Organizations are undergoing a profound transformation powered by technological changes such as artificial intelligence (AI). This is often called the fourth industrial revolution and is driven by rapid technological advancements. There are three key patterns of technological change, for example, discrete technology evolution, continuous technology evolution, and cyclical technology evolution (Grodal et al., Acad Manag Ann 17:141–180, 2023). Understanding these patterns and perspectives is crucial for organizations to effectively navigate technological change, adapt their strategies, and manage the impact of technological change on work and workers. Organizations are integrating these technological advancements into daily operations both in internal and customer-facing processes. Naturally, these technological advancements require organizations to respond to change at a macro and micro level. While the macro changes can be thought of as organizational strategy, the micro changes manifest themselves at the level of organizational routines. Both these types of changes require us to develop an understanding of how leaders and individuals respond, ways in which these changes manifest understand barriers to change. There are many established theories explaining organizational change such as Kurt Lewin’s change model, Kotter’s 8 step process for leading change, and McKinsey’s 7-S model (Poole and Van de Ven, Handbook of organizational change and innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004) which gives us rich insights into the mechanisms of organizational change. However, in this entry, we focus on developing an understanding of technological change through the specific lens of organizational routines. Organizational routines have been called grammar of action (Pentland and Rueter, Adm Sci Q 39:484–510, 1994) and have been a core topic in organizational behavior research. Tracing their roots back to the 1950s (Pentland and Rueter, Adm Sci Q 39:484–510, 1994), routines have been seen as a source of both organizational stability and change (Feldman, Organ Sci 11:611–629, 2000). Initially conceptualized by R. R. Nelson and Sidney Winter in 1982, organizational routines are “a pattern of behaviour that is followed repeatedly but is subject to change if conditions change” (Becker, Ind Corp Change 13:643–678, 2004). Over the past two decades, the organizational routines community of practice (Cronin and George, Organ Res Methods 26:168–192, 2020) has produced a rich body of research that has taken the journey from early conceptualization of routines as stable, reliable, and quasiautomatically performed patterns of actions to a practice theoretical view of dynamic capabilities view offered by research on routine dynamics (Wenzel et al., J Manag Inq 30:395–406, 2021). Taking this perspective allows us to look at patterns of technological change through the lens of changes in organizational routines. Further, we get to look at these changes from both the organization (i.e., group level) and employee (i.e., individual level). We also explore the role of organizational leadership in preparing the organization for these changes and explore the role of the individual in overcoming cognitive barriers to the same. There are key factors in which technological change and organizational routines affect each other. From a leadership standpoint, leaders who understand and embrace technological change can guide their organizations through the challenges and opportunities presented by these shifts. Further, technological and path dependencies can limit organizational flexibility. Organizations may become locked into specific technologies and routines, hindering their ability to adapt to new developments. From a cognitive perspective, one can understand the role of cognitive frames and interpretations in shaping organizational responses to technology. Therefore, organizations need to understand how their members perceive and make sense of new technologies to integrate them into existing routines effectively. The social perspective highlights the influence of social structures, power dynamics, and institutional forces on technological adoption and diffusion. Organizations need to navigate these social factors to successfully implement new technologies and adapt their routines.