The Dual Challenge of Search and Coordination for Organizational Adaptation: How Structures of Influence Matter

References

• Acerbi A, Tennie C, Mesoudi A (2016) Social learning solves the problem of narrow-peaked search landscapes: Experimental evidence in humans. Roy. Soc. Open Sci. 3(9):160215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aggarwal VA, Posen HE, Workiewicz M (2017) Adaptive capacity to technological change: A microfoundational approach. Strategic Management J. 38(6):1212–1231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahl V, Allen TF (1996) Hierarchy theory: A vision, vocabulary, and epistemology (Columbia University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Willer R (2014) Do status hierarchies benefit groups? A bounded functionalist account of status. The Psychology of Social Status (Springer, New York), 47–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argote L (2012) Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge (Springer Science & Business Media, New York).Google Scholar
• Arrow KJ (1974) The Limits of Organization (WW Norton & Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Baker WE (1984) The social structure of a national securities market. Amer. J. Sociol. 89(4):775–811.Google Scholar
• Bala V, Goyal S (1998) Learning from neighbours. Rev. Econom. Stud. 65(3):595–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum JA, Li SX, Usher JM (2000) Making the next move: How experiential and vicarious learning shape the locations of chains’ acquisitions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(4):766–801.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bavelas A (1950) Communication patterns in task‐oriented groups. J. Acoustical Soc. Amer. 22(6):725–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker J, Brackbill D, Centola D (2017) Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114(26):E5070–E5076.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blank S (2013) Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Bus. Rev. 91(5):63–72.Google Scholar
• Brackbill D, Centola D (2020) Impact of network structure on collective learning: An experimental study in a data science competition. PLoS One 15(9):e0237978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bremner RP, Eisenhardt KM (2021) Organizing form, experimentation, and performance: Innovation in the nascent civilian drone industry. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print December 8, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1505.Link, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Sanner B (2017). How and when can social hierarchy promote learning in groups? The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning.Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Van Der Vegt GS, Cantimur Y, Rink F (2016) Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Acad. Management J. 59(4):1265–1289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bush RR, Mosteller F (1955) Stochastic models for learning (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Oxford, England).Google Scholar
• Centola D (2015) The social origins of networks and diffusion. Amer. J. Sociol. 120(5):1295–1338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola D, Baronchelli A (2015) The spontaneous emergence of conventions: An experimental study of cultural evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(7):1989–1994.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola D, Macy M (2007) Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 113(3):702–734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clement J, Puranam P (2018) Searching for structure: Formal organization design as a guide to network evolution. Management Sci. 64(8):3879–3895.Google Scholar
• Chandler AD (1990) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, vol. 120 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16):386–405.Google Scholar
• De Groot MH (1974) Reaching a consensus. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69(345):118–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Kwaadsteniet EW, van Dijk E (2010) Social status as a cue for tacit coordination. J. Experimental Soc. Psych. 46(3):515–524.Google Scholar
• DellaPosta D, Shi Y, Macy M (2015) Why do liberals drink lattes? Amer. J. Sociol. 120(5):1473–1511.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denning S (2018) The Age of Agile: How Smart Companies Are Transforming the Way Work Gets Done (Amacom, New York).Google Scholar
• Dönmez D, Grote G, Brusoni S (2016) Routine interdependencies as a source of stability and flexibility. A study of agile software development teams. Inform. Organ. 26(3):63–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erev I, Roth AE (1998) Predicting how people play games: Reinforcement learning in experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. Amer. Econom. Rev. 848–881.Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Sci. 50(2):159–173.Link, Google Scholar
• Fang C, Lee J, Schilling MA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 21(3):625–642.Link, Google Scholar
• Fay N, Garrod S, Roberts L (2008) The fitness and functionality of culturally evolved communication systems. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B Biological Sci. 363(1509):3553–3561.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foss NJ (2001) Leadership, beliefs and coordination: An explorative discussion. Industrial Corporate Change 10(2):357–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeland RF, Zuckerman EW (2018) The problems and promise of hierarchy: Voice rights and the firm. Sociol. Sci. 5(7):143–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE (2006) A Structural Theory of Social Influence, vol. 13 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC (1990) Social influence and opinions. J. Math. Sociol. 15(3-4):193–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC (2002) Control loss and Fayol’s gangplanks. Soc. Networks 24(4):395–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE, Proskurnikov AV, Mei W, Bullo F (2019) Mathematical structures in group decision-making on resource allocation distributions. Sci. Rep. 9(1):1377.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galbraith JR (1973) Designing Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston).Google Scholar
