Sociomaterial relations and adaptive space in routine performance

The material and the social in relations

To begin with, I argue that a more nuanced identification of the material and the social is needed in order to understand their meaning in relations in routine performance. I use the expressions ‘material’ and ‘social’ in the general sense here to refer to human and nonhuman elements as apparently pre-existing essences that subsequently enter into relations with each other. Such a social and material review is usually linked to dualism, specifically to a ‘bifurcated being ontology’, where the social and the material are ontologically understood to be separate and the relationship between them as one whereby each affects the other (Introna, 2013: 330–331). However, in spite of the criticism concerning this dualism, the specifics of the material and the social have become a matter of concern in the attempts to better understand their entanglement (Mutch, 2013).

First, scholars do not always define what they mean by material. Yet for Leonardi (2012: 42), materiality refers to the shaping of a material so that it withstands changes in location and time and is important to its users. A relatively large part of the research also focuses on technology (D’Adderio and Pollock, 2014; Leonardi, 2011, 2013; Orlikowski, 2007, 2009; Orlikowski and Scott, 2008; Orlikowski and Gash, 1994). This may have had the effect of directing research into the area of flexibility (Leonardi, 2011), or the whole architecture of technology (Mutch, 2013) and its meaning in relations, action and change. In other words, researchers have not been sufficiently specific about technology (Mutch, 2013). In addition, it is noteworthy that there are materials other than technology that shape the sociomaterial relations (Kaplan, 2011; Macpherson et al., 2010) such as tools, technologies, devices, actions, objects, text and discourses (Fenwick et al., 2012: 6; Orlikowski, 2007), rating sheets (Jarzabkowski et al., 2016) and PowerPoint slides (Macpherson et al., 2010). Hence, more emphasis should be placed on the specifics of materiality as well as their precise effects on the sociomaterial relations and processes.

Furthermore, the human or non-materiality aspect is often explained in the sociomaterial literature in general in terms of the social (Mutch, 2013: 37). However, in relations between individuals, several aspects of agency, and other significant factors such as professional knowledge and habitual practices are transmitted through the act of communication and are thus co-constituted (Cooren et al., 2012). For example, an individual is seen as a carrier of professional commitments and orientations (Eteläpelto et al., 2013: 61; Fenwick and Nerland, 2014: 2; Reckwitz, 2002), which are duly connected to how professionalism is acted out. In particular, present-day work practices require interprofessional collaboration, and settings such as these, which have several professions working together, offer people a chance to go beyond their own professional framework for interpreting a situation. Multiprofessional work gives people the opportunity to examine the core questions within their own profession from a different angle, making use of the interpretations that other professions offer. In this set-up, the interpretations of others become a resource that fosters the sharing of expertise and responsibility when it comes to arriving at a solution to a given problem or situation (Edwards, 2007: 14). Hence, contextualizing the social as interprofessional collaboration, as demonstrated in this study, provides deeper insights into the human aspect and its meaning for sociomaterial relations in work practices, although it also highlights the need to locate the social in a range of contexts.

To sum up, I have argued that further clarification of the material and the social and their specific nature is needed to understand how they become in relations. Furthermore, I have also indicated that sociomaterial relations might be constituted in many different ways in everyday multiprofessional work practices and have an effect on the production of co-constituted knowledge. In other words, if the sociomaterial process is defined as a learning process, both the material and the social have a meaning for the knowledge that emerges as a result of this learning process. In this sense, both the material and the social matter in this process but might have a specific emphasis depending on the situation, time, place and context. As a consequence, we are more interested in how they become constituted in ongoing relations, and what happens in these processes, than whether they are entangled or not and how they affect each other.

Sociomaterial relations, adaptive space and learning

In the theoretical literature, the dualism between the material and the social has been overcome by emphasizing the mutual entanglement of sociomateriality (Orlikowski, 2007, 2009). However, there is a certain ambiguity about the precise meaning of this entanglement. For example, different words are used to describe the relationship between the two (Jones, 2013). They are variously understood as being entangled (Orlikowski, 2007), fused (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008), mutually enacted (Dale, 2005), assemblaged (Suchman, 2000), mangled (Pickering, 1993), inscripted (D’Adderio, 2011), intertwined (Latour, 1993), as well as imbricated (Leonardi, 2011). Jones (2013) argues that these different concepts of sociomaterial entanglements emphasize deeper ontological meanings and connotations. Specifically, he has identified four different aspects, namely inseparability, interpenetration, relationality and embodiment, which have implications for the way in which the sociomaterial relations might be understood. Inseparability refers to the fact that the social and the material can be interpreted as being dependent on each other and no clear boundary between them can be drawn. Interpenetration implies that the boundary between the social and the material is not definitive, and that they are not necessarily blended, but rather mutually positioned. In this process of positioning, the sociomaterial acquires its form and attributes. The relational view of the entanglement broadens the understanding to relations, but there seems to be uncertainty as to whether the focus is on boundaries, or the processes or existence of these entities. The embodiment perspective is, however, often neglected in discussions on sociomateriality. As a result of these varied accounts, Jones concludes that scholars should pay more attention to how, where and in what kind of different forms the sociomaterial is entangled, and what this actually entails (Jones, 2013). Correspondingly, Introna (2013: 330–332) has argued that although many attempts have been made to go beyond the sociomaterial dualism it is still lurking, at certain times more explicitly than at others, behind the analysis. Therefore, rather than paying attention to whether the social and the material are separate, dependent or blended, or to what kind of boundary has been drawn between them, I am suggesting a perspective in which the focus would be on action, namely on those sociomaterial relations and processes that enact the performance of the routine.

Thus, what I seek to highlight here is the more relational nature of the sociomaterial and a more fluid mutual sociomaterial interaction that is enabled by the concept of adaptive space (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2017). Space has been at the margins of sociomaterial studies of organization (De Vaujany and Mitev, 2013) or is understood to be physical or material, having symbolic or material meanings for how people perceive it (Lefebvre, 1991[1974]) or do their work (Dale, 2005). In order to enable more fluid sociomaterial relations, the concept of adaptive space arises from organizational studies that are specialized in the ability of organizations to adapt and effectively respond to complexity (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2017). Adaptive space is defined as ‘contexts and conditions that enable networked interactions to foster the generation and linking up of novel ideas, innovation and learning’. It ‘works to open up information flows and engage dynamics of complexity and network structures to enable the emergence of novelty and innovation needed for adaptability’ (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2017: 12). Thus adaptive space is understood as a source of sociomaterial actions (Häkkinen and Kivinen, 2013: 139; Raulet-Croset, 2013), which allows people, networks, information, materials and other resources to flow (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2017). Adaptive space creates flexibility, which enables fluid sociomaterial actions as a result of which coordination (Raulet-Croset, 2013) and mutual interaction are facilitated, and of which routine performance is constituted.

According to Uhl-Bien and Arena (2017), adaptive space fosters the generation and linking up of novel ideas, innovation and learning. Thus, knowledge is a spatial constitution that emerges in webs of sociomaterial interconnections (Fenwick, 2010). From the learning viewpoint, what is significant is assessing the type of sociomaterial networks that are at play and in which knowledge constitution is conducted. To this end, the type and combinations of sociomaterial relations are consequential in the performance of a routine. Relatedly, these are connected to the particular time, space and webs of interconnections that exist (Mulcahy, 2012: 135; Sørensen, 2009: 181).

Finally, in the multiprofessional performance of routines, the constitution of sociomaterial relations can be understood as complex and dynamic communication and negotiation. These negotiations bring to light those things that survive – as well as those disturbances that open up new opportunities (Fenwick et al., 2012: 7). The negotiations can also give rise to practices (Rerup and Feldman, 2011), and serve to contribute to collective knowledge-sharing and constitution. The negotiations can also be viewed as an activity, such as conflict resolution, or as something that conserves, transfers or prevents knowledge that might have been possible to acquire (Eteläpelto et al., 2013: 61; Hodgson, 2008: 21). This means that knowledge is not just located in individual minds or relations (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 98) but is also a spatial construction in a temporal practice. In this way, knowledge is spatially constructed and remains in that precise form only as long as the space (Sørensen, 2009), the material (Mulcahy, 2012: 135) and the relations through which the knowledge is performed are also upheld (Sørensen, 2009).

