Deutero-learning in organizations: A review and a reformulation

Academy of Management Review

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 659-667

  Visser, Max ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247479007     PISSN: 03637425     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2007.24351883     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Argote, L. 1999. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Boston: Kluwer.
2. Argyris, C. 2003. A life full of learning. Organization Studies, 24: 1178-1192.
3. Argyris, C. 2004. Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7. Bateson, G. 1958. Naven (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8. Bateson, G. 1963. Exchange of information about patterns of human behavior. In W. S. Fields & W. Abbott (Eds.), Information storage and neural control: 173-186. Spring-field, IL: Thomas Books.
9. Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler.
10. Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the "strength" of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203-221.
11. Bowers, J. W., & Sanders, R. E. 1974. Paradox as a rhetorical strategy. In W. R. Fisher (Ed.), Rhetoric: A tradition in transition: 300-315. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
12. Bugenthal, D. E., Love, L. R., Kaswan, J. W., & April, C. 1971. Verbal-nonverbal conflict in parental messages to normal and disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 77: 6-10.
13. Crossan, M. M. 2003. Altering theories of learning and action: An interview with Chris Argyris. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2): 40-46.
14. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Dijksterhuis, M. S., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 1999. Where do new organizational forms come from? Management logics as a source of coevolution. Organization Science, 10: 569-582.
16. Dopson, S., & Neumann, J. E. 1998. Uncertainty, contrariness and the double bind: Middle managers' reactions to changing contracts. British Journal of Management. 9(Supplement): 53-70.
17. Dush, D. M., & Brodsky, M. 1981. Effects and implications of the experimental double bind. Psychological Reports, 48: 895-900.
18. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 735-744.
19. Easterby-Smith, M., Antonacopolou, E., Simm, D., & Lyles, M. A. 2004. Constructing contributions to organizational learning: Argyris and the next generation. Management Learning, 35: 371-380.
20. Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. 2003. Re-reading Organizational learning: Selective memory, forgetting and adaptation. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2): 51-55.
21. Eden, D. 1984. Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9: 64-73.
22. Eden, D. 1990. Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
23. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105-1121.
24. Feldman, M. S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11: 611-629.
25. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, P. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94-118.
26. Geppert, M. 2000. Beyond the learning organization: Paths of organizational learning in the East German context. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
27. Graves, J. R., & Robinson, J. D. 1976. Proxemic behavior as a function of inconsistent verbal and nonverbal messages. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23: 333-338.
28. Haley, J. 1963. Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton.
29. Hennestad, B. W. 1990. The symbolic impact of double bind leadership: Double bind and the dynamics of organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 27: 265-280.
30. Huysman, M. 2000. Rethinking organizational learning: Analyzing learning processes of information system designers. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10: 81-99.
31. Konst, D., Vonk, R., & Van der Vlist, R. 1999. Inferences about causes and consequences of behavior of leaders and followers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 261-271.
32. Kuiken, D., & Hill, K. 1985. Double-bind communications and respondents' reluctance to affirm the validity of their self-disclosures. Perceptual and Motor Stills, 60: 83-95.
33. Leathers, D. G. 1979. The impact of multichannel message inconsistency on verbal and nonverbal decoding behaviors. Communication Monographs, 46: 88-100.
34. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal. 14(Supplement): 95-112.
35. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340.
36. Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25: 760-776.
37. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87.
38. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1975. The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3: 147-171.
39. March, J. G., Schultz, M., & Zhou, X. 2000. The dynamics of rules: Change in written organizational codes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
40. Morgeson, F. P., & Hoffmann, D. A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 249-265.
41. Putnam, L. L. 1986. Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization-communication: Emerging perspectives, vol. 1: 151-167. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
42. Romme, A. G. L., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. 1999. Circular organizing and triple loop learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12: 439-453.
43. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. 1968. Pygmalion in the class room: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
44. Schneider, B. 2000. The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanazy, C. P. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate: xvii-xxi. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Schön, D. A. 1971. Beyond the stable state. New York: Random House.
46. Schön, D. A. 1975. Deutero-learning in organizations: Learning for increased effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics. 4(1): 2-16.
47. Schön, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
48. Schön, D. A. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49. Sluzki, C. E., & Veron, E. 1971. The double bind as a universal pathogenic situation. Family Process, 10: 397-410.
50. Smith, E. K. 1976. Effect of the double-bind communication on the anxiety levels of normals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85: 356-363.
51. Steier, F. 1995. Reflexivity, interpersonal communication, and interpersonal communication research. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to communication: 63-87. New York: Guilford Press.
52. Thomsen, H. K., & Hoest, V. 2001. Employees' perception of the learning organization. Management Learning, 32: 469-491.
53. Tracy, S. J. 2004. Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32: 119-146.
54. Visser, M. 2003. Gregory Bateson on deutero-learning and double bind: A brief conceptual history. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 39: 269-278.
55. Wagner, J. A. 1978. The organizational double bind: Toward an understanding of rationality and its complement. Academy of Management Review, 3: 786-795.
56. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. 1967. Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: Norton.
57. Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
58. Wijnhoven, F. 2001. Acquiring organizational learning norms: A contingency approach for understanding deutero-learning. Management Learning, 32: 181-200.
59. Winter, S. G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 991-995.
60. Zbaracki, M. J. 1998. The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43:602-636.
61. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13: 339-351.