• Garicano L (2000) Hierarchies and the organization of knowledge in production. J. Political Econom. 108(5):874–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghosh S, Wu A (2018) Iterative coordination in search. Acad. Management Proc. 2018(1):13524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greer LL, de Jong BA, Schouten ME, Dannals JE (2018) Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. J. Appl. Psych. 103(6):591–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gruenfeld DH, Tiedens LZ (2010) Organizational preferences and their consequences. Handbook of Social Psychology, 1252–1287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guilbeault D, Baronchelli A, Centola D (2021) Experimental evidence for scale-induced category convergence across populations. Nature Comm. 12(1):327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guilbeault D, Becker J, Centola D (2018). Complex contagions: A decade in review. Complex Spreading Phenomena in Social Systems, 3–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guinan PJ, Parise S, Langowitz N (2019) Creating an innovative digital project team: Levers to enable digital transformation. Bus. Horizons 62(6):717–727.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy N, Chou EY, Galinsky AD, Murnighan JK (2012) When hierarchy wins: Evidence from the national basketball association. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 3(4):398–406.Google Scholar
• Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):9–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill LA (2020) Being the agile boss. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 62(1):7–10.Google Scholar
• Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI).Google Scholar
• Holmstrom B (1982) Moral hazard in teams. Bell J. Econom. 13(2):324–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 3(4):305–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kennedy J, Mendes R (2002) Population structure and particle swarm performance. Proc. 2002 Congress Evolutionary Comput. 2002 CEC'02, vol. 2 (IEEE), 1671–1676.Google Scholar
• Keum DD, See KE (2017) The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and selection in the innovation process. Organ. Sci. 28(4):653–669.Link, Google Scholar
• Knudsen T, Srikanth K (2014) Coordinated exploration: Organizing joint search by multiple specialists to overcome mutual confusion and joint myopia. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(3):409–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koçak Ö, Puranam P (2022) Separated by a common language: How the nature of code differences shapes communication success and code convergence Management Sci. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1994) Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations. Carley KM, Prietula MJ, eds. Computational Organization Theory (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ), 89–111.Google Scholar
• Kumru CS, Vesterlund L (2010) The effect of status on charitable giving. J. Public Econom. Theory 12(4):709–735.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laloux F (2014) Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage in Human Consciousness (Nelson Parker, Brussels).Google Scholar
• Lave CA, March JG (1975) An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences (University Press of America, Lanham, MD).Google Scholar
• Lazer D, Friedman A (2007) The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(4):667–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leavitt HJ (1951) Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. J. Abnormal Psych. 46(1):38–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee MY, Edmondson AC (2017) Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Res. Organ. Behav. 37:35–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Sci. 43(7):934–950.Link, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, Posen HE (2007) Myopia of selection: Does organizational adaptation limit the efficacy of population selection? Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(4):586–620.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, Workiewicz M (2018) When two bosses are better than one: Nearly decomposable systems and organizational adaptation. Organ. Sci. 29(2):207–224.Link, Google Scholar
• List C, Elsholtz C, Seeley TD (2009) Independence and interdependence in collective decision making: An agent-based model of nest-site choice by honeybee swarms. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B Biological Sci. 364(1518):755–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lounamaa PH, March JG (1987) Adaptive coordination of a learning team. Management Sci. 33(1):107–123.Link, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) On the possible psychophysical laws. Psych. Rev. 66(2):81–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• March JG, Levinthal DA (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14(S2):95–112.Google Scholar
• March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Mark NP (2018) Status organizes cooperation: An evolutionary theory of status and social order. Amer. J. Sociol. 123(6):1601–1634.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin JL (2009) Social Structures (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mason W, Watts DJ (2012) Collaborative learning in networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(3):764–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mason WA, Conrey FR, Smith ER (2007) Situating social influence processes: Dynamic, multidirectional flows of influence within social networks. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 11(3):279–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mihm J, Loch CH, Wilkinson D, Huberman BA (2010) Hierarchical structure and search in complex organizations. Management Sci. 56(5):831–848.Link, Google Scholar
• Milgrom P, Roberts J (1988) An economic approach to influence activities in organizations. Amer. J. Sociol. 94:S154–S179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller JH, Page SE (2009) Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller KD, Zhao M, Calantone RJ (2006) Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March’s exploration-exploitation model. Acad. Management J. 49(4):709–722.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mintzberg H (1979) The Structuring of Organizations (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Muchnik L, Aral S, Taylor SJ (2013) Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science 341(6146):647–651.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson R, Winter S (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of the Firm (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Page S (2010) Diversity and Complexity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Aggarwal VA, Posen HE (2020) Learning-by-participating: The dual role of structure in aggregating information and shaping learning. Preprint, submitted May 16, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3425696.Google Scholar
• Posen HE, Levinthal DA (2012) Chasing a moving target: Exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments. Management Sci. 58(3):587–601.Link, Google Scholar
• Puranam P (2018) The Microstructure of Organizations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Håkonsson DD (2015) Valve’s way. J. Organ. Design 4(2):2–4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Swamy M (2016) How initial representations shape coupled learning processes. Organ. Sci. 27(2):323–335.Link, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Raveendran M, Knudsen T (2012) Organization design: The epistemic interdependence perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 37(3):419–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Stieglitz N, Osman M, Pillutla MM (2015) Modelling bounded rationality in organizations: Progress and prospects. Acad. Management Ann. 9(1):337–392.Google Scholar
• Radner R (1992) Hierarchy: The economics of managing. J. Econom. Literature 30(3):1382–1415.Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (2019) Status: Why is it everywhere? Why does it matter? (Russell Sage Foundation).Google Scholar
• Rigby DK, Sutherland J, Takeuchi H (2016) Embracing agile. Harvard Bus. Rev. 94(5):40–50.Google Scholar
• Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Sci. 49(3):290–311.Link, Google Scholar
• Rosa E, Mazur A (1979) Incipient status in small groups. Soc. Forces 58(1):18–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salganik MJ, Watts DJ (2008) Leading the herd astray: An experimental study of self-fulfilling prophecies in an artificial cultural market. Soc. Psych. Quart. 71(4):338–355.Google Scholar
• Schelling TC (1960) The Strategy of Conflict (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Schilling MA, Fang C (2014) When hubs forget, lie, and play favorites: Interpersonal network structure, information distortion, and organizational learning. Strategic Management J. 35(7):974–994.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwaber K, Sutherland J (2020) The Scrum Guide (Scrum Alliance). Accessed May 25, 2021, https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html.Google Scholar
• Shore J, Bernstein E, Lazer D (2015) Facts and figuring: An experimental investigation of network structure and performance in information and solution spaces. Organ. Sci. 26(5):1432–1446.Link, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ. Sci. 16(2):101–122.Link, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1947) Administrative Behavior, a Story of Decision Processes in Business Organization (Macmillan, London).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) Architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 106(6):467–482.Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1981) The Sciences of the Artificial (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Simpson B, Willer R, Ridgeway CL (2012) Status hierarchies and the organization of collective action. Sociol. Theory 30(3):149–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spike M, Stadler K, Kirby S, Smith K (2017) Minimal requirements for the emergence of learned signaling. Cognitive Sci. 41(3):623–658.Google Scholar
• Steels L (2001) Language games for autonomous robots. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(5):16–22.Google Scholar
• Surowiecki J (2005) The Wisdom of Crowds (Anchor, New York).Google Scholar
• Sutton RS, Barto AG (1998) Introduction to Reinforcement Learning, vol. 135 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tarakci M, Greer LL, Groenen PJF (2016) When does power disparity help or hurt group performance? J. Appl. Psych. 101(3):415–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory (McGraw Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1974) The Social Psychology of Organizing (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Boston).Google Scholar
• Wellman N, Applegate JM, Harlow J, Johnston EW (2019) Beyond the pyramid: Alternative formal hierarchical structures and team performance. Acad. Management J. 63(4):997–1027.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1975) Markets and Hierarchies (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1991) Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(2):269–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu S, Ghosh A (2021) Iterative coordination and innovation: Prioritizing value over novelty. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print October 11, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1499.Google Scholar