On Habit and Organizing: A Transactional Perspective Relating Firms, Consumers, and Social Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habits and routines are foundational to several organizational theories. Considering organizational members to be predominately employees, established habit-based models recognize how these members’ habits help build organizations and are shaped by them. Departing from this traditional, internal focus, our paper highlights an important aspect of organizing, which has been relatively overlooked by established habit-based models, namely, how firms engineer consumer habits to their advantage and, by extension, strategically shape the habits of other key resource providers. To better theorize consumer habits and their engineering, and to integrate these phenomena within extant organizational theory, we develop a new habit-based perspective relating firms, consumers, and social institutions. Inspired by Dewey’s transactional approach and drawing on modern habit science, our transactional framework helps illuminate habit engineering, promotes a richer and more integrated view of organizing, and opens new possibilities for habit-based organizational theories. Our paper also offers several implications for firms’ managers, individual consumers, and broader society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".