查看文章

The phenomenon of historically conditioned continuity in organizations, often discussed under labels such as path dependence (Sydow et al., 2009, 2020) or structural inertia (Hannan & Freeman, 1984), has been demonstrated empirically numerous times (eg Burgelman, 2002; Koch, 2011; Tripsas, 2009). Historically conditioned continuity refers to (often counterproductive) organizational" pattern [s] of action and reflection"(Koch, 2011, p. 339) that persist counterfactually (ie despite pressure for change or repeated change efforts). It poses a critical challenge for many organizations, especially in times of disruptive change (Christensen, 1997). While there are many different explanations of such" puzzling persistencies"(Sydow et al., 2009, p. 695) to be found in organization theory, all of them are at least implicitly based on the assumption that past events are objectively given and, therefore, can, under certain conditions, exert causal influence on present actions by creating irreversible" turning points"(Abbott, 2001) in the history of an organization.

In direct contradiction to such established explanations for historically conditioned stability, recent research on time and temporality in organizations (Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Hernes & Schultz, 2020; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Schultz & Hernes, 2013) argues that the past (just like the future) is not objectively given, but instead a socially constructed and therefore always malleable horizon of actions situated in the present (see also, eg Mead, 1934). And just as with historically conditioned continuity, there are already a number of empirical studies that support this view of the past as a socially constructed,