Advertisement

An Agent-Based Framework for Active Multi-level Modeling of Organizations

  • Geoffrey P. MorganEmail author
  • Kathleen M. Carley
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9708)

Abstract

Agent-based models of organizations have traditionally had a single level of agency, whether at the individual or organizational level, but many interesting organizational phenomena, including organizational resilience and turnover, involve agency at multiple organizational levels. We propose an extensible multi-modeling framework, realized in software, to model these phenomena and many more. Two applications will be given to demonstrate the framework’s versatility.

Keywords

Agent-based models Active multi-level modeling Organizational modeling Multi-modeling 

References

  1. 1.
    Goldstein, J.: Emergence as a construct: history and issues. Emergence 1, 49–72 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schelling, T.C.: Dynamic models of segregation. J. Math. Sociol. 1, 143–186 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carley, K.M.: Measuring efficiency in a garbage can hierarchy. In: March, J.G., Weissinger-Baylon, R. (eds.) Ambiguity and Command, pp. 165–194. Pitman, Boston (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    March, J.G.: Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2, 71–87 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carley, K.M., Martin, M.K., Hirshman, B.R.: The etiology of social change. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 621–650 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maurer, R.: Using resistance to build support for change. J. Qual. Particip. 19, 56 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sheldon, K.M., Turban, D.B., Brown, K.G., Barrick, M.R., Judge, T.A.: Applying self-determination theory to organizational research. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manage. 22, 357–394 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hynes, T., Prasad, P.: Patterns of ‘Mock Bureaucracy’ in mining disasters: an analysis of the Westray coal mine explosion. J. Manage. Stud. 34, 601–623 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levis, A.H., Zaidi, A.K., Rafi, M.F.: Multi-modeling and meta-modeling of human organizations. In: Advances in Design for Cross-Cultural Activities, p. 148 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levis, A.H., Jbara, A.A.: Multi-modeling, meta-modeling, and workflow languages. In: Theory and Application of Multi-Formalism Modeling (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carley, K.M., Morgan, G.P., Lanham, M., Pfeffer, J.: Multi-modeling and socio-cultural complexity: reuse and validation. Adv. Des. Cross Cult. Activities 2, 128 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Axtell, R., Axelrod, R., Epstein, J.M., Cohen, M.D.: Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput. Math. Organ. Theor. 1, 123–141 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burton, R.M.: The challenge of validation and docking. In: Workshop on Agent Simulation: Applications, Models, and Tools, pp. 216–221. Citeseer (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burton, R.M.: Computational laboratories for organization science: questions, validity and docking. Comput. Math. Organ. Theor. 9, 91–108 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roth, K.E., Barrett, S.K.: Command & control wind tunnel integration and overview. In: 2009 SISO European Simulation Interoperability Workshop, pp. 45–51. Society for Modeling & Simulation International (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor, G., Bechtel, R., Morgan, G., Waltz, E.: A framework for modeling social power structures. Ann Arbor 1001, 48105 (2006). Soar TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levis, A.H.: Multi-modeling and meta-modeling of adversaries and coalition partners. George Mason University (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A meta-model for the analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In: International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 128–135. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 3, 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tusaie, K., Dyer, J.: Resilience: a historical review of the construct. Holist. Nurs. Pract. 18, 3–10 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E.: Adaptive fit versus robust transformation: How organizations respond to environmental change. J. Manage. 31, 738–757 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sutcliffe, K.M., Vogus, T.J.: Organizing for resilience. Positive Organ. Sch. Found. New Discipline 94, 110 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bies, R.J.: The delivery of bad news in organizations a framework for analysis. J. Manage. 39, 136–162 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nathanael, D., Marmaras, N.: The interplay between work practices and prescription: a key issue for organizational resilience. In: Proceedings of 2nd Resilience Engineering Symposium, pp. 229–237 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer, A.D.: Adapting to environmental jolts. Adm. Sci. Q. 27, 515–537 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hausknecht, J.P., Trevor, C.O.: Collective turnover at the group, unit, and organizational levels: evidence, issues, and implications. J. Manage. 37, 352–388 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., Gaertner, S.: A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. J. Manage. 26, 463–488 (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J., Erez, M.: Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Acad. Manage. J. 44, 1102–1121 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., Johnson, E.C.: Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 58, 281–342 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hom, P.W., Tsui, A.S., Wu, J.B., Lee, T.W., Zhang, A.Y., Fu, P.P., Li, L.: Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 277 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Allen, D.G.: Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? J. Manage. 32, 237–256 (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M., Griffeth, R.W.: The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. J. Manage. 29, 99–118 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carley, K.M.: A Theory of Group Stability. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56, 331–354 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee, J.S., Carley, K.M.: Orgahead: a computational model of organizational learning and decision making. CASOS Technical report. Carnegie Mellon University (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations