Advertisement

Collective action in organizational structures

  • Sergio F. Góngora y Moreno
  • J. Octavio Gutierrez-Garcia
Manuscript
  • 735 Downloads

Abstract

Public goods games played by a group of individuals collectively performing actions towards a common interest characterize social dilemmas where both competition and cooperation are present. By using agent-based simulation, this paper investigates how collective action in the form of repeated n-person linear public goods games is affected when the interaction of individuals is driven by the underlying hierarchical structure of an organization. The proposed agent-based simulation model is based on generally known empirical findings about public goods games and takes into account that individuals may change their profiles from conditional cooperators to rational egoists or vice versa. To do so, a fuzzy logic system was designed to allow the cumulative modification of agents’ profiles in the presence of vague variables such as individuals’ attitude towards group pressure and/or their perception about the cooperation of others. From the simulation results, it can be concluded that collective action is affected by the structural characteristics of hierarchical organizations. The major findings are as follows: (1) Cooperation in organizational structures is fostered when there is a collegial model defining the structure of the punishment mechanisms employed by organizations. (2) Having multiple, and small organizational units fosters group pressure and highlights the positive perception about the cooperation of others, resulting in organizations achieving relatively high aggregate contribution levels. (3) The greater the number of levels, the higher the aggregate contribution level of an organization when effective sanctioning systems are introduced.

Keywords

Collective action Cooperation Public goods games Organizational research Agent-based simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by Asociación Mexicana de Cultura, A.C. and by the Mexican Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) through Grant 216101.

References

  1. Abell P (2014) Rational choice theory and the analysis of organizations. Oxford handbook of sociology, social theory and organization studies: contemporary currents, p. 318Google Scholar
  2. Altman D, Machin D, Bryant T, Gardner M (eds) (2013) Statistics with confidence: confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Archetti M, Scheuring I (2012) Review: Game theory of public goods in one-shot social dilemmas without assortment. J Theor Biol 299:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asch SE (1951) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In: Guetzkow H (ed) Groups, leadership, and men; research in human relations. Carnegie Press, Oxford, pp 222–236Google Scholar
  5. Balliet D, Mulder LB, Van Lange PA (2011) Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 137(4):594–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandt H, Hauert C, Sigmund K (2003) Punishment and reputation in spatial public goods games. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270(1519):1099–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckl S, Ernst AM, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2009) An information model for managed application landscape evolution. J Enterp Archit 5(1):12–26Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter J, Kariv S, Schotter A (2012) Network architecture, cooperation and punishment in public good experiments. Rev Econ Des 16(2–3):93–118Google Scholar
  9. Chaudhuri A (2011) Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature. Exp Econ 14(1):47–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaudhuri A, Graziano S, Maitra P (2006) Social learning and norms in a public goods experiment with inter-generational advice. Rev Econ Stud 73(2):357–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Child P, Diederichs R, Sanders FH, Wisniowski S (1991) The management of complexity. McKinsey Q 43(4):52–68Google Scholar
  12. Cingolani P, Alcalá-Fdez J (2013) jFuzzyLogic: a java library to design fuzzy logic controllers according to the standard for fuzzy control programming. Int J Comput Intell Syst 6(1):61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Croson R (2007) Theories of commitment, altruism and reciprocity: evidence from linear public goods games. Econ Inq 45(2):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dufwenberg M, Kirchsteiger G (2004) A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 47(2):268–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dykstra P, Jager W, Elsenbroich C, Verbrugge R, Renardel G (2015) An agent-based dialogical model with fuzzy attitudes. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 18(3):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D, Roy RR (2008) The dual role of modularity: innovation and imitation. Manag Sci 54(5):939–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farjam M, Faillo M, Sprinkhuizen-Kuyper I, Haselager P (2015) Punishment mechanisms and their effect on cooperation: a simulation study. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 18(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fehr E, Gächter S (2000) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Am Econ Rev 90(4):980–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fehr E, Fischbacher U, Gächter S (2002) Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Hum Nat 13(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischbacher U, Gächter S (2010) Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public good experiments. Am Econ Rev 100(1):541–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ Lett 71(3):397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gächter S (2007) Conditional cooperation: behavioral regularities from the lab and the field and their policy implications. In: Frey BS, Stutzer A (eds) Psychology and economics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  23. Gächter S, Renner E, Sefton M (2008) The long-run benefits of punishment. Science 322(5907):1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gintis H (2009) Game theory and human behavior. In: Gintis H (ed) The bounds of reason: game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 45–83Google Scholar
  25. Gogheri AS, Nawaser K, Vesal SM, Jahanshahi AA, Kazi R (2013) Which organizational culture moves towards organizational excellency. Asian Social Science 9(11):221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldstone RL, Janssen MA (2005) Computational models of collective behavior. Trends Cogn Sci 9(9):424–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hájek P (2009) On vagueness, truth values and fuzzy logics. Stud Logica 91(3):367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hardin R (1971) Collective action as an agreeable n-prisoners’ dilemma. Behav Sci 16(5):472–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hauert C, De Monte S, Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (2002) Replicator dynamics for optional public good games. J Theor Biol 218(2):187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Helbing D, Szolnoki A, Perc M, Szabó G (2010) Punish, but not too hard: how costly punishment spreads in the spatial public goods game. New J Phys 12(8):083005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Indik BP (1964) The relationship between organization size and supervision ratio. Adm Sci Q 9(3):301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Isaac RM, Walker JM (1988) Group size effects in public goods provision: the voluntary contributions mechanism. Q J Econ 103(1):179–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Izquierdo LR, Olaru D, Izquierdo SS, Purchase S, Soutar GN (2015) Fuzzy Logic for Social Simulation Using NetLogo. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 18(4):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jablin FM (1982) Formal structural characteristics of organizations and superior-subordinate communication. Hum Commun Res 8(4):338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keser C, Van Winden F (2000) Conditional cooperation and voluntary contributions to public goods. Scand J Econ 102(1):23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kirst-Ashman KK, Hull GH Jr. (2014) Brooks/cole empowerment series: generalist practice with organizations and communities. Cengage Learning, BostonGoogle Scholar
  37. Knoke D (2009) Organizing for collective action: the political economies of associations. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  38. Kreps DM, Milgrom P, Roberts J, Wilson R (1982) Rational cooperation in the finitely-repeated prisoners’ dilemma. J Econ Theory 27:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lazega E (2001) The collegial phenomenon: the social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a corporate law partnership. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li Y, Shen B (2013) The coevolution of partner switching and strategy updating in non-excludable public goods game. Physica A 392(20):4956–4965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lotito G, Migheli M, Ortona G (2013) Is cooperation instinctive? Evidence from the response times in a public goods game. J Bioecon 15(2):123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lucas P, De Oliveira A, Banuri S (2014) The effects of group composition and social preference heterogeneity in a public goods game: an agent-based simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 17(3):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Masclet D (2002) Peer pressure in work teams: the effects of inequity aversion. Working paper du GATE 2002-15. 2002Google Scholar
  44. Meinzen-Dick R, Raju KV, Gulati A (2002) What affects organization and collective action for managing resources? Evidence from canal irrigation systems in India. World Dev 30(4):649–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nikiforakis N (2010) Feedback, punishment and cooperation in public goods experiments. Games Econ Behav 68(2):689–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olson M (2009) The logic of collective action, vol 124. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Ostrom E (2010) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 14(3):137–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pedrycz W (1994) Why triangular membership functions? Fuzzy Sets Syst 64(1):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poteete AR, Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2010) Working together: collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rand DG, Nowak MA (2013) Human cooperation. Trends Cogn Sci 17(8):413–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reed LL, Vidaver-Cohen D, Colwell SR (2011) A new scale to measure executive servant leadership: development, analysis, and implications for research. J Bus Ethics 101(3):415–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reuben E, Riedl A (2009) Enforcement of contribution norms in public good games with heterogeneous populations. Games Econ Behav 77(1):122–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rockenbach B, Milinski M (2006) The efficient interaction of indirect reciprocity and costly punishment. Nature 444:718–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Samek AS, Sheremeta RM (2014) Recognizing contributors: an experiment on public goods. Exp Econ 17(4):673–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sefton M, Shupp R, Walker J (2007) The effect of rewards and sanctions in provision of public goods. Econ Inq 45(4):671–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Szolnoki A, Szabó G, Perc M (2011) Phase diagrams for the spatial public goods game with pool punishment. Phys Rev E 83(3):036101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van de Ven AH, Lifschitz A (2013) Rational and reasonable microfoundations of markets and institutions. Acad Manag Perspect 27(2):156–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang Z, Xia CY, Meloni S, Zhou CS, Moreno Y (2013) Impact of social punishment on cooperative behavior in complex networks. Sci Rep 3:3055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Welch D (1993) Just another day at the office. Prof Ethics Multidiscip J 2(3/4):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wu ZX, Holme P (2009) Effects of strategy-migration direction and noise in the evolutionary spatial prisoner’s dilemma. Phys Rev E 80(2):026108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Xiao E, Houser D (2011) Punish in public. J Pub Econ 95(7):1006–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ye H, Tan F, Ding M, Jia Y, Chen Y (2011) Sympathy and punishment: evolution of cooperation in public goods game. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 14(4):20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang H, Perc M (2016) Evolution of conditional cooperation under multilevel selection. Sci Rep 6:23006CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceITAMMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations