High‐performance organizing, environmental management, and organizational performance: An evolutionary economics perspective

• Author: David B. Zoogah
• Published date: 01 January 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21869
• Date: 01 January 2018

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

High-performance organizing, environmental management,

and organizational performance: An evolutionary economics

perspective

David B. Zoogah

Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio

Correspondence

David B. Zoogah, Williams College of

Business, Xavier University, 3800 Victory

Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45207.

Email: zoogahd@xavier.edu

This study applies evolutionary economics reasoning to the green HRM context and examines

whether and how environmental management routinization relates to organizational perfor-

mance. In doing so, we introduce the concept of ecological routines, defined as deeply embed-

ded, firm-specific rules and procedures associated with organizing and practicing corporate

environmental management that do not change very much from one iteration, period, or func-

tional unit to another. We examine the extent to which ecological routines that encompass

organizing (high-performance organizing [HPO]) and practice routines of environmental sustain-

ability relate to green decisions, green behaviors, and organizational performance. In a sample

of 229 managers from 33 organizations in the environment-sensitive industries of the United

States, we find support for multilevel mediation of green decisions and green behaviors as well

as interaction of HPO and environmental management practice routines. Implications for

research and practice are discussed.

KEYWORDS

ecological routines, environmental management, green behaviors, green decisions, high-

performance organizing

1|INTRODUCTION

Growing global concern about the long-term consequences of envi-

ronmental degradation and climate change as well as the threats that

these pose to economic growth and firm performance has driven

companies to proactively strive toward improved environmental

responsibility and stewardship (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Bartlett,

2011; Norton, Parker, Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2015; Starik & Marcus,

2000). A study by Accenture (2010) showed that 93% of chief execu-

tive officers (CEOs) consider sustainability important to the future

success of their company, and 81% indicated that sustainability is

already “fully embedded into the strategy and operations of their

company.”The United Nations Global Compact, “a call to companies

to align strategies and operations with universal principles on human

rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption, and take actions that

advance societal goals”

1

encourages establishment of routines or

organizing systems that facilitate corporate environmental sustain-

ability. Even though the environmental outcomes organizations attain

derive from routines, processes, and behaviors of employees and

managers (Sharma, Pablo, & Vredenburg, 1999; Wehrmeyer, 1996) it

is only recently that scholars have started to examine micro (human

resource management [HRM] and organizational behavior [OB]) influ-

ences on environmental management (see Huffman, Watrous-Rodri-

guez, Henning, & Berry, 2009; Jackson, Renwick, Jabbour, & Muller-

Camen, 2011; Jackson, Schuler, & Jiang, 2014; Renwick, Redman, &

Maguire, 2013).

There is thus a paucity of environmental management studies in

HRM. Jackson et al. (2011) observed that in order for green HRM “to

develop and mature, scholarship that addresses a broad array of issues

is needed”(p. 104). Further, Jackson et al. (2014) indicate that HRM

scholars should respond to calls for research in corporate environmen-

tal sustainability by deploying strategically aligned HR systems. One

of the areas suggested is “research linking strategic HRM and environ-

mental management”(Jackson et al., 2011, p. 108). Such research pro-

vides insight on alignment of business strategies and HRM practices

with environmental management policies (Jackson et al., 2014).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21869

Hum Resour Manage. 2018;57:159–175. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 159

One crucial factor with strategic linkages between HRM and

environmental management that has unfortunately not been exam-

ined yet is organizational routines, defined as “ways of doing things”

(Winter, 1986, p. 165). In this article, we focus on environment-

centered routines termed ecological routines. They refer to deeply

embedded, firm-specific rules and procedures associated with orga-

nizing and practicing corporate environmental management that do

not change very much from one iteration, period, or functional unit

to another. In a survey of U.K. organizations, Zibarras and Ballinger

(2011) found that companies had several initiatives, most of which

centered on routinization. Even though specific aspects of ecological

routines may require individual action, their outcomes generally

depend on collective action (Harvey, Williams, & Probert, 2013). Fur-

ther, ecological routines ensure that units responsible for environ-

mental management system implementation as well as top executives

and environmental champions focus attention on sustainability prac-

tices (Schmit, Fegley, Esen, Schramm, & Tomassetti, 2012), and pave

the way for deliberate learning inside firms, thereby shaping future

development of firms that institutionalize sustainability. In our review,

except for one study that identified “monitoring and/or assessment

routines”in the automotive supply chain (Simpson, Power, & Samson,

2007, p. 35), we did not find empirical studies of routines in sustain-

ability.

2

The lack of studies is problematic given that effective corpo-

rate sustainability involves decisions, behaviors, and practices that

are patterned (Gardner & Stern, 2002), and organizational perfor-

mance depends on sustainable business (Berns et al., 2009). The

question that arises, therefore, is how do ecological routines relate to

organizational performance?

We propose that ecological routines relate to organizational per-

formance in two ways. First, ecological routines that encompass

capability routines and practice routines directly relate to organiza-

tional performance. High-performance organizing is a capability rou-

tine that involves mobilization of resources to conduct activities that

lead to organizational goals (Ashton & Sung, 2002). Environmental

management is also a practice routine that cultivates ideas and assets

that improve resource conservation and management (Gittell, Mag-

nusson, & Merenda, 2012). Second, ecological routines indirectly

relate to organizational performance through green decisions—envi-

ronment-centered plans and policies—and green behaviors—environ-

ment-centered actions—at the individual level (McDonald, 2011;

Zoogah, 2011). In short, we advance a multilevel mediational model

that is supplemented by a cross-level moderation model where capa-

bility routines (high-performance organizing) interact with practice

routines (environmental management) to influence organizational per-

formance directly and indirectly through green decisions and green

behaviors.

In doing so, we contribute to the Green organizational behavior

(OB) and Green HRM literatures, where scholars are encouraged to

examine the strategic linkages of HRM to environmental manage-

ment (Jackson et al., 2014). We also advance the organizational rou-

tines literature by applying routines to environmental management.

By integrating ecological routines, managerial tendencies, and organi-

zational performance, we expand the criterion domain from the tradi-

tional obligatory and discretionary behaviors to include ecological

behaviors. Even though some studies consider green behaviors

discretionary (Lamm, Tosti-Kharas, & Williams, 2013), they are obliga-

tory particularly in organizations that institutionalize environmental

sustainability (Gittell et al., 2012). Next, we briefly review the theo-

retical background before generating our hypotheses. We then pre-

sent our methodology and results before concluding with a

discussion of our findings, limitations, and implications for theory and

practice.

2|ECOLOGICAL ROUTINES

The primary theoretical foundation of this study is organizational rou-

tines, which are part of evolutionary economics (Parmigiani &

Howard-Grenville, 2011). The origin of evolutionary economics is

traced back to Veblen (1898/1997) through Schumpeter (1934) and

Alchian (1950). Nelson and Winter (1982) interpreted evolution as

gradual changes in routine-like behavior. From that perspective, evo-

lutionary economics refers to the capabilities and practices of an

organization as “the repertoires of organization members”that are

“associated with the possession of particular collections”of

resources, including the ability to utilize those resources productively

(Nelson & Winter, 1982, p. 103). It focuses on evolution of processes

and systems that enable organizations to function and grow

(M. C. Becker, 2004; Dosi, Nelson, & Winter, 2000; Winter, 2005).

Routines are thus variously defined as “pattern of behavior that is fol-

lowed repeatedly, but is subject to change if conditions change”

(Winter, 1964, p. 263); “flexible patterns offering a variety of alterna-

tive choices”(Koestler, 1967, p. 44); “generative systems with internal

structures and dynamics”(Pentland & Feldman, 2005, p. 793);

“ordered sets of actions”or “grammars of action”(Pentland & Rueter,

1994, p. 489), and “patterned sequences of learned behavior involv-

ing multiple actors who are linked by relations of communication

and/or authority”(Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994, p. 555). M. C. Becker

(2004) argues that routines are usually broadly defined as “patterns,”

even though it is not always clear whether these patterns denote

nonobservable, individual-level “habits of thought”or observable,

individual-level “habits”or collective-level, nonobservable thought

patterns or observable recurrent interaction patterns (Felin &

Foss, 2009).

In their recent review of the routines literature, Parmigiani and

Howard-Grenville (2011) suggest two perspectives: practice and

capabilities. The practice perspective emphasizes processes and

focuses on “how routines are enacted in the day-to-day and with

what consequences”(Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011, p. 417).

Practice routines, “repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent

action, carried out by multiple actors”(Feldman & Pentland, 2003,

p. 95), focus on the internal workings of specific processes in specific

organizational contexts (Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011). The

practice perspective differs from the capabilities perspective, which

emphasizes the accomplishments of routines toward organizational

goals. Capability routines are considered “the building blocks of capa-

bilities, with a repetitive and context-dependent nature”(Dosi,

Faillo, & Marengo, 2008, p. 1167). Capabilities and practice routines

influence organizational outcomes (see M. C. Becker, 2004; Felin &

Foss, 2009; Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011).

160 ZOOGAH