Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Chapter 2 Transferring Routines Across Multiple Boundaries: A Flexible Approach

2019; Emerald Publishing Limited; Linguagem: Inglês

10.1108/s0733-558x20190000061003

0733-558X

Siri Nordland Boe-Lillegraven,

Business Strategy and Innovation

Abstract We currently know little about how transferring can be accomplished when source- and target environments only have little in common. This chapter utilizes the case of EuroCo and AsiaCo to account for how a transfer of interrelated routines across multiple boundaries unfolds. A pragmatic and flexible approach to transferring, where coordinating actors attended to replication and adaptation as means rather than ends, is illuminated. Notably, coordinators split their work into smaller chunks by focusing on artifacts, people, and actions. As pressures to progress the transfer increased, they conceived of new ideas for performances and put the ideas to use along three trajectories focused on embedding, embodying, and enacting routines. Eventually, they blended performances from each trajectory back together into a new overarching notion of what was to be transferred. In elaborating on and discussing these findings, the chapter contributes to literature on routine transfer. Boundary conditions and avenues for future research are discussed. Keywords Routine transfer Replication Adaptation Coordinating Routine dynamics Performative struggles Citation Boe-Lillegraven, S. (2019), "Transferring Routines Across Multiple Boundaries: A Flexible Approach", Feldman, M.S., D’Aderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P. (Ed.) Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 61), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 31-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000061003 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2019 Siri Boe-Lillegraven. License This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and noncommercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Introduction “Do you know how to do this?” The question was posed on the phone to one of the higher-level managers in EuroCo, a large food multinational with a home base in Europe. The manager’s name appeared on the advertisement for a new position. I had called him on a hunch not to get the job, but to learn about a project mentioned in the work description. The project as well as the job, it turned out, concerned a “transfer.” It was to be carried out together with another large food multinational, AsiaCo, in the home market of the latter. More specifically, the new hire would help export a quality control system, a set of production routines used in the raw milk supply chain of EuroCo in Europe, to AsiaCo and their supply chain in Asia. This was no small ambition, since the source- and target contexts differed in multiple ways. The organizational and industrial set-ups, for example, were poles apart. EuroCo, a cooperative, had for long been working closely with their raw milk suppliers. AsiaCo, a listed corporation, had mainly kept producers at arm’s length. Complications could also be expected due to the large geographical span of the transfer and the differing languages and cultures involved. Hence, as he attended to my question (“do you know how to do this”), the EuroCo manager hesitated to spell out an unequivocal “yes.” They believed they could do it, he clarified. After all, both organizations had committed to the transfer, evident from a signed project agreement. The idea was to set up a model of the system routines at one raw milk farm. Later, they would disseminate this model to other AsiaCo suppliers, although some changes would probably have to be made. Exactly how to progress (or “do this”), the manager alleged, “is what we will have to find out.” Routines are essential for helping organizations reproduce knowledge and technologies across locations (Argote, 2012; Kostova, 1999; Winter & Szulanski, 2001). Yet, scholars have only recently started unpacking the full complexity involved as practices are targeted for transferring between highly diverse contexts (Bertels, Howard-Grenville, & Pek, 2016; D’Adderio, 2014, 2017). At present, we still know little about how transferring can be accomplished when the source- and target environment only have little in common, such as when routines are subject to move across, rather than within, organizations (Friesl & Larty, 2013). This is unfortunate, since independent organizations are increasingly joining forces to export complex routines between locations across the world (Bouncken, Gast, Kraus, & Bogers, 2015; Dagnino, 2012; Luo, 2004). Thus, to better align transferring research with practice, there is a need to explore how routines can be recreated across multiple boundaries: organizational, geographical, as well as cultural. Previous research allows for the anticipation that organizations aiming to transfer one or more routines are likely to encounter performative struggles, which denote a kind of confrontation-in-action between competing ordering systems or goals (Callon, 2007; D’Adderio, 2017; D’Adderio & Pollock, 2014). As part of performative struggles during transferring, some practitioners may gravitate toward mobilizing social and material features in support of routine replication, while others will try to promote routine adaptation (D’Adderio, 2014). The literature on transfer-as-replication, nevertheless, recommends organizations to suppress adaptation of routines until an exact copy of the source routines has been accomplished (Winter & Szulanski, 2001). At the same time, the literature recognizes that not all settings lend themselves to this approach (Szulanski & Winter, 2002; Winter, Szulanski, Ringov, & Jensen, 2012). Instead, then, organizations might enact a transfer-as-adaptation, where actors to a larger extent alter routines as they integrate them into a target environment (Bertels et al., 2016; Lazaric & Denis, 2005), or where actors redesign routines in a separate organizational process prior to replication (Gupta, Hoopes, & Knott, 2015). These differing alternatives illustrate that transfers and performative struggles may unfold in numerous ways, depending on circumstances (D’Adderio, 2014, p. 1348). More research is needed to unpack the plurality of possible transferring approaches and illuminate the conditions under which some performances, and struggles, are likely to take place (D’Adderio, 2017; Gupta et al., 2015; Winter et al., 2012). Drawing on a process study of an inter-organizational routine transfer that took place between EuroCo and AsiaCo, the present chapter addresses both of the abovementioned needs: the need to account for the practice of routine transfer across multiple boundaries and the need to learn more about how specific circumstances may impact transferring. The case exemplifies transferring under extreme conditions, where multiple routines are to be recreated across fundamentally different settings. The access I gained to an inter-organizational team in charge of coordinating the transfer allowed me to trace processual dynamics over time. This enabled answering the following research question, with particular attention to the role of coordinators: How does transferring of routines across organizational structures, cultures, and geographical locations unfold, and what are the performative struggles at play? The case analysis illuminated a flexible, creative and pragmatic approach to transferring. Coordinators abandoned their initial focus on routine replication due to a number of contextual constraints, such as key stakeholders’ differing interests and priorities. As coordinators struggled to proceed, they enacted and further progressed a transfer-as-adaptation as they learned more about which routines were afforded by the target environment. Notably, coordinators first split their work into smaller chunks by focusing on artifacts, people and actions. As pressures to progress the transfer increased, they generated new ideas for performances and put these ideas to use along performative trajectories focused on embedding routines (in artifacts), embodying routines (in people) and enacting routines (in practice). Eventually, the coordinators blended performances focused on artifacts, people, and actions back together into a new overarching idea of what was to be transferred. Instead of emphasizing a system for control, they shifted their attention to creating structures for giving advice. The further discussion of these findings serve to expand and develop ideas related to performative struggles and selective performance (D’Adderio, 2014, 2017) and the changing nature of objectives (Dittrich & Seidl, 2018) during transferring. The rest of the chapter proceeds as follows. First, the literature mobilized by the study is outlined. Second, the empirical case and methodological approach is introduced. Third, findings are presented in the form of narratives and analytical summaries. Fourth, contributions and questions for future research are discussed. Literature Routines, defined as repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions carried out by multiple actors (Feldman & Pentland, 2003), can help organizations create value in ways that may be hard to copy (Grant, 1991; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Vogel & Hansen, 2011). Exactly for this reason, however, organizations may try to duplicate routines across locations to further benefit from their associated returns (Argote, 2012; D’Adderio, 2014; Winter & Szulanski, 2001). It is not strictly possible to separate routines from their original context, due to their embedded, situated, and socio-material nature (Howard-Grenville, 2005; Kremser & Schreyögg, 2016; Orlikowski, 2007). Yet, new routines can be created in a target context informed by routines in a source context, which we typically understand as a transfer. A routine dynamics lens has proved to be useful for deepening our understanding of transferring because it insists on seeing routines as more than entities, or things (Feldman, Pentland, D’Adderio, & Lazaric, 2016). As opposed to considering a transfer as accomplished when routines’ associated knowledge and artifacts have been transmitted from one setting to another, a routine dynamics approach pays explicit attention to performances, which involves actually assembling things and relationships in practice (D’Adderio, 2017). Transferring is thus, from a routine dynamics perspective, understood as a continuously emergent achievement, produced by situated combinations of actors, artifacts, and understandings. Transferring is bound to involve some degree of transformation, and the degree to which the transferred routines resemble a source template can vary from case to case (Friesl & Larty, 2013; Gherardi & Nicolini, 2000). So far, the literature has predominantly illuminated routine transferring as it is performed by single organizations who integrate routines modeled from an external source (Bertels et al., 2016; Canato, Ravasi, & Phillips, 2013; Lazaric & Denis, 2005) or transferring between organizational units that share the same parent or owner (Ansari, Reinecke, & Spaan, 2014; D’Adderio, 2014; Gupta et al., 2015). Progressively, routines are traded between independent organizations (Bouncken et al., 2015; Dagnino, 2012; Luo, 2004). Routines are thus subject to transferring attempts spanning boundaries of ownership, nationalities, and cultures. We currently lack clarity regarding how such settings shape the prospects and process of transferring routines. This is unfortunate, since inter- and intra-organizational transferring processes are likely to be distinct (Easterby-Smith, Lyles, & Tsang, 2008). Despite this void in the literature, recent work has highlighted some key phenomena that may play out differently in different transferring setups: performative struggles and the patterned responses to such struggles, in particular the responses of coordinating actors. Performative Struggles and Responses during Transferring In her study of an outstanding organization attempting to copy an advanced computer server from one geographical location to another, D’Adderio (2014) directed attention to how organizations “enact routinized patterns that selectively perform one goal over another, both at specific points in time, and over time” (p. 1345). In essence, she unpacked how the transfer was influenced by the simultaneous presence of, and actors selective responses to, two contrasting organizational goals: one pushing for routine replication and the other pushing for routine adaptation. The presence of such competing goals, or programs (Callon, 2007), resulted in performative struggles that shaped the process and outcomes of transferring (D’Adderio, 2017; D’Adderio & Pollock, 2014). The literature on transferring highlights two main solutions to, or rather enactments of, performative struggles. In the case studied by D’Adderio (2014), performances supporting replication were first foregrounded while performances supporting adaptation were suppressed. Post-transfer, the logic gradually shifted so that performances favoring adaptation dominated (D’Adderio, 2014). Due to the predominant idea of first prioritizing imitation of routines, nevertheless, this accomplishment can be seen as a transfer-as-replication. Another response to performative struggles entails more flexibly integrating routines into a target environment, to fit the new context (Ansari et al., 2014; Bertels et al., 2014; Canato et al., 2013). In some cases, this integration may be achieved by first engaging in a separate redesign process and later spreading the redesigned routines across different organizational units and locations (Gupta et al., 2015). Due to the predominant logic of first prioritizing routine adjustment in these cases, they exemplify transfer-as-adaptation. There is a need for more research on when and why organizations may enact a transfer-as-replication versus a transfer-as-adaptation (D’Adderio, 2014; Gupta et al., 2015). Based on current literature on transferring, organizations seem to find replication well suited for gaining advantages relating to economies of scale and for achieving a high outcome predictability of operations across locations (Szulanski & Winter, 2002; Winter et al., 2012; Winter & Szulanski, 2001). This rationale rests on the insight that, due to the complexity of routines, there is causal ambiguity regarding how an established routine creates value (Axelrod & Cohen, 1999). To avoid missing out on its key components, copying all the elements associated with the routine and bringing them together (replicating) in the new context is recommended before adjustments are made (Ansari et al., 2010; Terwiesch & Xu, 2004; Winter et al., 2012). As D’Adderio (2014) showed, this does not mean that performances supporting adaptation are completely eliminated. Instead, they are largely, and temporarily, suppressed until a working model has been established. The replication literature recognizes that performing a transfer-as-replication is inherently difficult (Szulanski & Winter, 2002). Bertels et al. (2016) observed such difficulties in their study of how one organization (OilCo) attempted to integrate a routine used by industry peers. For OilCo, the routine subject to copying was a cultural misfit, which led to unintended workarounds and hindered performances. In the words of the authors: integrating a routine can lead to the repeated performance of more complex patterns of action than those originally espoused, because additional work is done by employees as they try to accommodate the misalignment of their culture with the espoused routine. (Bertels et al., 2016, p. 587) Other cases, too, support the idea that some contexts and conditions may invite adaptation, rather than replication. When the practice of Six Sigma was implemented in 3M, for example, the routine to be integrated was changed along with the cultural repertoires of the people performing it (Canato et al., 2013), thus helping to avoid some of the inefficiencies experienced by OilCo. A case where a management practice was adapted within a multinational led Ansari et al. (2014) to argue that a template logic may prevent, rather than ease, diffusion in a target environment. In their study of a failed transfer-as-adaptation, Gupta et al. (2015) suggested that an initial redesign phase is needed when a routine is to be replicated to a context vitally different from the source. The Role of Coordinators in Responding To and Shaping Performative Struggles The notion of performative struggles, and the potential plurality of how a transfer can be performed, begs the question of what, or who, decides whether one goal or program will be foregrounded and another suppressed during transferring. D’Adderio (2017) illustrates that combinations of situations, actors, and artifacts afford different responses to programs at different points in time. This situational agencement, rather than simply agency, may eventually develop into a pattern where one performative program, and goal, is favored over another (Callon, 2007; D’Adderio, 2017). Notwithstanding the importance of paying attention to agencement, past studies illustrate that some actors may play a particularly prominent role in responding to performative struggles during transferring, namely coordinators. Work focused on knowledge- and technology transfer, for instance, highlights how coordinators may act as gatekeepers, brokers, trainers, or testers and thus be instrumental for progressing a transfer over time (Battistella, De Toni, & Pillon, 2016; Van Burg, Berends, & Raaij, 2014; Howells, 2006). In Lazaric and Denis (2005) study of an organization that changed routines to comply with an ISO norm, coordinators were important for motivating participation and facilitating communication. In the studies by D’Adderio (2014) and Bertels et al. (2016), coordinating actors mobilized artifacts and communities to influence routines toward alignment or improvement. As they attend to contrasting pressures during a transfer, moreover, coordinators might end up revising ideas about what the transfer should accomplish. In Dittrich and Seidls (2018) study of emerging intentionality in CellCo, actors gradually updated their understanding of what an assembly routine should achieve as they shifted attention between the initial purpose of the routine (ad hoc production), the means to pursue this purpose (assembling whenever there was a need) and emerging new goals, referred to as ends-in-view (preserving lab space during the day time). During this process, new means (working nights and weekends) came to be foregrounded while yet other emerging ends-in-view (enabling workers to autonomously organize their work) further influenced which actions were taken. Over time, the understanding of what the routine should accomplish (production outside of normal working hours) was revised (Dittrich & Seidl, 2018). Although it does not concern a transfer as such, Dittrich and Seidls (2018) study is important because it highlights the possibility that initial contrasting goals of a transfer, such as replication or adaptation, might not necessarily remain in conflict as a transfer unfolds. Rather than being foregrounded and suppressed at different points in time, such goals may come to be reinvented or outcompeted by other performative programs and goals, as coordinators make sense of how to proceed. The telecom giant Eriksson’s transition to an agile development routine supports this idea. In this case, exemplifying a deliberate routine change, the initial goal was related to efficiency, but managers in Ericsson discovered a new purpose and performative trajectory along the way, namely that “the new mode of operation could also further small-scale innovation” (Lindkvist, Bengtsson, Svensson, & Wahlstedt, 2016, p. 587). Despite these pointers from the literatures on transferring and routine dynamics, no studies seem to have unpacked the nature of performative struggles when routines are transferred across organizations and highly dissimilar contexts. It remains to be discovered how coordinators and other actors influence which goals are attended to, and the means through which they are accomplished, in such cases. Case and Method To unpack the dynamics of routine transfer across highly dissimilar contexts, a process study (Langley, 1999; Locke, 2001) is utilized. The study started in 2013, broadly focused on tracking the collaborative activities of two multinationals. Processual approaches are particularly suited to uncover the interplay of the actions and motives of agents and the evolving contexts surrounding them (Van Burg et al., 2014; Berends & Deken, 2019; Giddens, 1984). The findings relevant for this chapter came about after zooming in on how coordinators from the two organizations progressed a specific transfer project. As revealed by the vignette introducing this chapter, the two organizations of interest (EuroCo and AsiaCo) had agreed to transfer a quality control system from EuroCo in Europe to AsiaCo in Asia. The organizations were similar in a few ways: they were among the world’s top producers within their trade; they operated across borders and were thus present in partly overlapping markets. Importantly, they originated from, and had their home bases in, different parts of the world. Moreover, as further elaborated in the findings, they differed considerably in terms of organizational structure and culture. Due to these profound differences compared to other known examples, the transfer between EuroCo and AsiaCo can be seen as informative for illuminating transferring under extreme conditions (Flyvbjerg, 2006). How the Data Were Collected and Analyzed The main methods of data collection consisted of ethnographic procedures such as non-participant observation, shadowing, informal interviews, and documentary reviews (McDonald, 2005; O’Reilly, 2012). Data collection took place in Asia and Europe during two years, starting in the fall of 2013. For example, I visited a number of production sites in the milieu of AsiaCo where I talked informally with shop floor employees as well as managers. I visited similar sites of EuroCo in Europe together with the inter-organizational team of coordinators. I observed a large-scale training of inspectors in Asia and interviewed trainers and coordinators about other trainings. I spent time in the office with coordinators and participated in their meetings. When I did not personally observe important events, I inquired about them retrospectively through calls or email. I followed quality inspectors in AsiaCo at work and interviewed them informally to understand their current practices. At one point, it was decided to send a practitioner from EuroCo to work with producers in Asia for six months. I captured the process leading up to this decision in my interviews and informally interviewed the practitioner after his return. The latter data were compared with data captured during informal interviews with production site managers in Asia. I further triangulated with data from other sources (Jick, 1979; Strauss, 1987) such as reports, meeting minutes, annual reports, and copies of internal presentations. I also conducted independent searches for news articles and industry briefings. To guide my analysis I developed a visual data structure (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013) by means of open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). For this chapter, I went back to the raw data to zoom in on the dimensions and themes of interest. My initial analysis had captured the flexible nature of how the routine transfer was enacted over time and identified three performative trajectories focused on artifacts (embedding), people (embodying), and actions (enacting). Moreover, I had noted that the learning taking place during these differing trajectories led to a rethinking of the system subject to transfer. My initial analysis did not elaborate on why the specific performances were chosen by coordinators or the dynamics through which adjustments were made. I therefore re-read field notes and re-examined timelines. During this process, I went back to the literature on transferring, which provided the language of performative struggles (Callon, 2007; D’Adderio, 2017) and ends-in-view (Dittrich & Seidl, 2018) to talk about some of the findings. During the final analytical stage, I drew up an empirical model as well as a simplified theoretical model of the dynamics at play. As for the purpose of presenting the findings, I went back to field notes in search for representative observations and quotes. To ease readability, I organized the observations and quotes into two narratives. Findings To effectively communicate the findings I provide two elaborate narratives followed by analytical summaries. Together, the narratives illustrate transferring as it unfolded across highly dissimilar contexts and the nature of the performative struggles at play. Narrative 1 reflects initial conditions and struggles experienced by coordinators. Narrative 2, to a larger extent, reflects responses to the struggles over time. Narrative 1: Initial Conditions and Performative Struggles It was already several months since I had first called up EuroCo to learn about their transferring project with AsiaCo. “We will have to find out” had the upper level manager answered when I asked if they knew how to proceed. Now, in a car moving across the Asian country side, a newly hired EuroCo manager (the one who got the job from the advertisement) was getting close to finding out that their initial plans had to be revised. Exactly what to do instead was yet to be discovered. After a long day at work, the drive back had started out in silence, except for the presence of two tapping sounds. The first sound came from small rocks projecting from underneath the wheels of our car; gravel roads are hard to avoid when paying visits to raw milk farms. The other sound was produced by the EuroCo manager herself, as she typed up e-mails on her tablet. She paused only for phone calls or, if probed, to clarify what she was thinking or doing. “Our plans are always changing. But that’s just how things work here, I am getting more used to it now,” she explained after a while. “You are a fast learner, very good,” chuckled her new colleague, a manager in AsiaCo. He was in the front passenger seat, next to the driver. Turning to look at us, he added, seemingly amused by the idea: “You know, she’s [becoming] more and more like us.” The two managers in the car had established a good rapport by now. While they technically worked for different employers, they were both part of an inter-organizational center of expertise. During the past decade or so, many European producers (such as EuroCo) had been interested in the Asian market, due to its size and its growing segment of consumers willing to pay a premium for foreign brands. Concurrently, Asian producers (such as AsiaCo) had paid increasing attention to how foreign manufacturers organized production in the hope of achieving similar levels of quality and efficiency. Against this background, EuroCo and AsiaCo had co-founded the center of expertise in Asia as part of a series of mutually beneficial exchanges of know-how. EuroCo wanted to learn about marketing their products in Asia while AsiaCo was interested in European management practices. The exchanges were negotiated on a project-by-project basis. Among the largest so far was a transfer, coordinated by the center. According to the formal project agreement, the plan of the transfer was to copy a quality control system and implement it in the home environment of AsiaCo. The system was used by EuroCo and their suppliers of raw milk, which was the main ingredient in dairy products offered to consumers. The system consisted of multiple and interrelated routines, whereof some routines governed how other routines were performed. For instance, there were routines of quality inspection. Other routines accomplished cleaning of equipment, milking of the cows or trimming of the cows’ hoofs. The most tangible aspect of the control system was its written procedures, designed to regulate the handling of animals as well as machines at production sites (large-scale farms). Additionally, the system was associated with more or less tacit knowledge about why to carry out certain activities, and how. Transferring the quality control system required spanning several boundaries, such as overcoming large geographical distances and differing working languages. The organizational forms of EuroCo and AsiaCo, and the industrial systems in which they were embedded, differed as well. EuroCo, a cooperative, had for many decades worked closely with their suppliers, who effectively owned their business. AsiaCo, a listed corporation, had been dealing with suppliers mainly through contractual negotiations and arm’s length ownership. While EuroCo had a long history of slow and steady development, AsiaCo had a short history of rapid entrepreneurial growth. As was soon discovered by the coordinating managers in the center of expertise, the working cultures were different. “Once they start work, they don’t want to change anymore, but here, we can go to the East today, and tomorrow we can go West,” said a coordinator from AsiaCo. This perception was largely echoed by people from EuroCo: They signed the contract, and it was stated very precisely there – from our side – how we saw it. But to them, a deal is a deal only until you make a new deal. It is just a frame. It does not mean that we cannot do other things. The EuroCo manager admitted to struggling with understanding how to mobilize people in Asia. “It’s difficult,” she sa