohendet, P. S. and Simon, L. O. (2016). Always playable: Recombining routines for creative efficiency at Ubisoft Montreal’s video game studio, Organization Science, 27, 614–632.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. D. (2007). Reading Dewey: reflections on the study of routine. Organization. Studies, 28, 773–786.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. D. (2012). Perceiving and remembering routine action: Fundamental micro-level origins, Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1383–1388.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. D. and Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5, 554–568.Google Scholar

Colebrook, C. (2005). Actuality. In Parr, A., ed., The Deleuze Dictionary. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar

Colebrook, C. (2006). Deleuze: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Cooren, F. (2007). Interacting and Organizing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Danner-Schroder, A. and Geiger, D. (2016). Unravelling the motor of patterning work: Toward an understanding of the microlevel dynamics of standardization and flexibility. Organization Science, 27, 633–658.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. D. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artifacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37, 769–789.Google Scholar

Dionysiou, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the creation and recreation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38, 181–205.Google Scholar

Dittrich, K., Guerard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27, 678–697.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. L. (2000). Responses. In Wrathall, M. and Malpas, J., eds., Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, 313–349. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. L. (2014). Skillful Coping: Essays on the Phenomenology of Everyday Perception and Action. (Wrathall, M. A., ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. L. (2017). On Expertise and Embodiment: Insights from Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Samuel Todes. In Sandberg, J., Rouleau, L., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Skillful Performance: Enacting Capabilities, Knowledge, Competence and Expertise in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–159.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. L. and Dreyfus, S. E. (2005). Expertise in real world contexts. Organization Studies, 26, 779–792.Google Scholar

Eberhard, J., Frost, A. and Rerup, C. (2019). The dark side of routine dynamics: Deceit and the work of Romeo pimps. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations), Vol. 61. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 99–121.Google Scholar

Egidi, M. (2002) Biases in organizational behavior. In Augier, M. and March, J. G., eds., The Economics of Choice, Change and Organization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 109–146.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present and future. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P. (2019). Introduction: Routine dynamics in action. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations), Vol. 61. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’ Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the Special Issue on routine dynamics, Organization Science, 27, 505–513.Google Scholar

Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. and Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structures, Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1351–1374.Google Scholar

Flores, F. (2012). Conversations for Action and Collected Essays (ed. Flores Letelier, M.). North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing.Google Scholar

Ford, J. and Ford, L. (2009). The Four Conversations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Gkeredakis, E., Nicolini, D. and Swan, J. (2014). Moral judgments as organizational accomplishments: Insights from a focused ethnography in the English healthcare sector. In Cooren, F., Vaara, E., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Language and Communication at Work: Discourse, Narrativity and Organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–324.Google Scholar

Hadjimichael, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2019). Towards a better understanding of tacit knowledge in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 672–703.Google Scholar

Heidegger, M. (1962/1927). Being and Time (Macquarrie, J. and Robinson, E., Trans.). New York: SCM Press.Google Scholar

Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (eds.) (2016). Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Howard-Grenville, J. and Rerup, C. (2017) A process perspective on organizational routines. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 323–339.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. (1993). Moral Imagination. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kiwan, L. and Lazaric, N. (2019). Learning a new ecology of space and looking for new routines: Experimenting robotics in a surgical team. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations), Vol. 61. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 173–189.Google Scholar

Klein, G. (1998). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Klein, G. (2003). The Power of Intuition. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Langley, A., Smallman, H., Tsoukas, H. and Van de Ven, A. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1–13.Google Scholar

Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (2017). Introduction: Process thinking, process theorizing and process researching. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

LeBaron, C., Christianson, M. K., Garrett, L. and Ilan, R. (2016). Coordinating flexible performance during everyday work: An ethnomethodological study of handoff routines. Organization Science, 27, 514–534.Google Scholar

MacIntyre, A. (1985). After Virtue. London: Duckworth, 2nd edition.Google Scholar

March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1953). Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962/1945). Phenomenology of Perception (trans. Smith, C.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Moore, G. (2017). Virtue at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Narduzzo, A., Rocco, E. and Warglien, M. (2000). Talking about routines in the field. In Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G., eds., The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar

Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 413–453.Google Scholar

Parr, A. (2005). Repetition. In Parr, A., ed., The Deleuze Dictionary. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 223–225.Google Scholar

Paul, L. A. (2014). Transformative Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 577–610.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384–409.Google Scholar

Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 170–209.Google Scholar

Sandberg, J. and Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36, 338–360.Google Scholar

Sandberg, J. and Tsoukas, H. (2020). Sensemaking reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organization Theory, 1, 1–34.Google Scholar

Sayer, A. (2011). Why Things Matter to People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schatzki, T. R. (2000). Coping with others with folk psychology. In Wrathall, M. and Malpas, J., eds., Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 29–52.Google Scholar

Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Schauer, F. (1991). Playing by the Rules. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Selznick, P. (1992). The Moral Commonwealth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Selznick, P. (2008). A Humanist Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Sheehan, T. (2015). Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27, 739–758.Google Scholar

Spinosa, C., Flores, F. and Dreyfus, H. L. (1997). Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. (1985). Human Agency and Language, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A. and Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660.Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H. (2011). How should we understand tacit knowledge? A phenomenological view. In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M., eds., Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management. Chichester: Wiley, 2nd Edition, pp. 453–476.Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making strategy: Meta-theoretical insights from Heideggerian phenomenology. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. and Vaara, E., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd Edition, pp. 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tsoukas, H. (2018). Strategy and virtue: Developing strategy-as-practice through virtue ethics, Strategic Organization, 16, 323–351.Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H. (2019). Philosophical Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567–582.Google Scholar

Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. P. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23, 24–46.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (2001). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations. In Weick, K. E., ed., Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 100–124.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations (Anscombe, G. E. M., Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1979). On Certainty (ed. Anscombe, G. E. and von Wright, G. H., trans. Paul, D. and Anscombe, E. M.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Yanow, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection-in-action? A phenomenological account. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1339–1363.Google Scholar

Amerine, R. and Bilmes, J. (1988). Following instructions. Human Studies, 327–339.Google Scholar

Anderson, R. J. and Sharrock, W. (2018). Action at a Distance: Studies in the Practicalities of Executive Management. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Best, K. and Hindmarsh, J. (2019). Embodied spatial practices and everyday organization: The work of tour guides and their audiences. Human Relations, 72(2), 248–271.Google Scholar

Bittner, E. (1965). The concept of organization. Social Research, 32(3), 239–255.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594–613.Google Scholar

Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11(3), 373–393.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.Google Scholar

Dittrich, K., Guérard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678–697.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present, and future. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Tsoukas, H. and Langley, A., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on Routine Dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505–513.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution Of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2126–2154.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2000a). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2000b). Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 19–36.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2000c). Vision and Inscription in Practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 1–3.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2011). Contextures of action. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D., eds., Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heath, C. and Luff, P. (2013). Embodied action and organisational interaction: Establishing contract on the strike of a hammer. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 24–38.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge; New York: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Hindmarsh, J. and Heath, C. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade: The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562.Google Scholar

Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P. and Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 489–503.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kameo, N. and Whalen, J. (2015). Organizing documents: Standard forms, person production and organizational action. Qualitative Sociology, 38(2), 205–229.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2011). Understanding understanding in action. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 435–437.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C. and Feltovich, P. (2011). ‘Can you see the cystic artery yet?’ A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 521–541.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

LeBaron, C., Christianson, M. K., Garrett, L. and Ilan, R. (2016). Coordinating flexible performance during everyday work: An ethnomethodological study of handoff routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 514–534.Google Scholar

Lynch, M. (2011). Commentary: On understanding understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 553–555.Google Scholar

Lynch, M. (2015). Garfinkel’s Studies of Work. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.ehess.fr/sg12/WebPro1516/Draft%20-%20Garf%20book.pdf.Google Scholar

Lynch, M. (2019). Garfinkel, Sacks and formal structures: Collaborative origins, divergences and the history of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Human Studies, 42(2), 183–198.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2011a). The interactional production of multiple spatialities within a participatory democracy meeting. Social Semiotics, 21(2), 289–316.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2011b). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2014a). Cooking instructions and the shaping of things in the kitchen. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. and Rauniomaa, M., eds., Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity: Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2014b). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.Google Scholar

Moore, R. J., Whalen, J. and Gathman, E. C. H. (2010). The work of the work order: Document practice in face-to-face service encounters. In Llewellyn, N. and Hindmarsh, J., eds., Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information & Organization, 18(4), 235–250.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C. and Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484–1508.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484–510.Google Scholar

Rawls, A. W. (2002). Editor’s introduction. In Garfinkel, H.. Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 1–64.Google Scholar

Rawls, A. W. (2006). Respecifying the study of social order: Garfinkel’s transition from theoretical conceptualization to practices in details. In Garfinkel, H., ed., Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, pp. 1–97. Rawls, A. W. (2008). Harold Garfinkel, ethnomethodology and workplace studies. Organization Studies, 29(5), 701–732.Google Scholar

Rawls, A. W. (2011). Harold Garfinkel. In Ritzer, G. and Stepnisky, J., eds., The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists. Vol. 2 Contemporary Social Theorists. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 89–124.Google Scholar

Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577–610.Google Scholar

Smith, D. E. (2001). Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions. Studies in Cultures, Organizations & Societies, 7(2), 159–198.Google Scholar

Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar

Smith, D. E. and Whalen, J. (1997). Texts in Action. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar

Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D., eds., Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Suchman, L. A. (1996). Constituting shared workspaces. In Engeström, Y. and Middleton, D., eds., Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Suchman, L. A. (1997). Centers of coordination: A case and some themes. In Resnick, L. B., Säljö, R., Pontecorvo, C. and Burge, B., eds., Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition. Berlin; New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tulbert, E. and Goodwin, M. H. (2011). Choreographies of attention: Multimodality in a routine family activity. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D., eds., Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar

Ueno, N. (2000). Ecologies of inscription: Technologies of making the social organization of work and the mass production of machine parts visible in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 59–80.Google Scholar

Whalen, J., Whalen, M. and Henderson, K. (2002). Improvisational choreography in teleservice work. The British Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 239–258.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2010). Philosophical Investigations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Yamauchi, Y. and Hiramoto, T. (2016). Reflexivity of routines: An ethnomethodological investigation of initial service encounters at sushi bars in Tokyo. Organization Studies, 37(10), 1473–1499.Google Scholar

Yamauchi, Y. and Hiramoto, T. (2021). Performative achievement of routine recognizability: An analysis of order taking routines at sushi bars. Journal of Management Studies, 57(8), 1610–1642.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, D. H. (1970). The practicalities of rule use. In Douglas, J. D., ed., Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 221–238.Google Scholar

Bernstein, R. J. (1992). The resurgence of pragmatism. Social Research, 59(4), 813–840.Google Scholar

Bernstein, R. J. (2010). The Pragmatic Turn. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. D. (2007a). Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organisation Studies, 28(5), 773–786.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. D. (2007b). Administrative behavior: Laying the foundations for Cyert and March. Organization Science, 18(3), 503–506.Google Scholar

Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963/1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1917). The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy. In Dewey, J., ed., Creative Intelligence: Essays in the Pragmatic Attitude. New York: Holt, pp. 3–69.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1922). Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Random House/The Modern Library.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1981). The Philosophy of John Dewey. (McDermott, J. J., ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. and Bentley, A. (1949). Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Dionysiou, D. D. (2017). Symbolic interactionism. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 144–159.Google Scholar

Dionysiou, D. D. and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2019). Acting in a Dynamic World: Pragmatism and Routine Dynamics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 8–12 August 2019, Boston.Google Scholar

Dionysiou, D. D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re)creation of routines from within: a symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 189–205.Google Scholar

Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in routine dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111–138.Google Scholar

Emirbayer, M. and Maynard, D. W. (2011). Pragmatism and ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 34, 221–261.Google Scholar

Emirbayer, M. and Miche, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.Google Scholar

Farjoun, M., Ansell, C. and Boin, A. (2015). Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26(6), 1787–1804.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present and future. In Rerup, C., Howard-Grenville, J., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How they are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505–513.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Worline, M. (2016). The practicality of practice theory Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(2), 304–324.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26(4), 657–684.Google Scholar

Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J. and Siimo, R. M. (2015). Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 136–168.Google Scholar

Hernes, T. (2014). A Process Theory of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hernes, T., Simpson, B. and Soderland, J. (2013). Managing and temporality. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 1–6.Google Scholar

Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618–636.Google Scholar

Howard-Grenville, J. and Rerup, C. (2017). A process perspective on organizational routines. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 323–339.Google Scholar

James, W. (1878). Remarks on Spencer’s definition of mind as correspondence. The Journal of Speculative Psychology, 12(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longman, Green and Co.Google Scholar

James, W. (1908). The pragmatist theory of truth and its misunderstanders. The Philosophical Review, 17(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

James, W. (1909). A Pluralistic Universe. New York, Longman, Green and Co.Google Scholar

James, W. (1911). Some Problems of Philosophy. New York, Longman, Green and Co.Google Scholar

Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and Social Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Joas, H. (1996). The Creativity of Action. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Joas, H. and Knobl, W. (2009). Social Theory: Twenty Introduction Lectures. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Langley, A. H. and Tsoukas, H. (2017). Introduction: Process thinking, process theorizing and process researching. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Locke, K. (2001). Grounded Theory in Management Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar

Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918.Google Scholar

Loewenstein, G. and Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R. and Goldsmith, H. H., eds., Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 619–642.Google Scholar

Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

March, J. H. and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present. London: The Open Court Company.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1935). The philosophy of John Dewey. International Journal of Ethics, 46(1), 64–81.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1938). The Philosophy of the Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Menand, L. (2002). The Metaphysical Club. London: Flamingo.Google Scholar

Misak, C. (2013). The American Pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and zooming out: A package of method and theory to study work practices. In Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H. and Kamsteeg, F., eds., Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 120–138.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1992). The Essential Peirce, Vol 1 (1867–1893). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce, Vol 2 (1893–1913). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.Google Scholar

Reck, A. J. (1963). The philosophy of George Herbert Mead. In Studies in Recent Philosophy. Tulane Studies in Philosophy Series, Volume 12. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 5–51.Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar

Sandberg, J. and Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360.Google Scholar

Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and Savigny, E. V., eds., The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 10–23.Google Scholar

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies , 27 (4), 585–604.Google Scholar

Shotter, J. (2010). Situated dialogic action research: Disclosing ‘beginnings’ for innovative change in organizations. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 268–285.Google Scholar

Simpson, B. and Lorino, P. (2016). Re-viewing routines through a pragmatist lens. In Rerup, C., Howard-Grenville, J., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How they are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–70.Google Scholar

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic Interactionism. New Jersey: The Blackburn Press.Google Scholar

Thayer, H. S. (1982). Pragmatism: The Classic Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar

Turner, S. F. and Fern, M. J. (2012). Examining the stability and variability of routine performances: The effects of experience and context change. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1407–1434.Google Scholar

Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 24–46.Google Scholar

Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2018). Watching the clock: Action timing, patterning, and routine performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1253–1280.Google Scholar

Wegener, F. and Lorino, F. (2020). Capturing the experience of living forward from within the flow: Fusing ‘withness’ approach & pragmatist inquiry. In Reinecke, J., Suddaby, R., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Vol. 7: About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 138–168.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Westley.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (2003). Theory and practice in the real world. In Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 453–475.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.Google Scholar

Winter, S. G. (2013). Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 120–137.Google Scholar

Abbott, A. D. (2004). Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Akrich, M., Callon, M. and Latour, B. (2002). The key to success in innovation part I: The art of interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 187–206.Google Scholar

Aroles, J. and McLean, C. (2016). Rethinking stability and change in the study of organizational routines: Difference and repetition in a newspaper-printing factory. Organization Science, 27(3), 535–550.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.Google Scholar

Baron, L. F. and Gomez, R. (2016). The associations between technologies and societies: The utility of actor-network theory. Science, Technology and Society, 21(2), 129–148.Google Scholar

Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 573–593.Google Scholar

Blanche, C. and Cohendet, P. (2019). Remounting a ballet in a different context: A complementary understanding of routines transfer theories. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowksi, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar

Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594–613.Google Scholar

Cacciatori, E. (2012). Resolving conflict in problem‐solving: Systems of artefacts in the development of new routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1559–1585.Google Scholar

Callon, M. (1980). The state and technical innovation: A case study of the electrical vehicle in France. Research Policy, 9(4), 358–376.Google Scholar

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieux Bay. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196–233.Google Scholar

Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In Law, J., ed., A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge, pp. 132–161.Google Scholar

Callon, M. (1998a). An essay on framing and overflowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology. The Sociological Review, 46(S1), 244–269.Google Scholar

Callon, M., ed. (1998b). The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? MacKenzie, D., Muniesa, F. and Siu, L., eds., Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Callon, M. and Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In Knorr, K. and Cicourel, A., eds., Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 277–303.Google Scholar

Callon, M. and Law, J. (1982). On interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counter-enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 615–625.Google Scholar

Cohendet, P. S. and Simon, L. O. (2016). Always playable: Recombining routines for creative efficiency at Ubisoft Montreal’s video game studio. Organization Science, 27(3), 614–632.Google Scholar

Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Czarniawska, B. (2014). A Theory of Organizing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar

Czarniawska, B. (2017). Actor-network theory. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing, 160–173.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routine dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 1325–1350.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. (2020). Making routines the same: Crafting similarity and singularity in routines transfer. Research Policy, 49(8), 104029.Google Scholar

De Laet, M. and Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225–263.Google Scholar

Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H. and Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659–677.Google Scholar

Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and Repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present and future. In Rerup, C. and Howard-Grenville, J. A., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2005). Organizational routines and the macro-actor. In Czarniawska, B. and Hernes, T., eds., Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. Copenhagen: Liber, pp. 91–111.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505–513.Google Scholar

George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A. and Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895.Google Scholar

Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization, 7(2), 211–223.Google Scholar

Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2005). Actor-networks: Ecology and entrepreneurs. In Czarniawska, B. and Hernes, T., eds., Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. Copenhagen: Liber, pp. 285–306.Google Scholar

Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2126–2154.Google Scholar

Gond, J.-P. and Cabantous, L. (2015). Performativity: Towards a performative turn in organizational studies. Mir, R., Willmott, H. and Greenwood, M., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 508–516.Google Scholar

Hetherington, K. and Law, J. (2000). After networks. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, 127–132.Google Scholar

Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R. and Spee, P. (2016). The role of artifacts in establishing connectivity within professional routines: A question of entanglement. In Rerup, C. and Howard-Grenville, J., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–131.Google Scholar

Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698–721.Google Scholar

Lannacci, F. (2014). Routines, artefacts and technological change: Investigating the transformation of criminal justice in England and Wales. Journal of Information Technology, 29(4), 294–311.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1986). The powers of associations. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 264–280.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1), 103–131.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1996a). Aramis, or, the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1996b). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications plus more than a few complications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1999a). On recalling ANT. In Law, J. and Hassard, J., eds., Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 15–25.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1999b). Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2018). Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Law, J., ed. (1986). Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T., eds., The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar

Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.Google Scholar

Law, J. (2002). Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Law, J. and Callon, M. (1988). Engineering and sociology in a military aircraft project: A network analysis of technological change. Social Problems, 35(3), 284–297.Google Scholar

Law, J. and Hassard, J., eds. (1999). Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Law, J. and Singleton, V. (2014). ANT, multiplicity and policy. Critical Policy Studies, 8(4), 379–396.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life. New York: Continuum Books.Google Scholar

MacKenzie, D. A., Muniesa, F. and Siu, L. (2007). Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

McLean, C. and Hassard, J. (2004). Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: Critical notes on the production of actor-network accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 41(3), 493–519.Google Scholar

Mitzscherling, L. (2019). Dynamiken und Entstehung von inter-organisationalen Routinen in Innovationsnetzwerken. Dissertation Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar

Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Mol, A. (2010). Actor-network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft, 50, 253–269.Google Scholar

Mol, A. and Law, J. (1994). Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 24(4), 641–671.Google Scholar

Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.Google Scholar

Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235–250.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484–510.Google Scholar

Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384–409.Google Scholar

Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170–209.Google Scholar

Seidl, D. and Whittington, R. (2014). Enlarging the Strategy-as-Practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1407–1421.Google Scholar

Sele, K. and Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722–738.Google Scholar

Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P. and Smets, M. (2016). The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organization Science, 27(3), 759–781.Google Scholar

Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In Law, J., ed., A Sociology of Monster: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge, pp. 26–56.Google Scholar

Steen, J., Coopmans, C. and Whyte, J. (2006). Structure and agency? Actor-network theory and strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 4(3), 303–312.Google Scholar

Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar