Martha Feldman discusses similarities and synergies between the study of routines as dynamic processes and the study of strategy as practice. She argues that strategy as practice and the theory of routine dynamics are distinct but related theories of organizing: Both draw on practice theory to focus attention on the dynamic and generative processes that result in strategy and routines and that have previously been studied as relatively static entities. She outlines several ways in which routine dynamics can contribute to strategy as practice research showing that routine dynamics is not only a compatible theory, but also a useful tool for studying the practice of strategy.

This chapter deals with the role practice theory has played and can play in developing routine dynamics and the community of scholars associated with Routine Dynamics. It provides a short introduction to practice theory. It presents an analysis of how scholars in the field of Routine Dynamics relied on practice theory to build the foundation of the field and how scholars have continued to engage practice theory as the field has grown. The chapter ends with suggestions for how practice theory could help Routine Dynamics address questions of wide social relevance.

This chapter offers an introduction to Routine Dynamics as a particular approach to studying organizational phenomena. We provide a brief description of the genealogy of research on routines; starting with the work of the management scholar Fredrick Taylor (1911) and the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey (1922) at the beginning of the last century, to the works of the Carnegie School on standard operating procedures around the middle of the last century, to the economics-based Capabilities approach and finally the practice-based approach of Routine Dynamics around the turn of the century. We also discuss the advantages of conceptualizing patterns of action as “routines”, as compared to “practices”, “processes”, “activities” or “institutions”. In particular, we highlight that the concept of routines directs the researcher’s attention to certain specificities of particular action patterns, such as task orientation, sequentiality of actions, recurrence and familiarity as well as attempts at reflexive regulation. We also introduce and explain the key concepts of the Routine Dynamics perspective and how they have developed over time.

In this chapter, we shed light on bodies in the dynamics of routines. Though the body has just begun to be theorized in Routine Dynamics research, the body is, nonetheless, pervasive. We show how ubiquitous the bodies are in Routine Dynamics research by documenting the embodied orientation to and from performing, to and from patterns, and to and from situation or materiality in 13 reference articles. By exploring one of these articles in more depth, we show how theorizing the body more explicitly has potential for deepening our understanding of the processual mechanisms of routine dynamics.

Introduction

Recent research in the fields of both routines and strategy has used practice theory to focus attention on the dynamic and generative processes that result in strategy and routines and that have previously been studied as relatively static entities (Jarzabkowski 2005; Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Whittington, this volume). Strategy as practice and the theory of routine dynamics are, thus, distinct but related theories of organizing. In this chapter I discuss similarities and synergies between the study of routines as dynamic processes and the study of strategy as practice. I focus particular attention on the emergent and mutually constituted nature of these organizational processes. I argue that these characteristics make the a priori identification of analytical entities difficult and misleading. As a result, definitions of routines and strategy, or of processes that constitute them, need to be developed in the context of specific empirical settings and specific research questions.

This chapter is written from the perspective of routines and seeks to identify some of the ways in which routine dynamics can contribute to strategy-as-practice research. The theory of routine dynamics is not only a compatible theory but also a useful tool for the study of strategy as practice. Accordingly, I begin the chapter with a description of routine dynamics. In the second section I discuss the connections between routine dynamics and strategy as practice. The third section explores challenges that research in routine dynamics and strategy as practice have in common, specifically the issue of identifying relevant action and enacted patterns and issues of multiplicity, or the ‘problem’ of identifying a singular routine or strategy. The fourth section presents studies of routine dynamics that contribute to strategy as practice and that show how strategies emerge through routines. Methodological implications are summarized briefly in the conclusion.

Theory of routine dynamics

In recent years a theory of routines has developed through the work of many scholars. The foundational work was provided by Martha Feldman and Brian Pentland, each working independently and, later, jointly. Pentland's work developed the idea of routines as effortful accomplishments (Pentland and Reuter 1994). Feldman's work built on this idea and pointed out that routines were not only effortful but also emergent (Feldman, 2000).