Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of virtuality on the functioning of centralized versus decentralized structures—an information processing perspective

  • Published:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Does virtuality in organizations require centralization or decentralization? We specify the coordination and information processing requirements for virtual organizing in order to examine how these requirements are met by centralized and decentralized structural designs, respectively. We use the agent based SimVision computational discrete event simulation model as our experimental platform to develop concise and comparable measures of the information processing needs of virtual organizing, and how these are met by the information processing capabilities of the centralized and decentralized structures. Contrary to conventional wisdom, that the centralized form is more effective in virtual settings than the decentralized form.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahuja MJ, Carley KM (1999) Network structure in virtual organizations. Organ Sci 10(6):741–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberts DS, Hayes RE (2003) Power to the edge. CCRP, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberts DS, Hayes RE (2006) Understanding command and control. CCRP, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong DJ, Cole P (2002) Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In: Hinds P, Kiesler SB (eds) Distributed work. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1974) The limits of organization. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer MB (1996) In-group favoritism: the subtle side of intergroup discrimination. In: Messick DM, Tenbrunsel A (eds) Codes of conduct: behavioral research and business ethics. Russell Sage Found, New York, pp 160–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The management of innovation. Tavistok, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM (2003) Computational laboratories for organization science: questions, validity and docking. Comput Math Organ Theory 9(2):91–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, Obel B (1995) The validity of computational models in organization science: from model realism to purpose of the model. Comput Math Organ Theory 1(1):57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, Obel B (2004) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design—the dynamics of fit. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, DeSanctis G, Obel B (2006) Organizational design: a step-by-step approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll T, Burton RM (2000) Organizations and complexity: searching for the edge of chaos. Comput Math Organ Theory 6:319–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough H, Kusunoki K (2001) The modularity trap: innovation, technology phases shifts and the resulting limits of virtual organizations. In: Nonaka I, Teece D (eds) Managing industrial knowledge. Sage, London, pp 202–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW, Teece DJ (1996) When is virtual virtuous? Harv Bus Rev 65–73

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning organizations. Organ Sci 7:119–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 12(3): 346–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Q 11:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JP, Bingham CB, Eisenhardt KM (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad Manag J

  • Davis SM, Lawrence PR (1977) Matrix. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich J (2008) Media, tasks and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32(3):575–600

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis G, Monge P (1999) Introduction to the special issue: communication processes for virtual organizations. Organ Sci 10(6):693–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith JR (1974) Organization design: an information processing view. Interfaces 4(3)

  • Galbraith JR (1977) Organization design. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinter R, Herbsleb J, Perry D (1999) The geography of coordination: dealing with distance in R&D work. In: Proceedings of GROUP’99. ACM Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Guetzkow H, Simon H (1955) The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and performance in task-oriented groups. Manag Sci 1:233–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin H (1995) Employees’ perspectives on one dimension of labour flexibility: working at a distance. Work Employ Soc 9(3):473–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JR, Lin Z, Carroll GR, Carley KM (2007) Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad Manag J

  • Herbsleb J, Mockus A, Finholt T, Grinter R (2000) Distance, dependencies, and delay in a global collaboration. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2000. ACM Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinds PJ, McGrath C (2006) Structures that work: structure and coordinated ease in geographically distributed teams. Group Organ Interfaces 343–352

  • Hinds PJ, Mortensen M (2005) Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ Sci 16(3):290–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horii T, Jin Y, Levitt RE (2005) Modelling and analyzing cultural influences on project team performance. Comput Math Organ Theory 10:305–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q 42(3):530–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen KW, Haakonsson DD, Burton RM, Obel B (2009) Embedding virtuality into organization design theory: virtuality and its information processing consequences. In: Bøllingtoft A, Håkonsson DD, Nielsen JF, Snow CC, Ulhøi J (eds) New approaches to designing and organizing. Springer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin Y, Levitt RE (1996) The virtual design team: a computational model of project organizations. Comput Math Organ Theory 2(3):171–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Burton RM (2002) The effect of task uncertainty and decentralization on project team performance. Comput Math Organ Theory 8(4):365–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman BL, Mathieu JE (2005) The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. J Manag 31(5):700–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer R (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Ann Rev Psychol 50:569–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut RE, Fussell SR, Brennan SE, Siegel J (2002) Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In: Hinds P, Kiesler S (eds) Distributed work. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 137–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar J (2006) Working as a designer in a global team. Interactions 25–27

  • Kurland NB, Egan TD (1999) Telecommuting: justice and control in the virtual organization. Organ Sci 10(4):500–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt RE (1999) The VitéProject handbook: a users guide to modeling and analyzing project work processes and organizations. Manual to VitéProject tm 2.2. Vité Corp

  • Levitt RE (2004) Computational modeling of organizations comes of age. J Comput Math Organ Theory 10(2):127–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt RE, Cohen GP, Kunz JC, Nass CI, Christiansen TR, Yin J (1994) The virtual design team: simulating how organization structure and information processing tools affect team performance. In: Carley KM, Prietula M (eds) Computational and mathematical organization theory. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt RE, Thomson J, Christiansen TR, Kunz JC, Yin J, Nass CI (1999) Simulating project work processes and organizations: towards a micro-contingency theory of organizational design. Manag Sci 45(11):1479–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipnick J, Stamps J (1997) Virtual teams: researching across space, time and organizations with technology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Magjuka R, Lee S (2008) The effects of cognitive thinking styles, trust, conflict management on online students’ learning and virtual team performance. Br J Educ Technol 39(5):829–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput Surv 26(1):87–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins LL, Gilson LL, Maynard TM (2004) Virtual teams: what do we know and where do we go from here? J Manag 30(6):805–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann J, Galbraith JR (1981) Interdepartmental relations. In: Nystrom P, Starbuck W (eds) Handbook of organizations, vol 2. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 60–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations. Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowshowitz A (1997) Virtual organization. Commun ACM 40(9):30–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulders DEM, Romme AGL (2009) Unpacking dynamic capability: a design perspective. In: Bøllingtoft A, Håkonsson DD, Nielsen JF, Snow CC, Ulhøi J (eds) New approaches to designing and organizing. Springer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissen ME (2007) Computational experimentation on new organizational forms: exploring behavior and performance of edge organizations. Comput Math Organ Theory 13(3):203–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohria N, Eccles RG (1992) Face-to-face: making network organizations work. In: Nohria N, Eccles RG (eds) Networks and organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp 288–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson MH (1982) New information technology and organizational culture. Manag Inf Syst Q 71–92. Special Issue (December)

  • O’Leary MB, Cummings JN (2007) The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographical dispersion in teams. MIS Q 31(3):433–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm Sci Q 48(2):240–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers E, Bhowmik D (1970) Homophily-heterophily: relational concepts for communication research. Public Opin Q 34:523–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Rivkin JE (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ Sci 16:101–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom E, De Meuse KP, Furtrell D (1990) Work teams: applications and effectiveness. Am Psychol 45(2):120–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman M (1979) Work characteristics and submit communication structure: a contingency analysis. Adm Sci Q 24:82–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Nadler D (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad Manag Rev 3:613–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong SS, Burton RM (2002) Virtual teams: what are their characteristics and impact on team performance? Comput Math Organ Theory 6:339–360

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entrepreneurship and Relationship Management, University of Southern Denmark, Engstien 1, 6000, Kolding, Denmark

    Kent Wickstrøm Jensen

  2. Department of Management, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Haslegaardsvej 10, 8210, Aarhus V, Denmark

    Dorthe Døjbak Håkonsson

  3. The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 1 Towerview, Durham, NC, 27708-6245, USA

    Richard M. Burton

  4. Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210, Aarhus V, Denmark

    Børge Obel

Authors
  1. Kent Wickstrøm Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorthe Døjbak Håkonsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard M. Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Børge Obel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent Wickstrøm Jensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jensen, K.W., Håkonsson, D.D., Burton, R.M. et al. The effect of virtuality on the functioning of centralized versus decentralized structures—an information processing perspective. Comput Math Organ Theory 16, 144–170 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-010-9069-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-010-9069-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation