The path-dependence construct has been largely adopted in management and organization studies to capture the vague idea that "history matters" in explaining organizational phenomena, such as structural inertia, rigidity or lock-in (Sydow et. al., 2009; Vergne & Durand, 2010). However, the logic of the very process producing organi¬zational persistence still remains under-explored and scanty attention has been devoted to the self-reinforcing dynamics influencing its temporal evolution (Schreyögg & Sydow, 2011). Even in recent studies embracing a process perspective (van Driel & Dolfsma, 2009; Valorinta et al., 2011; Kock, 2011), path-dependence analysis has largely remained at strategic level or considering the organization as a whole. Our work aims at shifting the analytical focus through the exploration of organizational path-dependence at very micro-level, i.e. identifying self-reinforcing mechanisms sustaining it over time and produced during work practices. Through embracing a "practice lens" (Orlikowski, 2000; Feldman & Orlikowski, 2012) we would observe organizational path dependence at the two intertwined layers: the domain of organizational routines, i.e. the repetitive recurrent interaction patterns carried out in the firm for conducting its regular business (Cohen et al., 1996; Feldman & Pentland, 2003); the domain of technological artefacts, i.e. machinery, equipment and software, regularly used to support work activities (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001; Kroes & Meijer, 2006) and playing a key role in organizational routine dynamics (Pentland & Feldman, 2008; D'Adderio, 2008; Leonardi, 2011) Both evolutionary and behavioural theories of the firm (Nelson & Winter, 1981; Cyert & March, 1963) have recognized that organizational routines develop in a path-dependent manner and that feedback effects play a key role in explaining such a phenomenon (Becker, 2004). However, the mechanisms through which initial conditions or chance events trigger a self-reinforcing dynamics and how different performance-revealing effects jointly work in producing path-dependence still remained unexplored. As for technology, organizational path-dependence has been hitherto investigated only at the level of strategic investments (e.g. Murman & Frenken, 2006; Valorinta et al., 2011). However, once a specific technological choice is made and a given technology is implemented, it inscribes the beliefs, goals and expectations of managers (and developers), embedding them in its material features. During the adoption stage, practitioners exercise their agency to enact a specific technology-in-use, so conditioning the further development path of technology. In organizational studies on technology, constructivist theoretical approaches have been adopted to assess the social dynamic of technology evolution and explain the dynamic that leads to the institutionalization of a certain technology (Pinch & Bijkers, 1987; Latour, 2005). However, in these studies the focus is on the development stage of the technology cycle, so that the self-reinforcing dynamics underpinning technological path-dependence during the enactment stage has remained substantially neglected. In our work we tackle the following research question: How do the co-evolutionary paths of technologies and organizational routines shape the self-reinforcing dynamics influencing the organizational adaptation capability over time? A critical realistic perspective (Bhaskar, 1978) is explicitly embraced since it is well-suited with a relational ontology and the need to explore the technological artefact in both its material and social dimensions. Coherently with critical realism, technology is treated as a dynamic and changeable system where new components are gradually added or, alternatively, replaced to old ones during its temporal evolution, so exhibiting a variable influence on the self-reinforcing mechanisms. Furthermore, a morphogenetic approach (Archer, 1998) is adopted to trace the temporal unfolding dynamics that intertwined technology and routines, so enabling to understand how they together shape the self-reinforcing dynamics that potentially leads to get stuck on a rigidified action pattern. Exogenous triggers in the development path, i.e. strategic changes in structuring elements of technology and routine, act as "perturbing" events in the self-reinforcing dynamics at work. We address the research question through conducting a longitudinal, explorative and inductive case study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994) in an Italian middle-sized service firm holding a national leading position in the fleet management sector. Data was collected through 26 semi-structured interviews, archival material and two-months participant observation. Data analysis was based on qualitative methods (Langley, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994) and focused on the organizational change process that simultaneously involved technological artefacts and a core business organizational routine (called "authority") between the period 2008-2011. Our empirical evidence adds to previous research on technologies and routines (Pentland and Feldman 2005; D'Adderio, 2011; Leonardi, 2011), investigating how their temporal co-evolution creates organizational path-dependence. The case analysis shows that a variety of combinations of "technologies-in-practice" (Orlikowski, 2000) and "routines-in-practice" (Feldman, 2000) emerges at the end of each social interaction cycle. The addition or substitution of a given component to the incumbent technological system puts into action a phase of change and mutual adaptation between the new technological configuration and local practices (Orlikowski, 1996; Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994). However, the actual scope of action is progressively reduced over time, since human agency tend to exert less reflexivity when to face unexpected events or emergence situations. A significant insight is related to the number and nature of self-reinforcing mechanisms that bring about path-dependence in organizational routines (Arthur, 1988; David, 1985; Sydow et al., 2009). Our empirical evidence shows how the specific nature of technology - together with contextual elements - influences the direction and the intensity of the mutual adaptation process: the actual impact of self-reinforcing mechanisms on strengthening or reducing morphogenesis depends not only on how they work after that a new exogenous event has triggered a new transformational cycle of technologies and routines in practice. Rather, it needs to be related to self-reinforcing mechanisms already working within the incumbent system of technologies and routines. In fact, the new technological artefact, through embedding in organizational routines as well as in already used artefacts, can get a specific identity thus contributing to path-breaking; otherwise, it re-enacts previous patterns of use through self-reinforcing mechanisms. In this case, it leads to reduced exploration and organizational adaptation capability, that are the prelude of organizational inertia and lock-in. Further technological choices can thus play a key role in breaking down the above unwanted trajectory and re-orient change.
