Chaotic Dynamics in Organization Theory

  • Arianna Dal FornoEmail author
  • Ugo Merlone


Modern organizations are increasingly seen as open complex adapitve systems, with fundamental natural nonlinear structures, subject to internal and external forces which may be sources of chaos. The related existing literature focuses mainly on verbal theories where chaos is used as a metaphor. Even if borrowing knowledge brings implicit risks, the usefulness of interdisciplinary knowledge is acknowledged. In this perspective, we show that the chaos metaphor grounded on mathematical models and psychological aspects of human behavior provides helpful insights to describing the complexity of small work groups, that go beyond the metaphor itself.


Multistability Inequity Group dynamics Organizational complexity Computational psychology 


  1. Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 276–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science,10(3), 216–232.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Banks, J., Carson, J. S., Nelson, B. L., & Nicol, D. (2005). Discrete-event system simulation (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Baron, J., & Kreps, D. (1999). Strategic human resources: Framework for general managers. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bischi, G., & Merlone, U. (2010). Binary choices in small and large groups: A unified model. Physica A,389, 843–853.Google Scholar
  7. Bischi, G. I., Mammana, C., & Gardini, L. (2000). Multistability and cyclic attractors in duopoly games. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals,11, 543–564.Google Scholar
  8. Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. R. (1983). Equity theory and time: A reformulation. Academy of Management Review,8(2), 311–319.Google Scholar
  9. Dal Forno, A., & Merlone, U. (2003). Modular pyramidal hierarchies and social norms. An agent based model. In R. Leombruni & M. Richiardi (Eds.), Industry and labor dynamics (pp. 244–255). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  10. Dal Forno, A., & Merlone, U. (2007). Incentives in supervised teams: An experimental and computational approach. Journal of Social Complexity,3(1), 37–52.Google Scholar
  11. Dal Forno, A., & Merlone, U. (2009). Individual incentives in supervised work groups: From human subject experiments to agent based simulation. International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management,6(1), 4–22.Google Scholar
  12. Dal Forno, A., & Merlone, U. (2010a). Effort dynamics in supervised work groups. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,75, 413–425.Google Scholar
  13. Dal Forno, A., & Merlone, U. (2010b). Incentives and individual motivation in supervised work groups. European Journal of Operation Research,207, 878–885.Google Scholar
  14. Dal Forno, A., & Merlone, U. (2011a). Complex dynamics in supervised work groups. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  15. Dal Forno, A., & Merlone, U. (2011b). Nonlinear dynamics in work groups with Bion’s basic assumptions. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, in press.Google Scholar
  16. Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (1994). Measuring small group process a methodological application of chaos theory. Small Group Research,25(4), 502–519.Google Scholar
  17. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hillier, F. S., & Lieberman, G. (2010). Introduction to operations research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Kellert, S. H. (2008). Borrowed knowledge: Chaos theory and the challenge of learning across disciplines. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Loch, C. H., & Wu, Y. (2007). Behavioral operations management. Foundations and Trends in Technology, Information and Operations Management,1(3), 121–232.Google Scholar
  21. Maskin, E., & Tirole, J. (1988a). A theory of dynamic oligopoly I: Overview and quantity competition with large fixed costs. Econometrica,56, 549–570.Google Scholar
  22. Maskin, E., & Tirole, J. (1988b). A theory of dynamic oligopoly II: Price competition. Econometrica,56, 571–600.Google Scholar
  23. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (new ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Ruelle, D. (1991). Chance and chaos. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of the decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics. System thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York, NY: Irwin McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Thietart, R. A., & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos theory and organization. Organization Science,6(1), 19–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics ‘Cognetti de Martiis’University of TorinoTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations