Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

When does management matter in a dog-eat-dog world: An “Interaction Value Analysis” model of organizational climate

  • Published:
Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Astely WG, Zammuto RF (1992) Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Organiz Sci 3(4):442–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks DL, Carley KM (1996) Models for Network Evolution. J Math Sociol 21(1–2):173–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barley SR (2003) Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administ Sci Quart 41(3):404–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrer DY (1957) Queuing with Impatient Customers and Indifferent Clerks. Oper Res 5:644–651

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM (1990) Group Stability: A socio-cognitive approach. Adv Group Processes 7:1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM (1991) A Theory of Group Stability. Amer Sociolog Rev 56:331–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidow WH (1992) The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st Century. Harper Business, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L (2001) Contingency theory, foundations for organizational science. CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch PM, Levin DZ (1999) Umbrella advocates versus validity police. Organiz Sci 10(2):199–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberman BA, Hogg T (1995) Communities of practice. Comput Math Organiz Theory 1(1):73–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1983) Structure in fives - designing effective organizations Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasrallah WF, Levitt RE, and Glynn P (1998) Diversity and popularity in organizations and communities. Comput Math Organiz Theory 4(4):347–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasrallah WF, Levitt RE (2001) An interaction value perspective on firms of differing size, Comput Math Organiz Theory 7(2):113–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasrallah WF, Levitt RE, Glynn P (2003) Interaction value analysis: When structured communication benefits organizations. Organiz Sci 14(5):541–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen G (1995) Game theory : Academic Press Inc., San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafritz JM, Ott JS (1996) Classics of organization theory. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin SB and Schroeder KMSRG (1994) Distinguishing control from learning in total quality management: A contingency perspective. Acad Manag Rev 19(3):537–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE, Winters SG (eds) (1991) The Nature of the Firm: origins, evolution and development. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuboff S (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walid F. Nasrallah.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-6684-9

Keywords

Navigation