IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iacpro/0200686.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Organisational routines may not be effective for the emerging market firms

Author

Listed:
  • Rifat Kamasak

    (Yeditepe University, Faculty of Commerce)

  • Meltem Yavuz

    (Istanbul University; School of Transportation and Logistics)

Abstract

Understanding the internal dynamics of an organisation?s routines makes it possible to learn more about the organisation, observe the operation of power dynamics, and foresee the potential conflicts that are likely to emerge (Pentland & Feldman, 2005). Eisenhardt and Martin (2000, p. 1106) identify routines as ?complex and analytic processes that extensively rely on existing knowledge, linear execution, and repetition to produce predictable outcomes at different organisational levels?. Routines facilitate the learning in the organisations about ?what the firm does and how it does? through being transmitted to firm?s culture and employees (Zollo & Winter, 2002). Although organisational routine literature based on the research that was mostly conducted in developed countries suggests a strong association between routinisation and firm performance and sustained competitive advantage, this may not always be true especially for the emerging market firms. Emerging market firms operate in a business environment where rapid economic growth, political instability, investor heterogeneity (as a result of offering different information sets to different investors), high level of uncertainty, financial volatility and risk, less transparency and legal frameworks allowing opportunism, corruption and rent shifting dominate the whole market (Hoskisson et al., 2000; Nowak-Lehmann et al., 2007). Hence, strategic flexibility which ?allows firms to respond quickly to dynamic and unstable environmental changes by committing resources to new courses of action, and recognise and act promptly when it is time to halt or reverse existing resource commitments? (Liu et al., 2013, p. 82) is particularly important for the firms operating in emerging markets. Therefore, repetitive and stable routines may not address the context and environment-specific problems of the firms and high strategic flexibility requirement of emerging market firms may discharge routinisation for their strategic operations.As a support to this argument, a recent research (Kamasak, 2013) that was conducted on a multi-industry sample of 176 Turkish firms revealed some noteworthy results. In the study, whilst no relationship between organisational routines and organisational performance was found business processes were significantly associated with performance. In fact, this finding is consistent with the high strategic flexibility requirements of the Turkish firms. Therefore, the suggestion about the ineffectiveness of organisational routines for emerging market firms may be explained within the context of high strategic flexibility requirements of them as a consequence of the country-specific hyperchanging social, economic, and political environments that were highly observed in most emerging markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Rifat Kamasak & Meltem Yavuz, 2014. "Organisational routines may not be effective for the emerging market firms," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 0200686, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
  • Handle: RePEc:sek:iacpro:0200686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iises.net/proceedings/10th-international-academic-conference-vienna/table-of-content/detail?cid=2&iid=52&rid=686
    File Function: First version, 2014
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Galbreath, Jeremy & Galvin, Peter, 2008. "Firm factors, industry structure and performance variation: New empirical evidence to a classic debate," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 109-117, February.
    2. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1504-1511, December.
    3. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    4. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and the Sustainability of Competitive Advantage: Reply," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1514-1514, December.
    5. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines: a review of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 643-678, August.
    6. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    7. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    8. Felicitas Nowak‐Lehmann & Dierk Herzer & Inmaculada Martinez‐Zarzoso & Sebastian Vollmer, 2007. "The Impact of a Customs Union between Turkey and the EU on Turkey's Exports to the EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 719-743, September.
    9. Cohen, Michael D, et al, 1996. "Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(3), pages 653-698.
    10. Brian T. Pentland & Martha S. Feldman, 2005. "Organizational routines as a unit of analysis," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 14(5), pages 793-815, October.
    11. G. Tomas M. Hult & David J. Ketchen & Mathias Arrfelt, 2007. "Strategic supply chain management: Improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(10), pages 1035-1052, October.
    12. Carlo Salvato, 2009. "Capabilities Unveiled: The Role of Ordinary Activities in the Evolution of Product Development Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 384-409, April.
    13. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines : a review of the literature," Post-Print hal-00279010, HAL.
    14. Ramamurti, Ravi, 2012. "Competing with emerging market multinationals," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 241-249.
    15. Yiannis E. Spanos & Spyros Lioukas, 2001. "An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the resource‐based perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(10), pages 907-934, October.
    16. Felicitas Nowak‐Lehmann & Dierk Herzer & Inmaculada Martinez‐Zarzoso & Sebastian Vollmer, 2007. "The Impact of a Customs Union between Turkey and the EU on Turkey's Exports to the EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 719-743, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    2. Schriber, Svante & Löwstedt, Jan, 2015. "Tangible resources and the development of organizational capabilities," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-68.
    3. Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    4. Matthias Brauer & Tomi Laamanen, 2014. "Workforce Downsizing and Firm Performance: An Organizational Routine Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(8), pages 1311-1333, December.
    5. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1119-1154, September.
    6. Gopesh Anand & John Gray & Enno Siemsen, 2012. "Decay, Shock, and Renewal: Operational Routines and Process Entropy in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1700-1716, December.
    7. Isabelle Le Breton-Miller & Danny Miller, 2015. "The paradox of resource vulnerability: Considerations for organizational curatorship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 397-415, March.
    8. Giovanni. Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2004. "50th Anniversay Article: The Strategy Field from the Perspective of Management Science: Divergent Strands and Possible Integration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1309-1318, October.
    9. Wolfgang H. Güttel & Stefan Konlechner & Barbara Müller, 2012. "Entscheidungsmuster und Veränderungsarchitekturen in Wandelprozessen: Eine Dynamic Capabilities-Perspektive," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 64(6), pages 630-654, September.
    10. Scott F. Turner & Violina Rindova, 2012. "A Balancing Act: How Organizations Pursue Consistency in Routine Functioning in the Face of Ongoing Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 24-46, February.
    11. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Eckhard Lichtenthaler, 2009. "A Capability‐Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1315-1338, December.
    12. Arie Y. Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2011. "Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 81-98, February.
    13. Bing Bai & Byungjoon Yoo & Xiuquan Deng & Iljoo Kim & Dehua Gao, 2016. "Linking routines to the evolution of IT capability on agent-based modeling and simulation: a dynamic perspective," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 184-211, June.
    14. Koen H. Heimeriks & Geert Duysters, 2007. "Alliance Capability as a Mediator Between Experience and Alliance Performance: An Empirical Investigation into the Alliance Capability Development Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 25-49, January.
    15. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    16. Yolande E. Chan & James S. Denford & Joyce Y. Jin, 2016. "Competing Through Knowledge and Information Systems Strategies: A Study of Small and Medium-Sized Firms," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 1-37, September.
    17. Guo, Jingjing & Guo, Bin & Zhou, Jianghua & Wu, Xiaobo, 2020. "How does the ambidexterity of technological learning routine affect firm innovation performance within industrial clusters? The moderating effects of knowledge attributes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    18. Peter Abell & Teppo Felin & Nicolai Foss, 2008. "Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 489-502.
    19. Robert Charles Sheldon & Eric Michael Laviolette & Fabien Geuser, 2020. "Explaining the process and effects of new routine introduction with a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 609-642, July.
    20. Heimeriks, K. & Duysters, G.M., 2004. "A study into the alliance capability development process," Working Papers 04.21, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Organisational routines; strategic flexibility; firm performance; emerging market firms;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sek:iacpro:0200686. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klara Cermakova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://iises.net/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.