Two Faces of Search: Alternative Generation and Alternative Evaluation
Organization Science
Learning to Design Organizations and Learning from Designing Them
Organization Science
Modeling organizational adaptation: a replication of Levinthal's model of emergent order
Proceedings of the 39th conference on Winter simulation: 40 years! The best is yet to come
Management Science
Hierarchical Structure and Search in Complex Organizations
Management Science
Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory
CROSSROADS---Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms
Organization Science
Winter Simulation Conference
Modeling technology evolution using generalized genotype-phenotype maps
Proceedings of the 14th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation
Dealing with Complexity: Integrated vs. Chunky Search Processes
Organization Science
Designing for Complexity: Using Divisions and Hierarchy to Manage Complex Tasks
Organization Science
Parametric interdependence, learning-by-doing, and industrial structure
Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory
Hi-index | 0.00 |
We use an innovative technique to examine an enduring but recently neglected question: How do environmental turbulence and complexity affect the appropriate formal design of organizations? We construct an agent-based simulation in which multidepartment firms with different designs face environments whose turbulence and complexity we control. The model's results produce two sets of testable hypotheses. One set pinpoints formal designs that cope well with three different environments: turbulent settings, in which firms must improve their performance speedily; complex environments, in which firms must search broadly; and settings with both turbulence and complexity, in which firms must balance speed and search. The results shed new light on longstanding notions such as equifinality. The other set of hypotheses argues that the impact of individual design elements on speed and search often depends delicately on specific powers granted to department heads, creating effects that run contrary to conventional wisdom and intuition. Ample processing power at the bottom of a firm, for instance, can slow down the improvement and narrow the search of the firm as a whole. Differences arise between our results and conventional wisdom when conventional thinking fails to account for the powers of department heads--powers to withhold information about departmental options, to control decision-making agendas, to veto firmwide alternatives, and to take unilateral action. Our results suggest how future empirical studies of organizational design might be fruitfully coupled with rigorous agent-based modeling efforts.