The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization
Abstract
Bo L. T. Hedberg, Paul C. Nystrom, and William H. Starbuck This article prescribes how an organization can be designed to meet social and technological changes and to reap advantage from them. Long-term viability maximizes in a self-designing organization, in which those who perform activities take primary responsibility for learning and for inventing new methods, and in which nonparticipant designers restrict themselves to a catalytic role. Such an organization is formed by putting together processes, the generators of behaviors. Although the complex interactions among processes make designers' forecasts unreliable, serious future problems can be avoided by keeping processes dynamically balanced. The desired balance can be caricatured with six aphorisms:
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change
Feldman, M. S. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.6.611.12529 · Cited by 1,969
Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/196734.196745 · Cited by 1,736
Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131004 · Cited by 1,290
Lee, G. K., & Cole, R. E. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.633.24866 · Cited by 713
A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity
Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0731 · Cited by 556
Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing
Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.002 · Cited by 540
The Social Construction of Organizational Learning: Conceptual and Practical Issues in the Field
Nicolini, D., & Meznar, M. B. (1995) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872679504800701 · Cited by 344
Designs for Crisis Decision Units
Smart, C., & Vertinsky, I. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392406 · Cited by 323
Organizational context, climate and innovativeness: adoption of imaging technology
Nystrom, P. C., Ramamurthy, K., & Wilson, A. L. (2002) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/s0923-4748(02)00019-x · Cited by 263
Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies?: The case of XYZ construction
Burnes, B. (2004) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443570410552108 · Cited by 181
Structural Evolution Through Idiosyncratic Jobs: The Potential for Unplanned Learning
Miner, A. S. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.195 · Cited by 137
The role of paradoxical logic in innovation: The case of Intel
Norman, P. M., Palich, L. E., Livingstone, L. P., & Carini, G. R. (2004) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2003.09.004 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Hedberg, B. L. T., Bystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1976-03
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3125973476
- Cited by
- 808
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
