Interaction Value Analysis: When Structured Communication Benefits Organizations

We present a mathematical model that predicts and explains the circumstances under which a management-defined communication structure can add value to an organization. This model provides a game-theoretical basis for contingent organizational design by relating empirical observations of real organizations to the solution of a rational choice model based on game theory. We constructed a multiple-player, noncooperative game in which players have full knowledge of, and universal communication access to, each other. These players allocate the scarce resource of their attention among potential interaction partners. It struck us that this game sometimes did and sometimes did not have a "core," i.e., a confluence of individual optima (Nash equilibrium) that was also optimal for the whole group. Some circumstances allow the best structure to emerge from many individual decisions, whereas other circumstances require the imposition of structured communication channels by a central decision maker. Strong management control of communication structure adds no value in business environments where the game has a "core" i.e., where a centrally imposed optimum would dictate the same communications patterns as those defined by the Nash equilibrium that emerges spontaneously when each participant optimizes locally. Trade in an ideal market is the iconic example of such environments. In our model, other combinations of conditions fail to yield a core, even though a single stable Nash equilibrium always exists. The difference between aggregate effectiveness at the Nash equilibrium and the maximal feasible aggregate effectiveness that could be centrally dictated is the value that management can provide through enforcing the globally optimum communication regime. The predictions of this simple model about the conditions that favor more- or less-structured communications agree surprisingly well with accepted organizational contingency theory. Our simple model thus provides a sound theoretical foundation for many aspects of contingent organizational design.

[1]  J. Robertson Essays in sociology , 1904 .

[2]  M. Weber From Max Weber: Essays in sociology , 1946 .

[3]  C. Mills,et al.  Essays in Sociology. , 1947 .

[4]  D. Y. Barrer Queuing with Impatient Customers and Ordered Service , 1957 .

[5]  G. Debreu Theory of value : an axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium , 1960 .

[6]  H. Scarf The computation of equilibrium prices , 1973 .

[7]  B. E. Partridge,et al.  The Nature of Managerial Work , 1974 .

[8]  Jay R. Galbraith Organization Design: An Information Processing View , 1974 .

[9]  C. Pearson,et al.  Handbook of Applied Mathematics , 1975 .

[10]  Edward E. Grazda,et al.  Handbook of applied mathematics , 1977 .

[11]  Jay R. Galbraith Organization Design , 1977 .

[12]  R. Burton,et al.  A Computer Simulation Test of the M-Form Hypothesis , 1980 .

[13]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations , 1983 .

[14]  L. Shapley A Value for n-person Games , 1988 .

[15]  Shoshana Zuboff,et al.  In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power , 1989 .

[16]  R. Coase,et al.  The Firm, the Market, and the Law , 1990 .

[17]  John Scott Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[18]  S. Winter,et al.  The Nature of the Firm: Origins, Evolution, and Development , 1992 .

[19]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[20]  W. H. Davidow,et al.  The Virtual Corporation: Structuring and Revitalizing the Corporation for the 21st Century , 1992 .

[21]  Tad Hogg,et al.  Communities of practice: Performance and evolution , 1994, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[22]  R. Burton,et al.  Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design , 1995 .

[23]  Raymond E. Levitt,et al.  The Virtual Design Team: A Computer Simulation Framework for Studying Organizational Aspects of Concurrent Design , 1995, Simul..

[24]  YAN JIN,et al.  The virtual design team: A computational model of project organizations , 1996, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[25]  Randall R. Steffan Mpa Che,et al.  Mintzberg on Management , 1997 .

[26]  P. Herings,et al.  The computation of equilibrium prices , 1998 .

[27]  Yan Jin,et al.  The Virtual Design Team: A Computational Simulation Model of Project Organizations1 , 1998 .

[28]  Peter W. Glynn,et al.  Diversity and Popularity in Organizations and Communities , 1998, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[29]  Yan Jin,et al.  Simulating Project Work Processes and Organizations: Toward a Micro-Contingency Theory of Organizational Design , 1999 .

[30]  Chris DiBona,et al.  Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution , 1999 .

[31]  Raymond E. Levitt,et al.  An Interaction Value Perspective on Firms of Differing Size , 2001, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[32]  M. Grant,et al.  Communities of practice. , 2020, Health progress.