Organisational routines versus individual agency and personality

References

• Becker M. 2004. Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 13(4): 643–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamorro-Premuzic T, Furnham A. 2008. Personality, intelligence and approaches to learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences 44: 1 596–1 603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamorro-Premuzic T, Furnham T, Lewis M. 2007. Personality approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences 17: 241–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen M, Burkhart R, Dosi G, Egidi M, Marengo L, Warglien M, Winter S. 1996. Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: contemporary research issues. Industrial and Corporate Change 5(3): 653–697.
   Google Scholar
• Costa PT, McCrae RR. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): professional manual. Odessa FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Cruz I, Major M, Scapens R. 2009. Institutionalization and practice variation in the management control of a global/local setting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 22(1): 91–117.
   Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, March JG. 1963. A behavioural theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• d'Adderio L. 2009. The influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics: from representation to performation. In: Becker M, Lazaric N (eds), Organizational routines: advancing empirical research. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar. pp. 185–223.
   Google Scholar
• de Boer EA, Zandberg T. 2010. Decision making by organizational routines: the influence of agency and personality traits on deviating from formal organizational routines. 28th Eurochrie Conference, Passion for Hospitality Excellence, October 2010, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Dillard J, Rigsby J, Goodman C. 2004. The making and remaking of organization context: duality and the institutionalization process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 17(4): 506–542.
   Google Scholar
• Emirbayer M, Mische A. 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103(4): 962–1023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman M, Pentland B. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 94–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodgson G. 2009. The nature and replication of routines. In: Becker M, Lazaric N (eds), Organizational routines: advancing empirical research. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar. pp. 185–222.
   Google Scholar
• Hoekstra HA, Ormel J, de Fuyt F. 1996. Neo PI-R- NEO FFI. Big Five persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten. Handleiding. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
   Google Scholar
• Howard-Grenville J. 2005. The persistence of flexible organizational routines: the role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science 16(6): 618–663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John OP, Srivastava S. 1999. The big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin LA, John OP (eds), Handbook of personality: theory and research. New York: Guilford. pp. 139–153.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy KR, Shiarella AH. 1997. Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests: multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology 50: 823–854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Ones DS, Dilchert S, Viswesvaran C, Judge TA. 2007. In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology 60: 995–1027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reay T, Golden-Biddle K, Germann K. 2006. Legitimizing a new role: small wins and microprocesses of change. Academy of Management Journal 49(5): 977–998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt N, Rogers W, Chan D, Sheppard L, Jennings D. 1997. Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 719–730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick K. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang L. 2003. Does the Big Five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Differences 34: 1 431–1 445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar