Essay on Organizational Routines

Organizational routines support and give students the power to relate as associates of a communal learning arrangement. The patterns have, in one way, or another contributed towards the alteration of the educational trends and tendencies. Organizational routines can overregulate student bodies, leading to the creation of specific patterns that marginalize some groups. Even though they have been a source of inertia and inflexibility, such routines have caused significant changes (Feldman and Pentland 94). The education system has not been left out because student bodies have been given more power to cause substantial changes.

A meaningful way in which change becomes evident using organizational routines is when there is a crisis because habits become sources of organizational flexibility and change (Feldman and Pentland 95). For example, in school setups, corporate practices enable teachers to create learning atmospheres in which students have unbiassed access to resources, time, space, and voice in the classroom. In addition, some organizational habits mandate both students and teachers to enact and develop routines collectively, eventually causing a specific behavioral pattern. Thus, organizational learning is a product of practices that often determine behavior in any institution.

Organizational learning affects routines which are determined interpretations from history that guide behaviors in any institution (Levitt and March 320). Therefore, a breakdown of institutional habits is the actions that are adopted from historical experiential lessons. Some behaviors within educational institutions are based on past experiences and are subject to change based on the critical players’ decisions and routines. Significant educational changes have come up primarily because of organizational learning that causes specific patterns and trends. According to Levitt and March, customs are often based on elucidations of the past. Besides that, they familiarize themselves with practice in response to a reaction about a given outcome.

Organizational routines in institutions can also be disrupted by working, learning, and innovating- they are meticulously related forms of human action that are predictably thought to contradict each other. For instance, working resists change because of a specified routine; learning is different because it embraces change but innovation results in changes that have to be implemented (Brown and Duguid 41). The contradictory effects that put an organization’s conventions and core principles directly in opposition to members’ working, education, and revolutionizing arise from an in-depth confusion of what working, learning, and innovating are (Brown and Duguid 53). These forces cause most organizations to follow specific trends or cause significant changes based on what the key players believe in. The misunderstanding has resulted in some organizations embracing change based on technological development, with others still resisting change.

Organizational learning can also be generated from knowledge acquired by doing. The adopted behavior is based on thorough practice, which is found in the effects of accumulated construction and user experience on efficiency in manufacturing. For instance, teachers might prefer a given method because it has worked for a long time. They might influence other schools or the entire education system because the technique has shown expected results and used for a long time. The changes caused by learning will be based on the experiences gathered each day while executing the daily responsibilities.

Competency traps have also caused a significant change or maladaptive specialization, especially if the new routines have proved to be better than old ones (Levitt and March 322). Habits are altered simultaneously as the organization learns which to pursue, and discrimination among alternative routines is affected by their transformations. More experience and competency will lead to developing specific patterns that have proved to be successful. Organizations like learning institutions resist change or adopt specific changes if the proposed techniques give an expected result. Specific routines will often be a collection of several routines combined with their alteration based on previous mistakes. With more knowledge, efficacy with any particular technique intensifies with use, and changes in accomplishment with diverse tactics reflect differences in the routine capacities of the systems and an establishment’s existing competencies with them.

Organizational learning and routines are much likely to affect each other because with understanding comes the adoption of new strategies that have proved effective. Acquiring knowledge brings competitiveness and adaptability to organizations, eventually causing changes in routine performance (Ege et al. 449). Collective learning is promoted by communication, involvement, and a deep commitment to working across organizational boundaries (81), which requires talking and dialogue among executive members to understand corporate policies.

Organizational learning that leads to changes in organizational routines will involve trial and error learning or incremental research, which depends on evaluating outcomes as successes or failures. Therefore, organizational patterns are subject to change, especially if education is involved. Any organization’s members will embrace a given change after a series of learning events through trial and error or intensive research. Such changes eventually become adopted and can sometimes cause significant changes in the entire sector, such as education. Changes will always occur since some patterns can become obsolete with time. Organization members will often learn through experimentation to determine whether specific procedures are adequate or intensive research.

Works Cited

Brown, John S., and Paul Duguid. “Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation.” Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, 1991, pp. 40-57.

Ege, Tolga, et al. “ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS: AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK.” International Journal of Management Economics and Business, vol. 13, no. 2, 2017, pp. 0-0.

Feldman, Martha S., and Brian T. Pentland. “Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 1, 2003, pp. 94-118.

Levitt, Barbara, and James G. March. “ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING.” Annual Review, vol. 14, 1988, pp. 319-340.