Path-dependence in technologies and organizational routines: a critical realistic perspective
Luisa Errichiello
2013
Abstract
The path-dependence construct has been largely adopted in management and organization studies to capture the vague idea that "history matters" in explaining organizational phenomena, such as structural inertia, rigidity or lock-in (Sydow et. al., 2009; Vergne & Durand, 2010). However, the logic of the very process producing organi¬zational persistence still remains under-explored and scanty attention has been devoted to the self-reinforcing dynamics influencing its temporal evolution (Schreyögg & Sydow, 2011). Even in recent studies embracing a process perspective (van Driel & Dolfsma, 2009; Valorinta et al., 2011; Kock, 2011), path-dependence analysis has largely remained at strategic level or considering the organization as a whole. Our work aims at shifting the analytical focus through the exploration of organizational path-dependence at very micro-level, i.e. identifying self-reinforcing mechanisms sustaining it over time and produced during work practices. Through embracing a "practice lens" (Orlikowski, 2000; Feldman & Orlikowski, 2012) we would observe organizational path dependence at the two intertwined layers: the domain of organizational routines, i.e. the repetitive recurrent interaction patterns carried out in the firm for conducting its regular business (Cohen et al., 1996; Feldman & Pentland, 2003); the domain of technological artefacts, i.e. machinery, equipment and software, regularly used to support work activities (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001; Kroes & Meijer, 2006) and playing a key role in organizational routine dynamics (Pentland & Feldman, 2008; D'Adderio, 2008; Leonardi, 2011) Both evolutionary and behavioural theories of the firm (Nelson & Winter, 1981; Cyert & March, 1963) have recognized that organizational routines develop in a path-dependent manner and that feedback effects play a key role in explaining such a phenomenon (Becker, 2004). However, the mechanisms through which initial conditions or chance events trigger a self-reinforcing dynamics and how different performance-revealing effects jointly work in producing path-dependence still remained unexplored. As for technology, organizational path-dependence has been hitherto investigated only at the level of strategic investments (e.g. Murman & Frenken, 2006; Valorinta et al., 2011). However, once a specific technological choice is made and a given technology is implemented, it inscribes the beliefs, goals and expectations of managers (and developers), embedding them in its material features. During the adoption stage, practitioners exercise their agency to enact a specific technology-in-use, so conditioning the further development path of technology. In organizational studies on technology, constructivist theoretical approaches have been adopted to assess the social dynamic of technology evolution and explain the dynamic that leads to the institutionalization of a certain technology (Pinch & Bijkers, 1987; Latour, 2005). However, in these studies the focus is on the development stage of the technology cycle, so that the self-reinforcing dynamics underpinning technological path-dependence during the enactment stage has remained substantially neglected. In our work we tackle the following research question: How do the co-evolutionary paths of technologies and organizational routines shape the self-reinforcing dynamics influencing the organizational adaptation capability over time? A critical realistic perspective (Bhaskar, 1978) is explicitly embraced since it is well-suited with a relational ontology and the need to explore the technological artefact in both its material and social dimensions. Coherently with critical realism, technology is treated as a dynamic and changeable system where new components are gradually added or, alternatively, replaced to old ones during its temporal evolution, so exhibiting a variable influence on the self-reinforcing mechanisms. Furthermore, a morphogenetic approach (Archer, 1998) is adopted to trace the temporal unfolding dynamics that intertwined technology and routines, so enabling to understand how they together shape the self-reinforcing dynamics that potentially leads to get stuck on a rigidified action pattern. Exogenous triggers in the development path, i.e. strategic changes in structuring elements of technology and routine, act as "perturbing" events in the self-reinforcing dynamics at work. We address the research question through conducting a longitudinal, explorative and inductive case study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994) in an Italian middle-sized service firm holding a national leading position in the fleet management sector. Data was collected through 26 semi-structured interviews, archival material and two-months participant observation. Data analysis was based on qualitative methods (Langley, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994) and focused on the organizational change process that simultaneously involved technological artefacts and a core business organizational routine (called "authority") between the period 2008-2011. Our empirical evidence adds to previous research on technologies and routines (Pentland and Feldman 2005; D'Adderio, 2011; Leonardi, 2011), investigating how their temporal co-evolution creates organizational path-dependence. The case analysis shows that a variety of combinations of "technologies-in-practice" (Orlikowski, 2000) and "routines-in-practice" (Feldman, 2000) emerges at the end of each social interaction cycle. The addition or substitution of a given component to the incumbent technological system puts into action a phase of change and mutual adaptation between the new technological configuration and local practices (Orlikowski, 1996; Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994). However, the actual scope of action is progressively reduced over time, since human agency tend to exert less reflexivity when to face unexpected events or emergence situations. A significant insight is related to the number and nature of self-reinforcing mechanisms that bring about path-dependence in organizational routines (Arthur, 1988; David, 1985; Sydow et al., 2009). Our empirical evidence shows how the specific nature of technology - together with contextual elements - influences the direction and the intensity of the mutual adaptation process: the actual impact of self-reinforcing mechanisms on strengthening or reducing morphogenesis depends not only on how they work after that a new exogenous event has triggered a new transformational cycle of technologies and routines in practice. Rather, it needs to be related to self-reinforcing mechanisms already working within the incumbent system of technologies and routines. In fact, the new technological artefact, through embedding in organizational routines as well as in already used artefacts, can get a specific identity thus contributing to path-breaking; otherwise, it re-enacts previous patterns of use through self-reinforcing mechanisms. In this case, it leads to reduced exploration and organizational adaptation capability, that are the prelude of organizational inertia and lock-in. Further technological choices can thus play a key role in breaking down the above unwanted trajectory and re-orient change.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
