Advertisement

Network Dynamics when Selecting Work Team Members

  • Arianna Dal FornoEmail author
  • Ugo MerloneEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 613)

When selecting work team members several behavioral components concur. In this chapter we summarizes our line of research on this topic; here, we articulate our results and provide suggestions for extending our analysis in order to shed light on the selection of work team members. First, a computational model — together with a theoretical approach and the results of two human experiments where subjects interact in a similar game — allows us to identify some of the most important determinants. Our results suggest that the occurrence of two factors is crucial: the presence of leaders as aggregators of knowledge and the presence of agents able to expand and improve their higher profit projects. Second, we explicitly assume the presence of formal leaders. By analyzing the results of this modified model, we shed light on the conditions which allow the emergence of effective leaders.

Keywords

Network Dynamics Social Network Analysis Free Rider Public Good Game Effective Leader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Banks DL, Carley KM (1996) Models for network evolution. J Math Sociol 21(1–2):173–196Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blau PM (1977) Inequality and heterogeneity. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bornstein G (2003) Intergroup conflict; individual, group and collective interests. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 7(2):129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dal Forno A, Merlone U (2004) From classroom experiments to computer code. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 7(3)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dal Forno A, Merlone U (2004) A model of social interaction for the study of network dynamics. In: Proceedings of Wild@Ace 2004, Workshop on industry and labor dynamics, the agent-based computational economics approach, Laboratorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies, University of TorinoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dal Forno A, Merlone U (2005) The evolution of coworker networks. A comparison between experimental and computational results. In: Troitzsch KG (ed) Representing social reality, Proceedings of the third conference of the European social simulation association, Fölbach, Koblenz, pp 223–227Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dal Forno A, Merlone U (2006) The emergence of effective leaders: an experimental and computational approach. Emergence 8(4):36–51Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dal Forno A, Merlone U (2007) The evolution of coworker networks. An experimental and computational approach. In: Edmonds B, Hernándes C, Troitzsch KG (eds) Social simulation technologies: advances and new discoveries. InformationScience Reference, Hershey, NY, pp 280–293Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frison A (2006) Analisi di reti sociali, algoritmi di visualizzazione. Undergraduate dissertation, Università degli Studi di TorinoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hinds PJ, Carley KM, Krackhardt D, Wholey D (2000) Choosing work group members: balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 81(2):226–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hirschhorn L (1985) The psychodynamics of taking the role. In: Colman AD, Geller MH (eds) Group relations reader, vol 2. AK Rice Institute Series, AK Rice Institute, Springfield, VA, pp 335–351Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kagel JH, Roth AE (1995) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamada T, Kaway S (1989) An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Inf Process Lett 31(1):7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lazer D, Katz N (2003) Building effective intra-organizational networks: the role of teams. Research paper. Centre for Public Leadership, J.F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller EJ, Rice AK (1967) Systems of organization: the control of task and sentient boundaries. Tavistock, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moreland RL, Levine JM (1992) The composition of small groups. In: Lawler E, Markovsky B, Ridgeway C, Walker H (eds) Advances in group processes, vol 9. JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp 237–280Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O' Toole J (1999) Leadership A to Z. A guide for the appropriately ambitious. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strauss AL, Corbin JM (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing ground theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tuckman BW (1965) Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychol Bull 63:384–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wasserman S, Faust K (1999) Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Young J (1998) Using computer models to study the complexities of human society. Chron High Educ 4(46A):17–19Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zeggelink E (1995) Evolving friendship networks: an individual-oriented approach implementing similarity. Soc Networks 17:83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Statistica e Matematica ApplicataUniversita di Torino10122 TurinItaly

Personalised recommendations