To summarize, sociomateriality has consequences in terms of how things become organized and for the functioning of the organization in general (Pentland and Singh, 2012). As a rule, sociomaterial processes sharpen the performance of routines and are significant in terms of producing, learning and acting upon information (Sørensen, 2009). Sociomaterial relations also exclude, invite and regulate activity. These actions highlight what is significant. Hence, sociomateriality generates information and influences actors’ and the organization’s knowing, which is understood to be learning as a part of everyday work practices (Fenwick, 2012: 5; Gherardi, 2014).

In light of the above, I have argued that a more nuanced identification of sociomaterial relations is needed in order to understand the processes involved in the performance of a routine. I have also introduced the concept of adaptive space in order to add a more fluid and relational point of view to the sociomateriality. I will now present my empirical data and my methodological grounds in an effort to demonstrate the different processes in which adaptive space and sociomaterial relations matter in routine performance.

Empirical focus

The empirical context for this study is a combined joint staff exercise (CJSE) that is organized in Sweden annually by the Swedish Armed Forces and the Swedish National Defence University. The exercise is a learning situation for the participants, teaching them staff methods and procedures and how to work efficiently together as a multinational crisis management team. The participants form a temporary group consisting of a combination of personnel and students, as well as civilians and soldiers representing various nationalities (Hedlund et al., 2015: 186–188; Hedlund and Österberg, 2013: 92–93). The staff exercise is framed by a scenario that contains elements from actual global crises, and which constitutes the crisis that the staff are trying to resolve.

The exercise spans 10 days and involves 1000–2000 persons as a rule. The participants operate in teams of between 5 and 15 members. Each team member has a role and related responsibilities and tasks. For example, the operation centre is composed of one team whose task is to update situational awareness. The team consists of professionals, such as officers specialized in intelligence, air, land or marine operations, social media, civil–military relations and so forth. During the exercise, the participants are assigned realistic tasks that they must tackle as individual team members, or as a part of their team or a network formed by the teams. Each day ends with a ‘Hot Wash Up’ – a debriefing session that provides an opportunity to reflect on what has been learned and the development of the team’s activities. Each team’s designated mentors support their activities and learning. The mentors also participate in the ‘Hot Wash Up’, where they evaluate the team’s actions and share ideas on how to develop them.

I took part in this exercise in the role of a gender subject-matter expert in a team made up of various experts. At the same time, I conducted an ethnographic study as a participant observer using Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013). Hence, as is generally the case with organizational ethnography (Alvesson, 2009), the object of my research was confined within the organization in which I work. Gaining access to such an environment is challenging in itself, and in such cases the research, right from the start, takes shape from within (Ben-Ari and Levy, 2014). In addition, the military culture (line organization, command hierarchy) may not be immediately obvious to someone who is not familiar with it. According to Ybema and Kamsteeg (2009), gaining an understanding from within requires that one is somehow familiar with the organizational culture. This also ensures data richness and contributes to the trustworthiness of the research (Gioia et al., 2010). My own position, however, is somewhere between that of an outsider and that of an insider in the sense that, as a civilian woman, I was participating in such an exercise for the first time, although I had worked in the Defence Forces for more than 10 years. The context is very different from my usual work environment, an academic one, in which I teach future researchers and supervise their research. Thanks to my experience to date, however, I was able to immerse myself in the situation as a researcher. Naturally, the challenge then lies in being able to step back from the familiar, and the social ties and loyalties that go with it, in order to observe familiar things in a new light (Alvesson, 2009; Kirke, 2013).

In the course of my fieldwork, I focused mainly on my own team’s work, its meeting procedures and its idiosyncrasies (Table 1), as well as on its key actions and everyday concepts as described by the informants. In this sense, the study is connected to practice-based approach efforts to understand staff routines from the bottom up. The main focus of interest concerns activities and practices in which professional agents cooperate in their own teams to accomplish the tasks that they are given, or which are part of their team’s core functions. The focus is also on processes that are part of routinized activity (Nicolini, 2013). With this collected process data, I aimed to understand patterns in events in order to gain new insights into the theory of routine dynamics (Langley, 1999).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Categorization of types of participation and observation.

Types of participation and observation	Situation
Participating in and observing a teaching situation	Before the exercise (2 days) At the beginning of the exercise (1.5 days)
Participating in and observing a meeting	Briefings (16) Different section meetings (16) Gender adviser meetings (4) NGO meetings (2)
Participating in and observing own team	In the mornings (8): instructions, information Hot-wash discussions (7): reflections, evaluation Team meetings (4)
Participating in and observing other teams	Discussions with team members
Participating in and observing reflection and evaluation sessions	After-action review (1)
Participating in and observing within an exercise area	Informal discussions with people participating in the exercise
Participating in and observing people during mealtimes	Informal breakfasts, lunches and dinners with different employee groups

NGO: non-governmental organization.

Data collection

The main data collection methods were participant observations, group discussions, conversations and written field notes, and the keeping of a research diary. In addition, I used photographs and documents as secondary sources. During the exercise, I wrote down key words, snippets of conversation and any spontaneous thoughts that came to mind. I subsequently wrote these up in a field diary in the evenings. I then began analysing the data once I was no longer taking part in the exercise.

Data analysis

The analysis followed an iterative back-and-forth process between the data and the theoretical and conceptual literature (Emerson et al., 2011: 171–199). To begin with, I identified first-order terms in my notes and developed them into second-order themes by asking myself questions such as ‘What is happening in this particular instance that I have noted down and what is its more abstract significance?’ (Gioia et al., 2013: 20). Gradually, I identified an overall pattern in events by using different types of strategies to make sense of them. Three multilevel events – namely a briefing session for all participants, a discussion between colleagues and a team meeting – illustrated critical cases (Yin, 2009) and became the units of analysis (Langley, 1999) and second-order aggregate dimensions of my data (Gioia et al., 2013: 20).

In theorizing the data, I first used Feldman and Pentland’s (2003) elements of a routine and concentrated on their internal dynamics. At this point, I engaged in discussions with my military and civilian colleagues. The reflexivity of these multi-perspective points of view helped me to reach a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon (Gioia et al., 2010). Through the dynamic interplay between these reflections and the theoretical literature, I was able to problematize my preliminary interpretations (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2011) and relate them to more general theoretical concepts. This inductive, grounded theory strategy (Langley, 1999: 699; Strauss and Gorbin, 1990) led me to expand my theoretical approach, particularly when it came to the themes of multiprofessionalism, sociomateriality, adaptive space and process thinking (Deken et al., 2016; Langley, 2007). At this point, my field annotations became thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973). During this process, I developed an idea of the core theoretical phenomenon (Strauss and Gorbin, 1990) and refined the definitive research question as ‘In what ways do adaptive space and sociomaterial relations matter in the performance of an organizational routine?’

The empirical part of the article is composed of three analysis samples. These were selected according to the following criteria for process data (Langley, 1999): first, the samples exemplify procedural progression. The first sample is taken from the beginning of the exercise when the template artefact was introduced by the instructors to the main participants, namely the students, as part of the staff routine. Samples two and three relate to when the exercise was at the midpoint stage and then nearing its end, respectively. Second, the samples illustrate three different processes in the sociomaterial relations and the implications these have for the performance of the routine. The samples are presented as concrete cases, which are then reflected on and considered in more abstract terms.

Professional knowledge constitution in sociomaterial relations – enabling

Mornings begin with the commander’s briefing. The first part covers general topics such as the weather, the political situation, and what is going on in the media. Each topic has a designated person from each team pointing out what is particularly significant, using just one PowerPoint slide. This could be, for instance, the weather forecast for the next 24 hours. The presentations are brief and last roughly three minutes apiece. This is followed by a second part where the exercise is described from the point of view of the different branches. The session ends with the commander’s instructions. (Field notes, first day of the exercise)

This extract from my field notes describes the commander’s update briefing, which took place every morning at the same time. During this occasion, the persons in charge presented the most significant changes that had taken place within their areas of responsibility in the preceding 24 hours, as well as the conclusions and recommendations based on these recent events. This was a staff routine, repeated in the same sequence every day. It was a procedure that all staff members needed to recognize and learn (Edmondson et al., 2001: 685–687; Feldman and Pentland, 2003). With the help of this routine, the professional knowledge in different branches was organized, and the organization built and maintained situational awareness, which it delivered in its entirety to all participants.

