Advertisement

Organizational Change for Its Own Sake?

Results of an Agent-Based Simulation
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 676)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate, whether, or not, the sheer occurrence of frequent changes in organizational design could induce improvements in organizational performance—and, by that, could explain cyclic (“fashion-like”) ups and downs of organizational design patterns. We apply an agent-based simulation model based on the framework of NK fitness landscapes to compare the search processes of organizations with different types of change processes against each other. In particular, we compare organizations which show “time-driven” or “value-driven” change processes against organizations which remain stable for the entire observation period. The results indicate that organizational change per se might increase organizational performance. Moreover, results suggest that value-driven changes may be more efficient than purely time-triggered changes.

References

  1. Abrahamson E (1991) Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and refection of innovations. Acad Manag Rev 16(3):586–612Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson E (1996) Management fashion. Acad Manag Rev 21(1):254–285Google Scholar
  3. Chang M-H, Harrington JE (2006) Agent-based models of organizations. In: Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (eds) Handbook of computational economics: agent-based computational economics, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1273–1337Google Scholar
  4. Dale BG, Elkjaer MBF, van der Wiele A, Williams ART (2001) Fad, fashion and fit: an examination of quality circles, business process re-engineering and statistical process control. Int J Prod Econ 73(2):137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad Manag Rev 32(2):480–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dosi G, Levinthal D, Marengo L (2003) Bridging contested terrain: linking incentive-based and learning perspectives on organizational evolution. Ind Corp Chang 12(2):413–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galbraith JR (1974) Organization design: an information processing view. Interfaces 4(3):28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ganco M, Hoetker G (2009) NK modeling methodology in the strategy literature: bounded search on a rugged landscape. In: Bergh DD, Ketchen DJ (eds) Research methodology in strategy and management. Emerald, Bingley, pp 237–268Google Scholar
  9. Ginzberg MJ (1980) An organizational contigencies view of accounting and information systems implementation. Acc Organ Soc 5:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrison JR, Zhiang LIN, Carroll GR, Carley KM (2007) Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1229–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kauffman SA (1993) The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Kauffman SA, Levin S (1987) Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. J Theor Biol 128(1):11–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kieser A (1997) Rhetoric and myth in management fashion. Organization 4(1):49–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Labro E, Vanhoucke M (2007) A simulation analysis of interactions among errors in costing systems. Account Rev 82(4):939–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manag Sci 43(7):934–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levitan B, Kauffman SA (1995) Adaptive walks with noisy fitness measurements. Mol Divers 1(1):53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  18. Rivkin JW (2001) Reproducing knowledge: replication without imitation at moderate complexity. Organ Sci 12(3):274–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2007) Patterned interactions in complex systems: implications for exploration. Manag Sci 53:1068–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14(6):650–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ Sci 16(2):101–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sorenson O (2002) Interorganizational complexity and computation. In: Baum JAC (ed) Companion to organizations. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 664–685Google Scholar
  23. Wall F (2010) The (beneficial) role of informational imperfections in enhancing organizational performance. In: LiCalzi M, Milone L, Pellizzari P (eds) Progress in artificial economics: computational and agent-based models. Springer, Berlin, pp 101–122Google Scholar
  24. Wall F (2011) Diversity of the knowledge base in organizations: results of an agent-based simulation. In: Demezeau Y, Pechoucek M, Cochado JM, Pérez JB (eds) Advances on practical applications of agents and multiagent systems, vol 88, Advances in intelligent and soft computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alpen-Adria-Universität KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations