Are Routines Reducible or Mere Cognitive Automatisms? Some contributions from cognitive science to help shed light on change in routines

The aim of this article is to understand permanence and changes inside organizational routines. For this purpose, it seems important to explain how individual and collective memorisation occurs, so as to grasp how knowledge can be converted into routines. Although memorisation mechanisms imply a degree of durability, our procedural and declarative knowledge, and our memorisation processes, evolve so that individuals and organisations can project themselves into the future and innovate. Some authors highlight the necessity of dreaming and forgetting (Bergson 1896); others believe that emotions play a role in our memorisation processes (Damasio 1994). These dimensions are not only important at the individual level but also in an organisational context (Lazaric and Denis 2005; Reynaud 2005; Pentland and Feldman 2005).I review the individual dimension of these memorisation processes, with the Anderson’s distinction between procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge. I discuss the notion of cognitive automatisms in order to show why routines should be investigated beyond their first literal assumption (Bargh, 1997). This leads to a clear understanding of the micro level that underpins organisational flexibility and adaptation (notably the motivational triggers). Within organisations, the memorisation mechanisms are at once similar and diverse. Indeed, organisations use their own filters and mechanisms to generate organisational coordination. Organizational memory has its own dimension as it does not merely consist of the sum of individual knowledge and must be able to survive when individuals leave. Routines depend on the organisational memory implemented and on the procedural knowledge and representations of it (individual and collective representations).