At the beginning of the exercise, participants were presented with a template according to which the briefing had to be put together. The template was an artefact, an instruction and a standard; it was material, the repetition of which reinforced the uniformity and stability of the routine (Pentland et al., 2012). Every branch usually presented one PowerPoint slide containing information that was considered to be salient under the headings ‘analysis, conclusions, recommendations’. The template defined how the routine was performed and what type of information was valued and produced.

As the exercise progressed, the presentations became more effective. Although the template as the material element in the presentation remained the same, the professionals as the social element deepened their professional knowledge through it. For example, meteorological knowledge was no longer described merely at a general level. Instead, the presenter explained how a change in the height of the waves (the part of the material relating to analysis) would affect actions at sea, and the challenges that changes in the weather would pose for actions taking place at night in the dark (in those parts of the material relating to conclusions and recommendations).

What this example illustrates is how the adaptive space enabled both the sociomaterial relations and the information flow within them, and also enabled the constitution of the professional knowledge into a certain mode to facilitate the performance of the routine (cf. Pentland and Feldman, 2008: 286). However, the material was shown to have a vital part to play at that particular time, namely at the beginning of the exercise, in influencing the type of knowledge that was to be constituted in each team and in that particular place, namely a crisis management situation that differs from everyday civilian life, for a temporary grouping of professionals, serving to incorporate the requisite professional knowledge into the routine and duly facilitating its performance. In sum, the adaptive space and its sociomaterial relations enabled the professional knowledge constitution in each team and in their area of responsibility for the commander’s briefing.

This example also illustrates how the routine and the sociomaterial relations allowed the professionals to co-construct their knowledge in a congruent form and to make it shareable and understandable for other participants in the commander’s briefing. The aim of this staff routine is primarily to present the commander with an up-to-date situational picture that provides relevant information based on the contribution of experts from various fields. With this knowledge, the commander can make sense of the situation, assess the risks, change tactics if necessary and then determine the action to take (Weick and Roberts, 1993). The routine, and its sociomaterial relations in particular, constitute knowledge that is collected from relevant professional sources in order to achieve an overall picture that is as realistic and collectively agreed upon as possible. The sociomaterial relations in the performance of the routine facilitate and support joint reflection among fragmented branches and a multidisciplinary interpretation of the situation. At the same time, the routine constitutes a certain kind of professional knowledge that influences the participants’ decisions and actions with regard to the exercise (cf. Fenwick and Nerland, 2014: 3–4).

Networked professional knowledge creation in sociomaterial relations – linking

This morning we are at a meeting where people are acting as representatives of non-governmental organizations. They are describing how bad the situation is for civilians in IDP camps (internally displaced persons camp). They have given us a report detailing the civilians’ plight. At our own level, we distribute the report to two of our most significant cooperation teams. As our commander has said that the information we obtain is important, we are trying to figure out how we could pass that information on to him. Therefore my teammate requested a meeting and a meeting was indeed arranged for the following afternoon. As the meeting will not take place until the following day, I suggest to my teammate that we could give a presentation at the briefing. She says we cannot proceed like that because we do not have any concrete recommendations for what should be done. I ask whether it would be beneficial for the leadership to just be aware of the situation and that we do not necessarily possess the concrete expertise required to be able to offer recommendations for action in this particular situation, but we decide to let the issue be. During the briefing the following morning, the commander says that he will initiate negotiations with the upper-level management of non-governmental organizations. The information that we had relayed earlier via the branches had indeed reached the commander and therefore the meeting that had been set up for that day subsequently appeared redundant. (Field notes, second and third day of the exercise)

This extract describes how the adaptive space linked together the most significant cooperation teams and their sociomaterial relations to enable the performance of the routine. The pressure to open up an adaptive space that holds a network of different teams stemmed from the challenge to meet the situational need, namely to make the material complete. This was internalized as professional knowledge in the way in which the actions were organized. Those professionals who were familiar with the organization had a clearer and broader understanding of the sociomaterial processes, namely that the knowledge to be presented in the commander’s briefing must include ‘analysis, conclusions and recommendations’.

A more detailed analysis of the example reveals how the sociomaterial relations both constrained and enabled the performance of the routine. On the one hand, the material, the template for ‘analysis, conclusions, recommendations’ that is familiar to us from the case presented earlier, restricted relaying the information concerning the civilians’ plight at the IDP camp because it was incomplete. With the professional knowledge that was available, it was only possible to provide information pertaining to ‘analysis and conclusions’, but not ‘recommendations’. On the other hand, forwarding the special information that had been received to two of the most significant cooperation teams entailed extending the relations to the professional agents of other teams, through whom the material became complete. In each team, information that is provided will ‘elaborate’ the team’s area of expertise, thanks to civil–military cooperation (CIMIC) knowledge, for instance, and end up in the recommendations made to the commander. These related teams form a network, which produces information from different competence areas to meet the situational need. This information is duly transformed into concrete recommended actions as indicated in the material. In sum, this unfolding process occurs between people in different positions and teams who possess various types of expert knowledge and professional experience, and this sociomaterial action advances the way in which knowledge creation is organized in a networked way.

Disconnected professional knowledge in sociomaterial relations – conflicting

In the morning, the commander gives us a task via the leader whereby our team has to come up with ways to change public opinion in a more favourable direction. Empirically, the task is linked to the information received from the field and to the reports (cf. previous case) that factually describe the distressing conditions of the civilians and their mistrust towards security agents. The way I see it is that if we provide them with services, namely security, then we can get them to trust us and to think of us in more positive terms. I am approaching the task from my ‘own field of expertise’, that is, the gender perspective. The meeting itself and the discussion that ensues are very haphazard, as everyone assesses the task according to their individual professional judgement. At the end of the meeting, the commander selects two suggestions that emerged during the discussion. These were ideas put forward by a person who does not belong to our team. The suggestions are to provide soldiers with loudspeakers and a ‘soldier’s card’ that clearly states the mission, namely that soldiers are present to bring peace to the citizens. This generates a discussion at the meeting where one of the experts in the team stresses that the aim of the mission is to provide peace and stability. Our mentor comes to advise us right after the meeting. According to him, we should have met up before the meeting and put together a PowerPoint presentation with our salient arguments’. (Field notes, fourth day of the exercise)

This extract illustrates that although the adaptive space enabled the sociomaterial relations and the information flow in a meeting, it nevertheless could not succeed in enabling the constitution of the professional knowledge into a certain mode to facilitate the performance of the routine. The field notes describe a course of events that deviated from the staff routine (analysis, conclusions, recommendations), resulting in the knowledge from different contributors becoming disconnected. In this episode, people representing different professional working cultures and different know-how tried to propose solutions based on their professional understanding of the situation. This created a sociomaterial negotiation in at least two different ways. First, a dynamic emerged when agents from different professions put forward their ideas. Each participant took a stance in the communication situation in relation to the concepts and models that were familiar to them professionally. However, their legal, political, gendered and security-based knowledge differed, caused discontinuities and did not connect the knowledge derived from the different professions. The second type of dynamic was created by the tension between the staff routine template and the model, whereby ideas were presented in a free-flowing manner and in an abstract way. Here the material restricted the knowledge creation because it did not give way to either multiprofessional knowledge or to more abstract knowledge. Our team had also understood that we were meant to ponder the various aspects of the task. When the meeting came to an end, the proposals that were adopted were actually very concrete.

In terms of becoming organized, the specific routine – ‘analysis, conclusions, recommendations’ – that is used to support decision-making was not sociomaterially constituted in this particular situation, as would be expected (Orlikowski, 2009; Rerup and Feldman, 2011: 579). Instead, the dynamic of the negotiation created discontinuities that reflected manifold conceptual and professional matrices and ways of doing things (Fenwick, 2012; Langley et al., 2013). It demonstrated how professionalism can turn into a source of asymmetry (Aggerholm and Asmuß, 2016; Feldman and Orlikowski, 2011: 1242). The knowledge generated by the different professions was disjointed, and hence drawing recommendations from such a wealth of information became more difficult.