Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptualizing and Modeling Multi-Level Organizational Co-evolution

  • Chapter
Agent-Based Simulation of Organizational Behavior

Abstract

This chapter stresses the need for research in organizations to reflect the co-evolutionary and complex nature of the changing world we live in today. We argue that key concepts can be abstracted from biological evolution, and used as a starting point for the conceptual development of such approaches. In addition, computational modeling techniques can be used not only as a tool for shaping this conceptual development, but simulating changing behaviors at multiple levels in real organizations. While a number of researchers have developed co-evolutionary accounts of organizational change, these efforts have been constrained by an entity interpretation of the unit of co-evolution. In this latter view, it is assumed that organizations act as vehicles for bundles of routines, being subject to external selection forces only. As a result change occurs largely through the actions of customers or senior executives. We argue that practice-based interpretations offer an alternative approach in the modeling of co-evolution, unpacking the complexity and interconnected agency within and beyond organizations. Building on these conceptual foundations, we outline key conceptual, empirical, and ethical challenges in developing related computational models. We argue that such simulation models can be used by managers to help them navigate complex future worlds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abatecola, G. (2012). Interpreting corporate crises: Towards a co-evolutionary approach. Futures, 44(10), 860–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abatecola, G. (2014). Research in organizational evolution. What comes next? European Management Journal, 32(3), 434–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, A. (1990). A primer on sequence methods. Organization Science, 1(4), 375–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H., Hodgson, G., Hull, D., Knudsen, T., Mokyr, J., & Vanberg, V. (2008). In defence of generalized Darwinism. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18, 577–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J., & Singh, J. (1994). Organizational hierarchies and evolutionary processes: Some reflections on a theory of organizational evolution. In J. Baum & J. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, M. (2005). A framework for applying organizational routines in empirical research: Linking antecedents, characteristics and performance outcomes of recurrent interaction patterns. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 817–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, D. (2008). A review of the evolutionary approach to the study of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 399–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, D. (2011a). Interpreting futures through the multi-level co-evolution of organizational practices. Futures, 43(9), 1020–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, D. (2011b). Reviewing a generalized Darwinist approach to studying socio-economic change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 218–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, D. (2014). Calm in the storm: Simulating the management of organizational evolution. Futures, 52, 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, D. (2015). What evolves in organizational co-evolution? Journal of Management & Governance, DOI 10.1007/s10997-014-9302-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, D., & Jones, C. (2012). The evolution of entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(3), 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruderer, E., & Singh, J. (1996). Organizational evolution, learning, and selection: A genetic-algorithm-based model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1322–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. (1991). Intra-organizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2, 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. (1965). Variation, selection and retention in socio-cultural evolution. In H. Barringer, G. Blanksten, & R. Mack (Eds.), Social change in developing areas: A reinterpretation of evolutionary theory (pp. 19–49). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. (1990). Levels of organization, downward causation, and selection-theory approach to evolutionary epistemology. In G. Greeberg & E. Tobach (Eds.), Theories of the evolution of knowing (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K., & Hill, V. (2001). Structural change and learning within organizations. In A. Lomi & E. Larsen (Eds.), Dynamics of organizations (pp. 63–92). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordes, C. (2006). Darwinism in economics: From analogy to continuity. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16, 529–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R., & Borgatti, S. P. (2004). The ties that share: Relational characteristics that facilitate information seeking. In M. Huysman & V. Wulf (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 137–159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M., Maurer, C., & White, P. (2013). Multilevel mechanisms of organizational learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities, April, Washington, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral view of the firm (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dantas, E., & Bell, M. (2011). The co-evolution of firm-centered knowledge networks and capabilities in late industrializing countries: The case of Petrobras in the offshore oil innovation system in Brazil. World Development, 39, 1570–1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, S., Breslin, D., Suckley, L., Barton, R., & Rodriguez, L. (2013). Small firm growth and innovation: An evolutionary approach. The International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 14(2), 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., & Orlikowski, W. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22, 1240–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., & Pentland, B. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population of ecology of organization. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanneman, R. A. (2001). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. (2003). The mystery of the routine: The Darwinian destiny of an evolutionary theory of economic change. Revue économique, 54, 335–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. (2008). The concept of a routine. In M. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of organizational routines (pp. 15–28). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G., & Knudsen, T. (2004). The firm as an interactor: Firms as vehicles for habits and routines. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 281–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G., & Knudsen, T. (2010). Darwin’s conjecture: The search for general principles of social and economic evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holman, D., Totterdell, P., Axtell, C., Stride, C., Port, R., Svensson, R., et al. (2012). Job design and the employee innovation process: The mediating role of learning strategies. Journal of Business & Psychology, 27, 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtz, G. (2014). Generating social practices. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 17(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Grenville, J. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16, 618–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. (1988). Science as a process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huygens, M., Van Den Bosch, F., Volberda, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2001). Co-evolution of firm capabilities and industry competition: Investigating the music industry, 1877–1997. Organization Studies, 22, 971–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (2001). Co-evolution of entrepreneurial careers, institutional rules and competitive dynamics in American film, 1895–1920. Organization Studies, 22, 911–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koza, M., Tallman, S., & Ataay, A. (2011). The strategic assembly of global firms: A micro-structural analysis of local learning and global adaptation. Global Strategy Journal, 1, 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T., & Mezias, S. (1990). Managing discontinuous change: A simulation study of organizational learning and entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 147–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T., & Mezias, S. (1992). An organizational learning model of convergence and reorientation. Organization Science, 3(1), 47–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, E., & Lomi, A. (2002). Representing change: A system model of organizational inertia and capabilities as dynamic accumulation processes. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 10, 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazaric, N., & Denis, B. (2005). Routinization and memorization of tasks in a workshop: The case of the introduction of ISO norms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 873–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. (1988). Organizational learning. The Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A., & Volberda, H. (1999). Prolegomena on co-evolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 519–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A., & Volberda, H. (2011). Co-evolution of global sourcing: The need to understand the underlying mechanisms of firm-decisions to offshore. International Business Review, 20, 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomi, A., Larsen, E., & Wezel, F. (2010). Getting there: Exploring the role of expectations and preproduction delays in processes of organizational founding. Organization Science, 21(1), 132–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. (2001). Forward. In A. Lomi & E. Larsen (Eds.), Dynamics of organizations (pp. i–xviii). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Olsen, J. (1975). The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 147–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, I., Lawrence, T., Wixted, B., & Gordon, B. (2010). A multidimensional conceptualization of environmental velocity. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 604–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics: Taxonomy, evolution, classification. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (1999). Avoiding complexity catastrophe in co-evolutionary pockets: Strategies for rugged landscapes. Organization Science, 10(3), 294–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A. (2010). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture & synthesize the social sciences. London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezias, S., & Glynn, M. (1993). The three faces of corporate renewal: Institution, revolution, and evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1999). Selection processes inside organizations: The self-reinforcing consequences of success. In J. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science. In honor of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 93–109). New York: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K.D., Choi, S., Pentland, B.T. (2014). The role of transactive memory in the formation of organizational routines. Strategic Organization, 12, 109--133

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner, A. (1994). Seeking adaptive advantage: Evolutionary theory and managerial action. In J. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 76–89). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murmann, J. (2003). Knowledge and competitive advantage: The co-evolution of firms, technology and national institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murmann, J. (2013). The co-evolution of industries and important features of their environments. Organization Science, 24, 58–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). Evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Bellknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 413–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B., & Feldman, M. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B., Feldman, M., Becker, M., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484–1508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B., Hærem, T., & Hillison, D. (2010). Comparing organizational routines as recurrent patterns of action. Organization Studies, 31, 917–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin, H. (1994). Darwin machines and the nature of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmandad, H., & Sterman, J. (2008). Heterogeneity and network structure in the dynamics of diffusion: Comparing agent-based and differential equation models. Management Science, 54(5), 998–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 577–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, S., & Child, J. (2003). Co-evolution in an institutionalized environment. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2137–2162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (1999). On the complexity of technological evolution. In J. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science. In honor of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 169–183). New York: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sastry, M.A. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 237--275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sastry, M. A. (2001). Understanding dynamic complexity in organizational evolution: A system dynamics approach. In A. Lomi & E. R. Larsen (Eds.), Dynamics of organizations (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, M. (2002). Organizational learning. In J. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 415–441). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sin, L., Tse, A., Yau, O., Chow, R., & Lee, J. (2005). Market orientation, relationship marketing orientation, and business performance: The moderating effects of economic ideology and industry type. Journal of International Marketing, 13(1), 36–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (2000). Appropriability and the challenge of scope: Banc One routinizes replication. In G. Dosi, R. Nelson, & S. Winter (Eds.), The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities (pp. 69–97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G., & Winter, S. (2002). Getting it right the second time. Harvard Business Review, 80, 62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., & Fern, M. (2012). Examining the stability and variability of routine performances: The effects of experience and context change. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1407–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H., & Lewin, A. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: From evolution to co-evolution. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2111–2136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warglien, M. (2002). Intraorganizational evolution. In J. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 98–118). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. (2012). Capabilities: Their origins and ancestry. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1402–1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, U. (2004). On the proper interpretation of ‘evolution’ in economics and its implications for production theory. Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(2), 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, U. (2005). The evolutionary perspective on organizational change and the theory of the firm. In K. Dopfer (Ed.), The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics (pp. 339–364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sheffield University Management School, Conduit Road, Sheffield, UK

    Dermot Breslin & James Percival

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Regents Court, Sheffield, UK

    Daniela Romano & James Percival

Authors
  1. Dermot Breslin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniela Romano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Percival
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dermot Breslin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Slagelse, Denmark

    Davide Secchi

  2. Koblenz University, Koblenz, Germany

    Martin Neumann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Breslin, D., Romano, D., Percival, J. (2016). Conceptualizing and Modeling Multi-Level Organizational Co-evolution. In: Secchi, D., Neumann, M. (eds) Agent-Based Simulation of Organizational Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18153-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation