Resist or Comply: The Power Dynamics of Organizational Routines during Mergers
| Author | Omid Omidvar,Mehdi Safavi |
| Date | 01 July 2016 |
| Published date | 01 July 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12167 |
British Journal of Management, Vol. 27, 550–566 (2016)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12167
Resist or Comply: The Power Dynamics of
Organizational Routines during Mergers
Mehdi Safavi and Omid Omidvar1
University of Edinburgh Business School, 29 Buccleuch Place, EdinburghEH8 9JS, UK 1Coventry University,
Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK
Corresponding author email: omid.omidvar@coventry.ac.uk
The role of power and agency in the development of organizational routines is under-
theorized. In this paper,we draw on an in-depth qualitative case study of a merger between
two academic institutions, a college of art and a university, and examine the diverging
responses of two organizational routines (admissions and budgeting) during the course
of the merger to understand how power dynamics contribute to resistance/compliance
of routines. Our findings suggest that the dierences in routines’ responses to a merger
initiative can be explained by applying Bourdieu’s theory of practice and by employing
the concepts of field and symbolic capital to unpack power relations in the context of
organizational routines, and to disclose why some routine participants can exercise their
agency while others cannot. We find that (a) the field within which a routineoperates and
(b) the actors’ symbolic capital and position-taking during change implementation shape
routines’ responses to organizational change initiatives.
Introduction
Change and stabilization of routines have enticed
routine’s researchers in the past (Cohen, 2007;
Feldman, 2003; Feldman and Pentland, 2003;
Nelson and Winter, 1982; Rerup and Feldman,
2011). Traditionally, routines have been viewed
as inherently stable entities recursively −or even
mindlessly −enacted by routine participants
(Howard-Grenville and Rerup, 2015; Parmigiani
and Howard-Grenville, 2011) . However, recent
conceptualizations of routines as generative sys-
tems have shown that change, like stability, is
an integral aspect of routine dynamics (Feldman
and Pentland, 2003; Rerup and Feldman, 2011).
Adopting this perspective, authors have closely ex-
amined how interactions between ostensive and
performative aspects of routines result in change
(or stability) by discussing the role of agency in
altering performances vis-`
a-vis structural features
crystallized in routines in principle (Feldman and
Orlikowski, 2011).
Despite the clear reference to power, the notion
of agency carries, our understanding of how
power dynamics aect routines remains limited.
In the embryonic discussion of power by Pentland
and Feldman (2005), power tensions are confined
to the struggles between ostensives (i.e. structure),
which embody managerial interests, and the
performances, which representthe very enactment
of a routine by its participants (i.e. agency). It has
been argued that, through agency, routine partic-
ipants may consistently change the performances
of routines which may then result in permanent
(as opposed to idiosyncratic) changes of routines
(Howard-Grenville and Rerup, 2015). However,
while an appealing concept in discussing routines’
change, agency, in itself, does not suce to explain
why certain actions can be actualized while others
cannot. For instance, although Howard-Grenville
(2005) argues that formal and informal authorities
as well as access to resources are the sources of
power in changing routines our knowledge about
why and under what conditions these factors con-
tribute to the agency remains limited. To explicate
the role of agency in routines’ development, one
has to demonstrate it independently from its re-
alized outcomes (i.e. change/stability of routines)
© 2016 The Authors British Journalof Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Academy
of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is
non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Power Dynamics of Organizational Routines 551
explaining why some routine participants can
exercise agency while others cannot.
Further, in the routines literature, power dy-
namics are mainly discussed within the immediate
context of organizational routines by exploring
the role of (powerful) ‘individuals’ (Howard-
Grenville, 2005) or discussing ‘group dynamics’
(D’Adderio, 2003; Zbaracki and Bergen, 2010)
in enacting and changing routines. According to
Parmigiani and Howard-Grenville (2011), this
predominantly originates from routine scholars’
focus on capturing and analysing routines in
situ. However, this ‘zooming in’ (Nicolini, 2012)
conveys the pitfall of ignoring the broader context
within which routines are embedded and from
which they receive influence.
In this paper, we seek to contribute to the grow-
ing body of literature on organizational routines
by oering a framework that explains how power
dynamics contribute to the change and stabiliza-
tion of routines. We seek to explore this question
in the context of a merger that disrupted the sta-
tus quo of the existing routines providinga suitable
and revelatory context for researching their power
dynamics. We present a longitudinal case study of
a merger between two public sector organizations
(a university and an art college) where the merger
partners endeavoured to centralize their practices
and we examine two administrative routines (ad-
missions and budget allocation) which responded
dierently to the merger initiative. These routines
are chosen specifically since they embrace all fea-
tures of the broadly accepted definition of orga-
nizational routines: they are repetitive (both daily
and annually), they include recognizable patterns
of interdependent actions, and they are carried out
by multiple actors across organizations (Feldman
and Pentland, 2003). While one routine became
fully centralized, attempts to centralize the other
routine failed.
We draw on Bourdieu’s theory of practice
(Bourdieu, 1977, 1992) since it explains how power
is distributed and enacted within a social sphere.
In particular, we adopt two of his relational con-
cepts, namely field and symbolic capital. While
mobilizing the notion of ‘symbolic capital’ allows
us to better explain what enables actors to ex-
ercise their agency in relation to one another in
the context of organizational routines, an appli-
cation of ‘field’ explains how actors can mobilize
their power in relation to the broader context of
organizational routines. Our findings suggest that
the characteristics of the ‘fields’ that surround rou-
tines as well as those of the ‘symbolic capital’
of routine participants shape the development of
multiple understandings of organizational rou-
tines. This, in turn, creates opportunities for
routine participants to accept or negate the
changes originating from merger by conform-
ing to/deviating from their performances of the
routine in principle.
Power dynamics of organizational
routines
Historically, routines were known for their role in
enabling stability and handling uncertainty within
rationally bounded organizations (Coombs and
Metcalfe, 2002; Cyert and March, 1963; March
and Simon, 1958; Nelson and Winter, 1982;
Simon, 1991). However, recent studies have
demonstrated that routines and their internal dy-
namics can be sources of change in organizations
(Feldman, 2004; Feldman and Pentland, 2003).
Feldman and Pentland’s (2003) seminal contri-
bution was key in explaining howroutines change.
Their conceptualization of routine consists of
two aspects: ‘ostensive’ and ‘performative’. The
ostensive is ‘the ideal or the schematic form of the
routine. It is the abstract, generalized idea of the
routine or the routine in principle’ (Feldman and
Pentland, 2003, p. 101). The performative ‘consists
of specific actions, by specific people, in specific
times and places. It is the routine in practice’
(Feldman and Pentland, 2003, p. 101). Due to
the existence and continuous interactions of these
two aspects, routines act as ‘generative systems’
whose actual performances (performative aspects)
may dier from their representations (ostensive
aspects) (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). This, in
turn, results in continuous change in routines
(Feldman, 2000; Hutchins, 1995; Orlikowski,
2000; Weick and Roberts, 1993).
Feldman and Pentland’s (2003) discussion
of power highlights the tensions between the
ostensives, presumably designed by managers, and
the performances enacted by routine participants.
According to them, changes in routines rely on the
individuals who can ‘turn exceptions into rules’
(Feldman and Pentland, 2003, p. 110). The os-
tensive aspects of a routine provide opportunities
for senior managers to exercise power by shaping
those understandings, whereas their enactment
© 2016 The Authors British Journalof Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British
Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial