Power-law behavior in complex organizational communication networks during crisis

Communication networks can be described as patterns of contacts which are created due to the flow of messages and information shared among participating actors. Contemporary organizations are now commonly viewed as dynamic systems of adaptation and evolution containing several parts, which interact with one another both in internal and in external environment. Although there is limited consensus among researchers on the precise definition of organizational crisis, there is evidence of shared meaning: crisis produces individual crisis, crisis can be associated with positive or negative conditions, crises can be situations having been precipitated quickly or suddenly or situations that have developed over time and are predictable etc. In this research, we study the power-law behavior of an organizational email communication network during crisis from complexity perspective. Power law simply describes that, the probability that a randomly selected node has k links (i.e. degree k) follows P(k)∼k−γ, where γ is the degree exponent. We used social network analysis tools and techniques to analyze the email communication dataset. We tested two propositions: (1) as organization goes through crisis, a few actors, who are prominent or more active, will become central, and (2) the daily communication network as well as the actors in the communication network exhibit power-law behavior. Our preliminary results support these two propositions. The outcome of this study may provide significant advancement in exploring organizational communication network behavior during crisis.

[1]  E. Koonin,et al.  Birth and death of protein domains: A simple model of evolution explains power law behavior , 2002, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[2]  Massimo Marchiori,et al.  Error and attacktolerance of complex network s , 2004 .

[3]  C. Smart,et al.  Designs for crisis decision units. , 1977, Administrative science quarterly.

[4]  S. Strogatz Exploring complex networks , 2001, Nature.

[5]  L. Argote,et al.  To centralize or not to centralize: The effects of uncertainty and threat on group structure and performance , 1989 .

[6]  Benoit Morel,et al.  Through the Looking Glass of Complexity: the Dynamics of Organizations As Adaptive and Evolving Systems , 1999 .

[7]  S. Bornholdt,et al.  Scale-free topology of e-mail networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[8]  Terrill L. Frantz,et al.  Communication Networks from the Enron Email Corpus “It's Always About the People. Enron is no Different” , 2005, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[9]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Exploration of communication networks from the Enron email corpus , 2005 .

[10]  Bülent Yener,et al.  Graph Theoretic and Spectral Analysis of Enron Email Data , 2005, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[11]  J. D. Johnson,et al.  Approaches to organizational communication structure , 1992 .

[12]  R. Albert,et al.  The large-scale organization of metabolic networks , 2000, Nature.

[13]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Theories of Communication Networks , 2003 .

[14]  Dan Braha,et al.  From Centrality to Temporary Fame: Dynamic Centrality in Complex Networks , 2006, Complex..

[15]  R. Daft,et al.  Can Organization Studies Begin to Break Out of the Normal Science Straitjacket? An Editorial Essay , 1990 .

[16]  David M. Raup,et al.  How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality , 1997 .

[17]  R. L. Hamblin Leadership and crises. , 1958 .

[18]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Hierarchical organization in complex networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[19]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Linked - how everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life , 2003 .

[20]  G. Homans The human group , 1952 .

[21]  Yan Zhao,et al.  Visualization of Communication Patterns in Collaborative Innovation Networks - Analysis of Some W3C Working Groups , 2003, CIKM '03.

[22]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  E-Mail as Spectroscopy: Automated Discovery of Community Structure within Organizations , 2005, Inf. Soc..

[23]  Nicolas E. Humphries,et al.  Scaling laws of marine predator search behaviour , 2008, Nature.

[24]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. , 1981 .

[25]  Jafar Adibi,et al.  The Enron Email Dataset Database Schema and Brief Statistical Report , 2004 .

[26]  Gérard P. Cachon,et al.  Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science , 1999, Organization Science.

[27]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[28]  Mohammed Shahadat Uddin,et al.  Towards A Scale Free Network Approach to Study Organizational Communication Network , 2010, PACIS.

[29]  R. Burt Applied Network Analysis , 1978 .

[30]  James A. Danowski,et al.  CRISIS EFFECTS ON INTRAORGANIZATIONAL COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATION , 1985 .

[31]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[32]  Juan Wang,et al.  Properties of evolving e-mail networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[33]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Scale-Free Networks: A Decade and Beyond , 2009, Science.

[34]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Internet: Diameter of the World-Wide Web , 1999, Nature.

[35]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Email as spectroscopy: automated discovery of community structure within organizations , 2003 .

[36]  O. Sporns,et al.  Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems , 2009, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[37]  J. Lanzetta,et al.  Group Behavior Under Stress , 1955 .

[38]  P CachonGérard,et al.  Complexity Theory and Organization Science , 1999 .

[39]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Avalanches and power-law behaviour in lung inflation , 1994, Nature.