This paper challenges the traditional view of organizational routines as sources of inertia. Instead, it proposes a theory that explains how routines can be sources of both stability and change. The paper distinguishes between the ostensive aspect of routines, which is the abstract structure, and the performative aspect, which is the actual actions taken by people. The ostensive aspect enables people to guide, account for, and refer to specific performances of a routine, while the performative aspect creates, maintains, and modifies the ostensive aspect. This interaction between the two aspects allows routines to generate a wide range of outcomes, from apparent stability to considerable change. The paper argues that organizational routines are inherently capable of endogenous change and cannot be understood as static, unchanging objects. It uses the academic hiring routine as an example to illustrate these points. The paper also discusses the implications of this new understanding for organizational theories and highlights the importance of considering both structure and agency in understanding organizational routines.This paper challenges the traditional view of organizational routines as sources of inertia. Instead, it proposes a theory that explains how routines can be sources of both stability and change. The paper distinguishes between the ostensive aspect of routines, which is the abstract structure, and the performative aspect, which is the actual actions taken by people. The ostensive aspect enables people to guide, account for, and refer to specific performances of a routine, while the performative aspect creates, maintains, and modifies the ostensive aspect. This interaction between the two aspects allows routines to generate a wide range of outcomes, from apparent stability to considerable change. The paper argues that organizational routines are inherently capable of endogenous change and cannot be understood as static, unchanging objects. It uses the academic hiring routine as an example to illustrate these points. The paper also discusses the implications of this new understanding for organizational theories and highlights the importance of considering both structure and agency in understanding organizational routines.