Phrasing and Timing Information Dissemination in Organizations: Results of an Agent-Based Simulation

  • Doris A. BehrensEmail author
  • Silvia Berlinger
  • Friederike Wall
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 669)


This paper analyzes how managers suffering from decision-making biases in interrelated decision processes affect the performance of an overall business organization. To perform the analysis, we utilize an NK-type agent-based simulation model, in which decision-making is represented by adaptive walks on performance landscapes. We find that organizational performance holds up well, if the decision problem breaks into disjointed sub-problems. If decisions are, however, highly cross-related between departments, the overall organization’s performance degrades, while both negatively phrasing information and relying more heavily on recently derived information account for an improvement. The effect of positively phrasing information that is relevant for decision-making works towards the same direction, but much more reluctantly. These results cautiously raise doubt about the claim that decision-making should always be as rational as possible.


Agent-based Simulation Adaptive Walks Performance Landscape Interrelated Decisions Multidivisional Organization 
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.



This work was carried out within the framework of the SOSIE project and was supported by Lakeside Labs GmbH. It was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Carinthian Economic Promotion Fund (KWF) under grant no. 20214/23793/35529.


  1. 1.
    Berlinger S, Wall F (2013) Effects of combined human decision-making biases on organizational performance. In: Amblard F, Giardini F (eds) Multi-agent-based simulation XII. Volume to appear of LNCS. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonabeau E (2002) Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(Suppl 3):7280–7287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bredenkamp J, Wippich W (1977) Lern- und Gedächtnispsychologie I. Kohlhammer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang MH, Harrington JE (2006) Agent-based models of organizations. In: Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (eds) Handbook of computational economics. Agent-based computational economics, vol 2. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1273–1337Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad Manag Rev 32(2):480–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kauffman SA (1993) The origins of order. Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kauffman SA (1995) At home in the universe. The search of laws for self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kauffman SA, Levin S (1987) Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. J Theor Biol 128(1):11–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kauffman SA, Weinberger ED (1989) The NK model of rugged fitness landscapes and its application to maturation of the immune response. J Theor Biol 141:211–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leitner S, Behrens DA (2013) On the fault (in)tolerance of coordination mechanisms for distributed investment decisions: results of an agent-based simulation. Working paper, Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt (in submission)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leitner S, Wall F (2011) Effectivity of multi criteria decision-making in organisations: results of an agent-based simulation. In: Osinga S, Hofstede GJ, Verwaart T (eds) Emergent results of artificial economics. Volume 652 of LNEMS. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 79–90Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leitner S, Wall F (2011) Unexpected positive effects of complexity on performance in multiple criteria setups. In: Hu B, Morasch K, Pickl S, Siegle M (eds) Operations research proceedings 2010 Munich. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leitner S, Wall F (2013) Multi objective decision-making policies and coordination mechanisms in hierarchical organizations: results of an agent-based simulation. Working paper, Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt (in submission)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moss S (2001) Editorial introduction: Messy systems—the target for multi agent based simulation. In: Moss S, Davidsson P (eds) Multi-agent-based simulation. Volume 1979 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Porter ME (1996) What is strategy? Harv Bus Rev 74(6):61–78Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Manag Sci 49(3):290–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2007) Patterned interactions in complex systems: implications for exploration. Manag Sci 53(7):1068–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14(6):650–669Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ Sci 16(2):101–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sprinkle GB (2003) Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting. Account Organ Soc 28(2–3):287–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stark O, Behrens DA (2010) An evolutionary edge of knowing less (or: on the curse of global information). J Evol Econ 20(1):77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stark O, Behrens DA (2011) In search of an evolutionary edge: trading with a few, more, or many. J Evol Econ 21(5):721–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Sci New Ser 185(4157):1124–1131Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Sci New Ser 211(4481):453–458Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J Bus 59(4):251–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wall F (2010) The (beneficial) role of informational imperfections in enhancing organisational performance. In: LiCalzi M, Milone L, Pellizzari P (eds) Progress in artificial economics. Computational and agent-based models. Volume 645 of LNEMS. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 115–126Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weinberger E (1991) Local properties of Kauffman’s N-K model: a tunably rugged energy landscape. Phys Rev A 44(10):6399–6413CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doris A. Behrens
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Silvia Berlinger
    • 3
  • Friederike Wall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Controlling and Strategic ManagementAlpen-Adria Universität KlagenfurtKlagenfurt am WörtherseeAustria
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical Methods in Economics, Research Unit for Operations Research and Control SystemsVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  3. 3.Ilogs AGZugSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations