Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization

Hedberg, Bo; Bystrom, Paul C.; Starbuck, William H.

doi:10.2307/2391877

Cited by 706 publications

(323 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

293

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, at SCC a large amount of adjustment and In almost every case, the existence of a later spun of adaptive activity at BBA was associated with a specific, disruptive event in the project life cycle (see Table 7 (Weick, 1990:21). Weick points to Barley's (1986) (Hedberg, Nystrom and Starbuck, 1976), groups (Gersick, 1988;Bettenhausen and Murninghan, 1985) and individuals (Luchins, 1942;Langer and Imber, 1979 (Hackman, 1990). Bettenhausen and Muminghan (1985) find that when group members threaten or challenge group norms, they create an opponunity to consider new altemanves and to build a new, stronger consensus.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaptation in Organizations

Tyre

Orlikowski

1994

Organization Science

689

411

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(Rosenberg, 1982;Dutton and Thomas, 1985). These problems, in turn, require adaptation of the technologies already in use.A close understanding of the process of adaptation is critical for several reasons. First, users' adaptations to technologies-in-use often help to shape funher development and research activities (von Hippel. 1988;Dutton and Thomas, 1985). Second, the operating efficiency ultimately achieved with a new technology depends heavily on users' modifications (Enos, 1958;Hollander, 1965;Dutton and Thomas. 1984). Third, modifications affect not just the technologyin-use, but also its physical and organizational context (Leonard-Banon, 1988 (1983) states that when organizations try to rush the introduction process, they fail to identify and correct problems that later hamper productive use of the technology. Thus, "too-rapid implementation of the innovation ... can lead to disastrous results" (Rogers, 1983:364). Similarly, Hughes (1971:152) maintains that "trying to force the pace" of adaptation is counterproductive, while Hage and Aiken (1970:106) suggest that "the longer the elite allow [the] period of tnal and error to continue, the greater the chances of the new program achieving its intended objectives." Finally, Imai (1986) (Kiesler and Sproull, 1982;Starbuck, 1989). Groups in organizations also develop tendencies toward routine behaviors. Over time, they become increasingly unlikely to recognize and respond to new kinds of problems (Kelley and Thibaut, 1954;Katz, 1982;Hackman, 1990). Even research teams have been shown to be reluctant to alter a given technical approach once it has been selected, and the longer the approach has been used, the greater their rigidity (Allen, 1966).At the individual level, research suggests that people's arousal, attention, and motivation to engage in effortful problem solving is not constant over time. Specifically, active problem solving and information processing appear to drop sharply as soon as tasks become familiar or manageable (Langer and Imber, 1979;Kruglanski and Freund, 1983). With increasing exposure, observers tend to "chunk" activities into larger units that convey less information than fine-grained observauons, although a sudden surprise can sometimes reverse the process (Newtson, 1973; Louis and Sutton, 1991). Familiarity also breeds rounnized response patterns; once activities are well entrenched, even superficial resemblance to a known stimulus is sufficient to tngger a familiar response (Luchins, 1942).One of the few scholars to have considered the implications of these behavioral tendencies for technological adaptation is Weick (1990). Following Winner (1986), Weick (1990:21) suggests that "the point at which technology is introduced [may be) the point at which it is most susceptible to influence." Weick argues that "beginnings are of special imponance ... because they constrain what is learned about the technology and how fast it is learned " (1990:21-22 We deliberately sought vanety in the settings studied, the technologies...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaptation in Organizations

Tyre

Orlikowski

1994

Organization Science

689

411

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The image of organizations as self-designing systems blends the image of repository with that of culture (see Weick & Westley, 1996;Weick & Berlinger, 1989;Eccles & Crane, 1988;Weick, 1977;Hedberg, et al, 1976 on self-designing systems). On one hand, as repository, the system accumulates built-up knowledge as trust-worthy public property, meeting a key condition for learning from error posited by Karl Popper (1989: 260).…”

Section: The Community-based Model Of Knowledge Creation: An Evolumentioning

confidence: 99%

From a Firm-Based to a Community-Based Model of Knowledge Creation: The Case of the Linux Kernel Development

Lee

Cole

2003

Organization Science

565

406

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a new model of knowledge creation in purposeful, loosely-coordinated, distributed systems, as an alternative to a firm-based one. Specifically, using the case of Linux kernel development project, we build a model of community-based, evolutionary knowledge creation to study how thousands of talented volunteers, dispersed across organizational and geographical boundaries, collaborate via the Internet to produce a knowledge-intensive, innovative product of high quality. By comparing and contrasting the Linux model with the traditional/commercial model of software development and firm-based knowledge creation efforts, we show how the proposed model of knowledge creation expands beyond the boundary of the firm. Our model suggests that the product development process can be effectively organized as an evolutionary process of learning driven by criticism and error correction. We conclude by offering some theoretical implications of our community-based model of knowledge creation for the literature of organizational learning, community life, and the uses of knowledge in society.

show abstract

“…In double-loop learning, a continuous process of experimentation and feedback guides the governing variables themselves and allows firms to undertake radical change, for example by changing the way in which strategies are formed, by solving new problems, and by taking advantage of new opportunities (Argyris, 1976(Argyris, , 1977Argyris & Schön, 1978). Double-loop learning is needed for sustainability in fast changing environments which require continuous experimentation, feedback and change (Hedberg, Nystrom & Starbuck, 1976).…”

Section: Individual Level Microfoundations Of Ijv Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microfoundations for learning within international joint ventures

Park

Harris

2014

International Business Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IJV research highlights the importance of learning in international joint ventures (IJVs) but has not indicated how to achieve it. We combine organizational learning and internationalization process research within a microfoundations framework to understand learning in IJVs. We study a Samsung-Tesco IJV that successfully learned retail practice from one partner and applied it in a South Korean context known by the other. The managers used many learning processes, not just experiential learning emphasized in international business research, and used many more knowledge sources than assumed in prior research, including the IJV partners' other subsidiaries. To build absorptive capacity, IJVs need appropriate microfoundations at individual, process and structural levels, and coherent interlinkages between them, especially by having IJV managers' with extensive experience and orientation to learn who are given structural and process autonomy to invest in learning. Highlights: Learning in IJVs with dissimilar partners is best driven by autonomous IJV managers. Copying, recruitment and searching are important, not only experiential learning. Absorptive capacity building requires coherent links between levels of learning.  Partner's other subsidiaries are important sources and recipients of learning.

show abstract

Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization

Cited by 706 publications

References 2 publications

Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaptation in Organizations

Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaptation in Organizations

From a Firm-Based to a Community-Based Model of Knowledge Creation: The Case of the Linux Kernel Development

Microfoundations for learning within international joint ventures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About