Advertisement

Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 252–277 | Cite as

Opinion transmission in organizations: an agent-based modeling approach

  • Juliette RouchierEmail author
  • Paola Tubaro
  • Cécile Emery
Manuscript

Abstract

This paper builds a theoretical framework to detect the conditions under which social influence enables persistence of a shared opinion among members of an organization over time, despite membership turnover. It develops agent-based simulations of opinion evolution in an advice network, whereby opinion is defined in the broad sense of shared understandings on a matter that is relevant for an organization’s activities, and on which members have some degree of discretion. We combine a micro-level model of social influence that builds on the “relative agreement” approach of Deffuant et al. (J. Artif. Soc. Simul. 5:4, 2002), and a macro-level structure of interactions that includes a flow of joiners and leavers and allows for criteria of advice tie formation derived from, and grounded in, the empirical literature on intra-organizational networks.

We provide computational evidence that persistence of opinions over time is possible in an organization with joiners and leavers, a result that depends on circumstances defined by mode of network tie formation (in particular, criteria for selection of advisors), individual attributes of agents (openness of newcomers to influence, as part of their socialization process), and time-related factors (turnover rate, which regulates the flow of entry and exit in the organization, and establishes a form of endogenous hierarchy based on length of stay). We explore the combined effects of these factors and discuss their implications.

Keywords

Social influence Social networks Intra-organizational networks Agent-based modeling Opinion dynamics 

References

  1. Amblard F, Deffuant G (2006) Certaines propriétés d’un réseau social facilitent la propagation de l’extrémisme. In: Cahiers d’Interactions Localisées, Special issue ‘Mathématique des réseaux’, vol 2. INRA Editions, Versailles, pp 15–38 Google Scholar
  2. Amblard F, Bommel P, Rouchier J (2007) Assessment and validation of multi-agent models. In: Phan D, Amblard F (eds) Multi-agent modeling and simulation in the social and human sciences. Bardwell Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  3. Athanassiou N, Nigh D (1999) The impact of US company internationalization on top management team advice networks: a tacit knowledge perspective. Strateg Manag J 20:83–92. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199901)20:1<83::AID-SMJ10>3.0.CO;2-Y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod R (1997) The dissemination of culture. A model with local convergence and global polarization. J Confl Resolut 41:203–226. doi: 10.1177/0022002797041002001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer TN, Bodner T, Erdongan B, Truxillo DM, Tucker JS (2007) Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: a meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. J Appl Psychol 92:707–721. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burkhardt ME (1994) Social interaction effects following a technological change: a longitudinal investigation. Acad Manag J 37:869–898. doi: 10.2307/256603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll GR, Harrison JR (1998) Organizational demography and culture: insights from a formal model. Adm Sci Q 43:637–667. doi: 10.2307/2393678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Centola D, González-Avella JC, Eguíluz VM, San Miguel M (2007) Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups. J Confl Resolut 51:905–929. doi: 10.1177/0022002707307632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Comer DR (1991) Organizational newcomers’ acquisition of information from peers. Manag Commun Q 5:64–89. doi: 10.1177/0893318991005001004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deffuant G (2006) Comparing extremism propagation patterns in continuous opinion models. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9:3. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/3/8.html Google Scholar
  11. Deffuant G, Neau D, Amblard F, Weisbuch G (2001) Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Adv Complex Syst 3:87–98. doi: 10.1142/S0219525900000078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deffuant G, Amblard F, Weisbuch G, Faure T (2002) How can extremism prevail? A study based on the relative agreement interaction model. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 5:4. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/4/1.html Google Scholar
  13. Deffuant G, Weisbuch G, Amblard F, Faure T (2003) Simple is beautiful… and necessary. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6:1. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/1/6.html Google Scholar
  14. Epstein JM (2006) Generative social science: studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press, Princeton Google Scholar
  15. Fine GA, Elsbach KD (2000) Ethnography and experiment in social psychological theory building: tactics for integrating qualitative field data with quantitative lab data. J Exper Soc Psychol 36:51–76. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1394 Google Scholar
  16. Fortunato S (2004) Universality of the threshold for complete consensus for the opinion dynamics of deffuant et al. Int J Mod Phys C 15:1301–1307. doi: 10.1142/s0129183104006728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedkin NE (1998) A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedkin NE, Johnsen E (1999) Social influence networks and opinion change. Adv Group Process 16:1–29 Google Scholar
  19. Gargiulo F, Mazzoni A (2008) Can extremism guarantee pluralism? J Artif Soc Soc Simul 11. arXiv:0803.3879v3
  20. Gibbons DE (2004) Friendship and advice networks in the context of changing professional values. Adm Sci Q 49:238–262. doi: 10.2307/4131473 Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert GN, Troitsch KG (2005) Simulation for the social scientist, 2nd edn. Open University Press Google Scholar
  22. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giskec J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SC, Huse G, Hutha A, Jepsen JU, Jørgensen C, Mooij WM, Müller B, Pe’er G, Piou C, Railsback SF, Robbins SM, Robbins MM, Rossmanith E, Rüger N, Strand E, Souissi S, Stillman RA, Vabøg R, Visser U, DeAngelis DL (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198:115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.04.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison JR, Carroll GR (1991) Keeping the faith: a model of cultural transmission in formal organizations. Adm Sci Q 36:552–582. doi: 10.2307/2393274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison JR, Carroll GR (2002) The dynamics of cultural influence networks. Comput Math Organ Theory 8:5–30. doi: 10.1023/A:1015142219808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison JR, Carroll GR (2006) Culture and demography in organizations. Princeton University Press, Princeton Google Scholar
  26. Hegselmann R, Krause U (2002) Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 5:3. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/3/2.html Google Scholar
  27. Hill V, Carley KM (2008) Win friends and influence people: relationships as conduits of organizational culture in temporary placement agencies. J Manag Inq 17:369–379. doi: 10.1177/1056492606294527 Google Scholar
  28. Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Adm Sci Q 37:422–447. doi: 10.2307/2393451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jager W, Amblard F (2004) Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Comput Math Organ Theory 10:295–303. doi: 10.1007/s10588-005-6282-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kozma B, Barrat A (2008) Consensus formation on coevolving networks: groups formation and structure. J Phys A, Math Theor 41:224020. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/41/22/224020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krackhardt D, Hanson J (1993) Informal networks: the company behind the chart. Harv Bus Rev 71:104–111 Google Scholar
  32. Krackhardt D, Porter LW (1985) When friends leave: a structural analysis of the relationship between turnover and stayers’ attitude. Adm Sci Q 30:242–261. doi: 10.2307/2393107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kułakowski K (2009) Opinion polarization in the receipt-accept-sample model. Physica A 388:469–476. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2008.10.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lazega E, Mounier L (2003) Interlocking judges: on joint external and self-governance of markets. In: Buskens V, Raub W, Snijders C (eds) Research in the sociology of organizations, vol 20. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 267–296 Google Scholar
  35. Lazega E, Lemercier C, Mounier L (2006) A spinning top model of formal organization and informal behavior: dynamics of advice networks among judges in a commercial court. Eur Manag Rev 3:113–122. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.emr.1500058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lazega E, Mounier L, Tubaro P (2011) Norms, advice networks and joint economic governance: the case of conflicts among shareholders at the commercial court of Paris. In: Sunderland D, Ugur M (eds) Does economic governance matter? Governance institutions and outcomes. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, pp 46–70 Google Scholar
  37. Lazega E, Mounier L, Snijders TAB, Tubaro P (2012) Norms, status and the dynamics of advice networks: a case study. Soc Netw 34(3):323–332. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2009.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malarz K, Gronek P, Kułakowski K (2011) Zaller-Deffuant model of mass opinion. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 14. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/14/1/2.html
  39. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDonald ML, Westphal JD (2003) Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs’ advice networks and firms’ strategic responses to poor performance. Adm Sci Q 48:1–32. doi: 10.2307/3556617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morrison EW (2002) Newcomers’ relationships: the role of social network ties during socialization. Acad Manag J 45:1149–1160. doi: 10.2307/3069430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23:242–266. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1998.533225 Google Scholar
  43. Rashotte L (2007) Social influence. In: Ritzer G (ed) The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology, vol IX. Blackwell Sci, Malden Google Scholar
  44. Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm Sci Q 48:240–267. doi: 10.2307/3556658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rice RE, Aydin C (1991) Attitudes toward new organizational technology: network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Adm Sci Q 36:219–244. doi: 10.2307/2393354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rolfe M (2009) Conditional choice. In: Hedström P, Bearman P (eds) The oxford handbook of analytical sociology. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  47. Rouchier J (2013) Légitimité des simulations à agents: débats sur leurs méthodes, leurs valeurs de preuve et leurs limites. In: Varenne, F, Silberstein, M (eds) Modéliser et simuler—epistémologies et pratiques des modèles et des simulations. Editions matériologiques, Paris (in press) Google Scholar
  48. Rouchier J, Tanimura H (2012) When overconfident agents slow down collective learning. Simulation 88:33–49. doi: 10.1177/0037549711428948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rouchier J, Tubaro P (2011) Can opinion be stable in an open network with hierarchy? An agent-based model of the commercial court of Paris. Proc Soc Behav Sci 10:123–131. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rousseau DM (2011) Reinforcing the micro/macro bridge: organizational thinking and pluralistic vehicles. J Manag 37:429–442. doi: 10.1177/0149206310372414 Google Scholar
  51. Saks AM, Ashforth BE (1997) Organizational socialization: making sense of past and present as a prologue for the future. J Vocat Behav 51:234–279. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1997.1614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salancik G, Pfeffer J (1978) A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm Sci Q 23:224–253. doi: 10.2307/2392563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schein EH (2003) Organizational socialization and the profession of management. In: Porter LW, Angle HL, Allen RW (eds) Organizational influence processes. armonk. Sharpe, Armonk, New York Google Scholar
  54. Settoon RP, Adkins CL (1997) Newcomer socialization: the role of supervisors, coworkers, friends and family members. J Bus Psychol 11:507–516. doi: 10.1007/BF02195895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Slaughter JE, Zickar MJ (2006) A new look at the role of insiders in the newcomer socialization process. Group Organ Manage 31:264–290. doi: 10.1177/1059601104273065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Westphal JD, Milton LP (2000) How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Adm Sci Q 45:366–398. doi: 10.2307/2667075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliette Rouchier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paola Tubaro
    • 2
  • Cécile Emery
    • 3
  1. 1.GREQAMCNRSMarseille Cedex 02France
  2. 2.Old Royal Naval CollegeBusiness School, University of GreenwichLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of ManagementLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations