In recent writings on organizational learning an interesting debate between proponents of team learning and those defending hierarchy as an essential condition for learning has developed. Here it is argued that teams appear to be the key learning units in organizations, but hierarchies are necessary to store and accumulate important learning results. Thus, in larger organizations teams must be integrated into some kind of hierarchy. Several authors have dealt with the problem of combining the benefits of both hierarchical and team-like structures. Attempts by Likert and Ackoff to combine the benefits of both hierarchical and team structures are based on the ideas of circularity and the (single) linking pin. A further elaboration of these solutions involves the idea of double-linking, as it is used in several Dutch organizations. Double-linking between teams provides the kind of vertical linkages which support and safeguard upward as well as downward information processing. As such, through the principle of double-linking organizations may become reflexive learning organizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackoff, R. (1981) Creating the Corporate Future. New York: Wiley.
2.
Ackoff, R. (1989) `The Circular Organization: An Update', Academy of Management Executive3(1): 11-16.
3.
Argyris, C. (1957) Personality and Organization. New York: Harper.
4.
Argyris, C. (1992) On Organizational Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
5.
Carley, K (1992) `Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover', Organization Science3: 20-46.
6.
Crozier, M. (1963) Le Phénomène Bureaucratique. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
7.
Dixon, N. M. (1992) `Organizational Learning: A Review of the Literature with Implications for HRD Professionals', Human Resource Development Quarterly3 (1): 29-49.
8.
Dodgson, M. (1993) `Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures', Organization Studies14: 375-394.
9.
Duncan, R. D. and Weiss, A. (1979) `Organizational Learning: Implications for Organizational Design', in B. Stawet al. (eds) Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 1, pp. 75-123.
10.
Endenburg, G. (1988) Sociocracy: The Organization of Decision-Making. Rotterdam: Sociocratic Center.
11.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973) Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12.
Garvin, D. A. (1993) `Building a Learning Organization', Harvard Business Review71(4): 78-91.
13.
Hawkins, P. (1994) `Organizational Learning: Taking Stock and Facing the Challenge', Management Learning25 (1): 71-82.
14.
Hildebrandt, E. (1989) `From Co-determination to Co-management: The Dilemma Confronting Works Councils in the Introduction of New Technologies in the Machine-building Industry', in C. J. Lammers and G. Széll (eds) International Handbook of Participation in Organizations, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
Huber, G. P. (1991) `Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and Literatures', Organization Science3: 88-115.
16.
Iannello, K. P. (1992) Decisions Without Hierarchy: Feminist Interventions in Organization Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
17.
Kavcic, B. , Rus, V. and Tannenbaum, F. (1971) `Control, Participation and Effectiveness in Four Yugoslav Industrial Organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly16: 74-83.
18.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1989) Prisoners of Leadership. New York: Wiley.
19.
Kim, D. H. (1993) `The Link Between Individual and Organizational Learning', Sloan Management Review (Fall): 37-50.
20.
Kissler, L. (1989) `Co-determination Research in the Federal Republic of Germany: A Review', in C. J. Lammers and G. Szll (eds) International Handbook of Participation in Organizations, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
Kofman, K. and Senge, P. M. (1993) `Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations', Organizational Dynamics22 (2): 5-23.
22.
Lawler, E. E. (1989) `Participative Management in the United States: Three Classics Revisited', in C. J. Lammers and G. Széll (eds) International Handbook of Participation in Organizations, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993) `The Myopia of Learning', Strategic Management Journal14: 95-112.
24.
Levitt, B. and March, J. G. (1988) `Organizational learning', Annual Review of Sociology14: 319-340.
25.
Likert, R. (1961) New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
Likert, R. (1976) The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
Long, R. (1986) `Recent Patterns in Swedish Industrial Democracy', in R. N. Stern and S. McCarthy (eds) International Yearbook of Organizational Democracy, Vol. 3, pp. 375-385. Chichester: Wiley.
28.
Louis, M. R. (1994) `In the Manner of Friends: Learning from Quaker Practice for Organizational Renewal', Journal of Organizational Change Management7 (1): 42-60.
29.
McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
Marsick, V. J. (1994) `Trends in Managerial Reinvention: Creating a Learning Map', Management Learning25 (1): 11-33.
31.
Mills, D. Q. (1991) Rebirth of the Corporation. New York: Wiley.
32.
Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33.
Neubauer, F. (1994) `Boards as Learning Organizations', Journal of Strategic Change3: 21-27.
34.
Nonaka, I. (1991) `The Knowledge-Creating Company', Harvard Business Review69(6): 96-104.
35.
Nonaka, I. (1994) `A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation', Organization Science5: 14-37.
36.
Obradovic, J. (1975) `Workers' Participation: Who Participates?', Industrial Relations14: 43-44.
37.
Peters, T. (1987) Thriving on Chaos. London: Pan Books.
38.
Poole, M. (1986) `Participation Through Representation: A Review of Constraints and Conflicting Pressures', in R. N. Stern and S. McCarthy (eds) International Yearbook of Organizational Democracy, Vol. 3, pp. 235-256. Chichester: Wiley.
39.
Reijmer, J. M. and Romme, A. G. L. (1996) `Sturing en Zelforganisatie via Sociocratische Principes' (Steering and Self-organization via Sociocratic Principles), Argumenten17(1): 9-18.
40.
Romme, A. G. L. (1995a) `The Sociocratic Model of Organizing', Journal of Strategic Change4: 209-216.
41.
Romme, A. G. L. (1995b) `Non-participation and System Dynamics', System Dynamics Review1: 311-319.
42.
Romme, A. G. L. (1996) `A Note on the Team-Hierarchy Debate', Strategic Management Journal17: 411-417.
43.
Schweiger, D. M. , Sandberg, W. R. and Ragan, J. W. (1986) `Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus', Academy of Management Journal29 (1): 51-71.
44.
Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday Currency.
45.
Stata, R. (1989) `Organizational Learning, the Key to Management Innovation', Sloan Management Review30(3): 63-73.
46.
Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I. (1986) `The New New Product Development Game', Harvard Business Review64(1): 137-146.
47.
Ulrich, D. , Von Glinow, M. A. and Jick, J. (1993) `High-Impact Learning: Building and Diffusing Learning Capability', Organizational Dynamics22(2): 52-66.
48.
Van Olffen, W. and Romme, A. G. L. (1995) `The Role of Hierarchy in Self-Organizing Systems', Human Systems Management14: 199-206.
49.
Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1990) `Learning in Economic Theory: A Taxonomy with an Application to Expectations Formation', Journal of Economic Psychology11: 183-207.
50.
Wheatley, M. J. (1992) Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
51.
Zeleny, M. (1989) `Knowledge as a New Form of Capital: Part 1. Division and Reintegration of Knowledge', Human Systems Management8: 45-58.
