Skip to main content

Phrasing and Timing Information Dissemination in Organizations: Results of an Agent-Based Simulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Artificial Economics and Self Organization

Abstract

This paper analyzes how managers suffering from decision-making biases in interrelated decision processes affect the performance of an overall business organization. To perform the analysis, we utilize an NK-type agent-based simulation model, in which decision-making is represented by adaptive walks on performance landscapes. We find that organizational performance holds up well, if the decision problem breaks into disjointed sub-problems. If decisions are, however, highly cross-related between departments, the overall organization’s performance degrades, while both negatively phrasing information and relying more heavily on recently derived information account for an improvement. The effect of positively phrasing information that is relevant for decision-making works towards the same direction, but much more reluctantly. These results cautiously raise doubt about the claim that decision-making should always be as rational as possible.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that the NK model has a substantial record of being successfully adopted for analyzing multidivisional organizations (see, e.g., [4, 1720, 27]).

  2. 2.

    For a thorough discussion of comprehensively mapping interaction consult [18]. Some additionally enlightning comments may be also found below Eq. 5.

  3. 3.

    The model contains a fitness landscape representing the objective, the overall organizational performance, in which agents seek to incrementally improve their payoffs. This behavior corresponds to moving step by step from ‘fitness valleys’ to ‘fitness peaks’.

  4. 4.

    This incentive structure corresponds to the one used, for example, in the model of Siggelkov and Rivkin [20] and the model of Berlinger and Wall [1].

  5. 5.

    Note that the central office does not intervene in decentralized decision-making. It exercises influence only via providing incentives (by controlling γ j). Moreover, the central office is obliged to note both departments’ configurations ranked first, and, at the end of period \(t\), to observe the performance of the combined configuration d \(_{t}^{{\ast}}\)  = [d \(_{t}^{1{\ast}}\) … d \(_{t}^{N{\ast}}\)].

  6. 6.

    This finding is based on the fact that a higher degree of interrelation causes performances landscapes to be more rugged, which, in turn, makes it more difficult to find the global peak. A result resembling ours with respect to interrelatedness is provided by Stark and Behrens [22, 23], who show within the context of an evolutionary game being played on a ring network that a lower degree of information and interaction accessible on the individual level (and thereby ‘reducing the size’ of the problem to be solved by the individual), respectively, can improve the performance of the overall system.

  7. 7.

    Reading Table 2, it is plausible to assume that the non-significant effect of positive framing would turn into a significantly positive effect once the corresponding parameter range was extended, i.e., for β W j > 0. 2.

References

  1. Berlinger S, Wall F (2013) Effects of combined human decision-making biases on organizational performance. In: Amblard F, Giardini F (eds) Multi-agent-based simulation XII. Volume to appear of LNCS. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bonabeau E (2002) Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(Suppl 3):7280–7287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bredenkamp J, Wippich W (1977) Lern- und Gedächtnispsychologie I. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chang MH, Harrington JE (2006) Agent-based models of organizations. In: Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (eds) Handbook of computational economics. Agent-based computational economics, vol 2. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1273–1337

    Google Scholar 

  5. Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad Manag Rev 32(2):480–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kauffman SA (1993) The origins of order. Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kauffman SA (1995) At home in the universe. The search of laws for self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kauffman SA, Levin S (1987) Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. J Theor Biol 128(1):11–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kauffman SA, Weinberger ED (1989) The NK model of rugged fitness landscapes and its application to maturation of the immune response. J Theor Biol 141:211–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Leitner S, Behrens DA (2013) On the fault (in)tolerance of coordination mechanisms for distributed investment decisions: results of an agent-based simulation. Working paper, Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt (in submission)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Leitner S, Wall F (2011) Effectivity of multi criteria decision-making in organisations: results of an agent-based simulation. In: Osinga S, Hofstede GJ, Verwaart T (eds) Emergent results of artificial economics. Volume 652 of LNEMS. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 79–90

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leitner S, Wall F (2011) Unexpected positive effects of complexity on performance in multiple criteria setups. In: Hu B, Morasch K, Pickl S, Siegle M (eds) Operations research proceedings 2010 Munich. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 577–582

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Leitner S, Wall F (2013) Multi objective decision-making policies and coordination mechanisms in hierarchical organizations: results of an agent-based simulation. Working paper, Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt (in submission)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Moss S (2001) Editorial introduction: Messy systems—the target for multi agent based simulation. In: Moss S, Davidsson P (eds) Multi-agent-based simulation. Volume 1979 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  16. Porter ME (1996) What is strategy? Harv Bus Rev 74(6):61–78

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Manag Sci 49(3):290–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2007) Patterned interactions in complex systems: implications for exploration. Manag Sci 53(7):1068–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14(6):650–669

    Google Scholar 

  20. Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ Sci 16(2):101–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sprinkle GB (2003) Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting. Account Organ Soc 28(2–3):287–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stark O, Behrens DA (2010) An evolutionary edge of knowing less (or: on the curse of global information). J Evol Econ 20(1):77–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stark O, Behrens DA (2011) In search of an evolutionary edge: trading with a few, more, or many. J Evol Econ 21(5):721–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Sci New Ser 185(4157):1124–1131

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Sci New Ser 211(4481):453–458

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J Bus 59(4):251–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wall F (2010) The (beneficial) role of informational imperfections in enhancing organisational performance. In: LiCalzi M, Milone L, Pellizzari P (eds) Progress in artificial economics. Computational and agent-based models. Volume 645 of LNEMS. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 115–126

    Google Scholar 

  28. Weinberger E (1991) Local properties of Kauffman’s N-K model: a tunably rugged energy landscape. Phys Rev A 44(10):6399–6413

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out within the framework of the SOSIE project and was supported by Lakeside Labs GmbH. It was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Carinthian Economic Promotion Fund (KWF) under grant no. 20214/23793/35529.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doris A. Behrens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Behrens, D.A., Berlinger, S., Wall, F. (2014). Phrasing and Timing Information Dissemination in Organizations: Results of an Agent-Based Simulation. In: Leitner, S., Wall, F. (eds) Artificial Economics and Self Organization. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 669. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00912-4_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics