Norms, Metaroutines, and Group Success

Norms play essential roles in regulating aspects of social behavior in groups. Viewed as quasi-formal rules that can “instruct strangers and convey to children” how to behave in specific situations from a particular groups’ perspective – norms are models of (situationally) correct behaviors that ostensibly afford some benefit to the referent group (Brown, 1995) and are found in virtually all human societies (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989). Norms, as opposed to laws, are often unwritten and generally do not emerge through an explicit democratic or other formal governing mechanisms. When interpreted as guiding standard rules of behavior within an organization, norms influence much of organizational decision making (March 1996). Furthermore, we assert that norms not only can be components of routines, but routines themselves; however, this norms as routines assertion is nonsymmetric. Norms can be viewed as routines, but not all routines can be viewed as norms, thus leaving an interesting relation on the table: some routines can be viewed as norms. It is that residual class in which we address our work – routines as norms – routines that serve the function of norms in an organizational setting