Abstract
Interaction Value Interaction Value Analysis (I.V.A.) models a network of rational actors who generate value by interacting with each other. This model can be used to understand human organizations. Since people form organizations to facilitate interactions between productive individuals, the value added by interaction is the contribution of the organization. This paper examines the result of varying the queuing discipline used in selecting among back-logged interaction requests. Previously developed I.V.A. models assumed a First-in-first-out (FIFO) discipline, but using other disciplines can better represent the “Climate” of an organization.
I.V.A. identifies circumstances under which organizations that control members’ interaction choices outperform organizations where individuals choose their own interaction partners. Management can be said to “matter” when individual choices converge to a point where interactions generate a lower than optimal value. In previous I.V.A. models, relinquishing central control of interaction choices reduced the aggregate value by anything from 0% to 12%, depending on circumstances. This paper finds the difference between the two modes of organization to go as high as 47% if actors display preferences between interaction partners instead of treating all equally. A politically divided, dog-eat-dog, “Capitalist” climate follows one queuing discipline, which is found to generally increase the value that a strong control structure can add. A chummy, in-bred “Fraternal” climate gains from control in some circumstances (low interdependence or low differentiation), but not in others (high or medium interdependence and differentiation under low diversity, for example). These are compared to the previous version of I.V.A., in which the queuing discipline was FIFO and the climate deemed “Disciplined”. Previously published findings on Organizational Climate are duplicated and extended with a higher level of detail. Priority queuing in an I.V.A. model is thus a useful proxy for Organizational Climate, open to future validation because its detailed predictions can be confirmed or falsified by observation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ancker CJ, Gafarian AV (1962) Queuing with Impatient customers who leave at random. J Indus Eng 13:84–90
Astely WG, Zammuto RF (1992) Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Organiz Sci 3(4):442–466
Banks DL, Carley KM (1996) Models for Network Evolution. J Math Sociol 21(1–2):173–196.
Barley SR (2003) Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administ Sci Quart 41(3):404–442
Barrer DY (1957) Queuing with Impatient Customers and Indifferent Clerks. Oper Res 5:644–651
Bowes P, IFTF: (2000),‘Pitney Bowes’ fourth annual study on messaging practices in the 21st century workplace. Press Release
Brown S, Eisenhadrd K (2004) Competing on the Edge. Sage PublicationsThousand Oaks, CA.
Buchanan BG, Shortliffe EH (1984) Rule-based expert systems: the MYCIN experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, Addison-Wesley series in artificial intelligence. Reading, MA.
Burton RM, Obel B (1998) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design. 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Carley KM (1990) Group Stability: A socio-cognitive approach. Adv Group Processes 7:1–44
Carley KM (1991) A Theory of Group Stability. Amer Sociolog Rev 56:331–354
Clayman M (1994) Excellence revisited. Finan Analy J 50(3)
Coase RH (1988) The firm, the market and the law. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Contractor FJ, Ra W (1998) Sharing the fruits of knowledge transfer. Technical Report 98–10, Carnegie Bosch Institute for Applied Studies in International Management, Pittsburgh, PA
Contractor NS, Eisenberg EM (1990) Communication lowercaseNetworks and New Media in Organizations. In: Fulk J., Steinfield C. (eds.), Organization and communication technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Chapt. 7, pp. 143–170
Davidow WH (1992) The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st Century. Harper Business, New York, NY
Denison DR (1996) What IS the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Acad Manag Rev 21(3):1–36
DiMaggio, P (1992), Nadel’s Paradox Revisited : Relational and Cultural Aspects of Organizational Structure. In: Nohria N., Eccles, R. G. (eds): Networks and organizations : Structure, form and action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
Donaldson L (2001) Contingency theory, foundations for organizational science. CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Doty DH, Glick WH, Huber GP (1993) Fit, Equifinality and Organizational Effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories. Acad Manag J 36(6):1196–1250
Hirsch PM, Levin DZ (1999) Umbrella advocates versus validity police. Organiz Sci 10(2):199–212
Huberman BA, Hogg T (1995) Communities of practice. Comput Math Organiz Theory 1(1):73–92
Jin Y, Levitt RE, Christiansen TR, Kunz JC (1995) The Virtual Design Team: A Computer Simulation Framework for Studying Organizational Aspects of Concurrent Design. SIMULATION J 64(3):160–174
Kunz JC, Christiansen TR, Cohen GP, Jin Y, Levitt RE (1998) The virtual design team: A computational simulation model of project organizations. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (CACM) 41(11):84–91
Levitt RE, Thomsen J, Christiansen T, Kunz J, Jin Y, Nass C (1999) Simulating Project Work Processes and Organizations: Toward a Micro-Contingency Theory of Organizational Design. Manag Sci 45(11):1479–1495
McCafferty J (1998) Coping with infoglut. CFO Magazine. Located at: http://www.cfo.com/Article?article=1478
Miles RC, Snow CC (1978) Organizational strategy, structure, and process. McGraw Hill New York
Mintzberg H (1983) Structure in fives - designing effective organizations Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Nasrallah WF, Levitt RE, and Glynn P (1998) Diversity and popularity in organizations and communities. Comput Math Organiz Theory 4(4):347–372.
Nasrallah WF, Levitt RE (2001) An interaction value perspective on firms of differing size, Comput Math Organiz Theory 7(2):113–144
Nasrallah WF, Levitt RE, Glynn P (2003) Interaction value analysis: When structured communication benefits organizations. Organiz Sci 14(5):541–557
Owen G (1995) Game theory : Academic Press Inc., San Diego.
Quinn RE, Rohrbaugh J (1983) A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Manag Sci 29(3)
Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003)‘Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements of organizational design’ Manag Sci 49(3)
Schoonhoven CB (1981) Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(3):349–377
Shafritz JM, Ott JS (1996) Classics of organization theory. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas.
Sitkin SB and Schroeder KMSRG (1994) Distinguishing control from learning in total quality management: A contingency perspective. Acad Manag Rev 19(3):537–565.
Williamson OE, Winters SG (eds) (1991) The Nature of the Firm: origins, evolution and development. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Zuboff S (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. Basic Books, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Walid Nasrallah is currently Assistant Professor in the Engineering Management program at the American University of Beirut (AUB). He received his Ph.D. from the Construction Engineering and Management program at Stanford University in 2000 and his Master’s degree at MIT in 1989. Between the two, he occupied several positions in the construction and software engineering fields. His research interests today include simulation, decision theory, and the evolution of organizations in response to new technologies.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nasrallah, W.F. When does management matter in a dog-eat-dog world: An “Interaction Value Analysis” model of organizational climate. Comput Math Organiz Theor 12, 339–359 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-6684-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-6684-9