This paper examines the processes through which the latent and manifest tensions between individuals and the organization are regulated in knowledge-intensive firms (KIFs). These tensions, and the ways to reduce them, have been studied by various literatures, most of which have tended to fall into what we call a “utilitarian” or a “social control” perspective, with the former seeing knowledge as a strategic resource, but largely ignoring the possible tensions, while the latter focuses on how individuals are being both controlled and manipulated towards acting in the organizational interests. To provide a more balanced approach, we propose an integrative framework based on the social regulation theory of the French sociologist J.-D. Reynaud (1988), which, we argue, addresses the individual and organizational levels as interdependent and helps theorize the processes that make KIFs work by containing/limiting the potential “tug-of-war” between organizations and their employees. The papers then illustrates this novel approach by using management consulting as an illustrative/exploratory case study, examining how organizations and individuals have attempted and managed to regulate the tensions regarding its three main assets/fundamental resources: knowledge, reputation, relationships.
Building on the endogenous routine dynamic perspective, we aim to understand the micro-foundations of capability transfer in post-acquisition integration. Based on a single, longitudinal case study of an acquisition in the consultancy sector, we apply a practice-based lens to study the intended combination of two existing routines in an acquisition process and why its implementation turned out to be a failure. Our findings suggest that seemingly matching capabilities were not compatible in practice as the underlying sequences of action were incompatible and their embeddedness in its intra- and inter-organizational ecology of routines was not considered. Our article sheds light on the role of routines in acquisition integration and contributes to literature by discussing a) the prevailing role of the interconnectedness of routines in effective capability transfer and b) discrepancies between ostensive and performative aspects of routines as impediments to the implementation of the pre-acquisition plan in the post-acquisition phase.
