IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Emergence and Functionality of Organizational Routines An Individualistic Approach


  • Ulrich Witt



The functionality of organizational routines, i.e. the factual value for accomplishing their purposes, is an important constraint on the capabilities an organization can bring to bear on its operations. Often falling short of its potential, the actual make-up of organizational routines invites managerial attention. Of the criteria by which the functionality can be assessed, the generic one discussed in this paper is whose interests this make-up serves. This is determined by the conditions under which organizational routines emerge, particularly the cognitive and motivational attitudes of the organization members involved at this stage. By uncovering how these enhance or impair a routine's functionality for the organization's goals, the paper corroborates the relevance of an individualistic approach in organizational theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrich Witt, 2009. "Emergence and Functionality of Organizational Routines An Individualistic Approach," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2009-24, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
  • Handle: RePEc:esi:evopap:2009-24

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Mata, Jose & Portugal, Pedro, 1994. "Life Duration of New Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 227-245, September.
    2. de Wit, Gerrit, 2005. "Firm size distributions: An overview of steady-state distributions resulting from firm dynamics models," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 423-450, June.
    3. Paolo Angelini & Andrea Generale, 2008. "On the Evolution of Firm Size Distributions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 426-438, March.
    4. Guido Buenstorf & Steven Klepper, 2009. "Heritage and Agglomeration: The Akron Tyre Cluster Revisited," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 705-733, April.
    5. Alex Coad, 2010. "The Exponential Age Distribution and the Pareto Firm Size Distribution," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 389-395, September.
    6. Enrico Santarelli & Marco Vivarelli, 2007. "Entrepreneurship and the process of firms’ entry, survival and growth," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 455-488, June.
    7. Mata, Jose & Portugal, Pedro & Guimaraes, Paulo, 1995. "The survival of new plants: Start-up conditions and post-entry evolution," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 459-481, December.
    8. Reed, William J., 2001. "The Pareto, Zipf and other power laws," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 15-19, December.
    9. Giulio Bottazzi & Angelo Secchi & Federico Tamagni, 2008. "Productivity, profitability and financial performance," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 711-751, August.
    10. Alexander Coad & Jagannadha Pawan Tamvada, 2008. "The Growth and Decline of Small firms In Developing Countries," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2008-08, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    11. Growiec, Jakub & Pammolli, Fabio & Riccaboni, Massimo & Stanley, H. Eugene, 2008. "On the size distribution of business firms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 207-212, February.
    12. Huergo, Elena & Jaumandreu, Jordi, 2004. "Firms' age, process innovation and productivity growth," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 541-559, April.
    13. Luís M B Cabral & José Mata, 2003. "On the Evolution of the Firm Size Distribution: Facts and Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1075-1090, September.
    14. Knorr, Andreas & Arndt, Andreas, 2004. "Alliance strategy and the fall of Swissair: a comment," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 119-123.
    15. Giulio Bottazzi & Angelo Secchi, 2005. "Growth and Diversification Patterns of the Worldwide Pharmaceutical Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 26(2), pages 195-216, December.
    16. Giorgio Fagiolo & Alessandra Luzzi, 2006. "Do liquidity constraints matter in explaining firm size and growth? Some evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 1-39, February.
    17. Levinthal, D.A. & Fichman, M., 1991. "Honeymoons and the Liability of Adolescence : A New Perspective on Duration Dependence in Social Organizational Relationships," GSIA Working Papers 1991-34, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    18. Cook, William & Ormerod, Paul, 2003. "Power law distribution of the frequency of demises of US firms," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 324(1), pages 207-212.
    19. Elena Huergo & Jordi Jaumandreu, 2004. "How Does Probability of Innovation Change with Firm Age?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3_4), pages 193-207, April.
    20. Marianne Bertrand & Antoinette Schoar, 2006. "The Role of Family in Family Firms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 73-96, Spring.
    21. Winker, Peter, 1996. "Causes and effects of financing constraints at the firm level: Some microeconometric evidence," Discussion Papers, Series II 292, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".
    22. Orietta Marsili, 2005. "Technology and the Size Distribution of Firms: Evidence from Dutch Manufacturing," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 27(4), pages 303-328, December.
    23. Audretsch, David B, 1991. "New-Firm Survival and the Technological Regime," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(3), pages 441-450, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Abatecola, Gianpaolo, 2014. "Research in organizational evolution. What comes next?," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 434-443.
    2. Nathalie Lazaric & Alain Raybaut, 2014. "Do incentive systems spur work motivation of inventors in high tech firms? A group-based perspective," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 135-157, January.
    3. Lazaric, Nathalie, 2011. "Organizational routines and cognition: an introduction to empirical and analytical contributions," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(02), pages 147-156, June.
    4. Stephan Bieri & Franz Lehner, 2014. "The US Research University – Systemic Limits of a Model," CREMA Working Paper Series 2014-15, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    5. Duschl, Matthias & Schimke, Antje & Brenner, Thomas & Luxen, Dennis, 2011. "Firm growth and the spatial impact of geolocated external factors: Empirical evidence for German manufacturing firms," Working Paper Series in Economics 36, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Business Engineering.
    6. Nathalie Lazaric & Alain Raybaut, 2014. "Do incentive systems spur work motivations of inventors in high-tech firms," Post-Print halshs-00930186, HAL.
    7. Safarzyńska, Karolina & Frenken, Koen & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2012. "Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1011-1024.
    8. Matthias Duschl & Antje Schimke & Thomas Brenner & Dennis Luxen, 2011. "Firm Growth and the Spatial Impact of Geolocated External Factors – Empirical Evidence for German Manufacturing Firms," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2011-03, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.

    More about this item


    organization; routines; capabilities; knowledge; mental models; motivation Length 18 pages;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:esi:evopap:2009-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christoph Mengs). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.