IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v17y2006i2p171-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning to Design Organizations and Learning from Designing Them

Author

Listed:
  • Roger L. M. Dunbar

    (Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York 10012-1118)

  • William H. Starbuck

    (Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1503)

Abstract

The academic focus of organization studies has unfortunately drifted over the years from the issues that organizations pose for their members and their societies, and the issues that confront people who seek to improve organizations. However, studies of efforts to design organizations can help us to better understand organizations and may also help us to improve them. The papers in this special issue of Organization Science describe several specific efforts to design organizations, telling why people wanted to make changes and what happened when people sought to make them.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger L. M. Dunbar & William H. Starbuck, 2006. "Learning to Design Organizations and Learning from Designing Them," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 171-178, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:17:y:2006:i:2:p:171-178
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0181
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1060.0181?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Jan W. Rivkin, 2005. "Speed and Search: Designing Organizations for Turbulence and Complexity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 101-122, April.
    2. Richard L. Daft & Arie Y. Lewin, 1990. "Can Organization Studies Begin to Break Out of the Normal Science Straitjacket? An Editorial Essay," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, February.
    3. J. Marschak, 1955. "Elements for a Theory of Teams," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 127-137, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michelle Harbour & Jacques-Bernard Gauthier, 2020. "Complex polysemy and reflexivity in organizational research," Working Papers hal-01543416, HAL.
    2. Sai Yayavaram & Wei-Ru Chen, 2015. "Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm innovation performance: The moderating role of technological complexity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 377-396, March.
    3. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Hideo Owan, 2013. "Autonomy, Conformity and Organizational Learning," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Andreas Blume & April Mitchell Franco & Paul Heidhues, 2021. "Dynamic coordination via organizational routines," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(4), pages 1001-1047, November.
    5. Hedström, Peter & Wennberg, Karl, 2016. "Causal Mechanisms in Organization and Innovation Studies," Ratio Working Papers 284, The Ratio Institute.
    6. Miguel Cunha & Arménio Rego & Antonino Vaccaro, 2014. "Organizations as Human Communities and Internal Markets: Searching for Duality," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(4), pages 441-455, April.
    7. Giannoccaro, Ilaria, 2015. "Adaptive supply chains in industrial districts: A complexity science approach focused on learning," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PB), pages 576-589.
    8. James K. Hazy, 2012. "Leading large: emergent learning and adaptation in complex social networks," International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 52-73.
    9. Giannoccaro, Ilaria & Galesic, Mirta & Massari, Giovanni Francesco & Barkoczi, Daniel & Carbone, Giuseppe, 2020. "Search behavior of individuals working in teams: A behavioral study on complex landscapes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 507-516.
    10. Yue M. Zhou & Xiang Wan, 2017. "Product variety, sourcing complexity, and the bottleneck of coordination," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(8), pages 1569-1587, August.
    11. Argouslidis, Paraskevas C. & Baltas, George & Mavrommatis, Alexis, 2015. "An empirical investigation into the determinants of decision speed in product elimination decision processes," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 268-286.
    12. Oliver Baumann, 2015. "Models of complex adaptive systems in strategy and organization research," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 14(2), pages 169-183, November.
    13. Christina Fang & Jeho Lee & Melissa A. Schilling, 2010. "Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 625-642, June.
    14. Dirk Martignoni & Thomas Keil & Markus Lang, 2020. "Focus in Searching Core–Periphery Structures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 266-286, March.
    15. Martínez, Zaida L. & Toyne, Brian, 2000. "What is international management, and what is its domain?," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 11-28.
    16. Kerstin Press, 2006. "Divide to conquer? The Silicon Valley - Boston 128 case revisited," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0610, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Dec 2006.
    17. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    18. Daniel A. Levinthal & Maciej Workiewicz, 2018. "When Two Bosses Are Better Than One: Nearly Decomposable Systems and Organizational Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 207-224, April.
    19. Göthlich, Stephan E., 2003. "From loosely coupled systems to collaborative business ecosystems," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 573, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    20. Kevin J. Dooley & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1999. "Explaining Complex Organizational Dynamics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 358-372, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:17:y:2006:i:2:p:171-178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.