IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2206.02142.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Collaborative search and autonomous task allocation in organizations of learning agents

Author

Listed:
  • Stephan Leitner

Abstract

This paper introduces a model of multi-unit organizations with either static structures, i.e., they are designed top-down following classical approaches to organizational design, or dynamic structures, i.e., the structures emerge over time from micro-level decisions. In the latter case, the units are capable of learning about the technical interdependencies of the task they face, and they use their knowledge by adapting the task allocation from time to time. In both static and dynamic organizations, searching for actions to increase the performance can either be carried out individually or collaboratively. The results indicate that (i) collaborative search processes can help overcome the adverse effects of inefficient task allocations as long as there is an internal fit with other organizational design elements, and (ii) for dynamic organizations, the emergent task allocation does not necessarily mirror the technical interdependencies of the task the organizations face, even though the same (or even higher) performances are achieved.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephan Leitner, 2022. "Collaborative search and autonomous task allocation in organizations of learning agents," Papers 2206.02142, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2206.02142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.02142
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard M. Burton & Børge Obel, 2018. "The science of organizational design: fit between structure and coordination," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Baldwin, Carliss & MacCormack, Alan & Rusnak, John, 2014. "Hidden structure: Using network methods to map system architecture," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1381-1397.
    3. Laura B. Cardinal & Sim B. Sitkin & Chris P. Long, 2004. "Balancing and Rebalancing in the Creation and Evolution of Organizational Control," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 411-431, August.
    4. Dar'io Blanco-Fern'andez & Stephan Leitner & Alexandra Rausch, 2022. "Dynamic groups in complex task environments: To change or not to change a winning team?," Papers 2203.09157, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephan Leitner, 2023. "Designing organizations for bottom-up task allocation: The role of incentives," Papers 2301.00410, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samina Karim & Chi‐Hyon Lee & Manuela N. Hoehn‐Weiss, 2023. "Task bottlenecks and resource bottlenecks: A holistic examination of task systems through an organization design lens," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1839-1878, August.
    2. Stephan Leitner, 2021. "On the Role of Incentives in Evolutionary Approaches to Organizational Design," Papers 2105.04514, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    3. Carlos Martin-Rios, 2016. "Innovative management control systems in knowledge work: a middle manager perspective," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 181-204, May.
    4. Sunil Ramlall & Becky Melton, 2019. "The Role and Priorities of the Human Resource Management Function: Perspectives of HR Professionals, Line Managers, and Senior Executives," International Journal of Human Resource Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 9(2), pages 9-27, December.
    5. Gavin M Schwarz & Karin Sanders & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2020. "In the driving seat: Executive’s perceived control over environment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(2), pages 317-342, May.
    6. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2022. "Human resource policies and firm innovation: The moderating effects of economic and institutional context," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    7. Paul, Michael & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Groth, Markus, 2015. "Tightening or loosening the “iron cage”? The impact of formal and informal display controls on service customers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1062-1073.
    8. Bart A. De Jong & Katinka M. Bijlsma-Frankema & Laura B. Cardinal, 2014. "Stronger Than the Sum of Its Parts? The Performance Implications of Peer Control Combinations in Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1703-1721, December.
    9. Hao Ren & Rongrong Wang & Suopeng Zhang & An Zhang, 2017. "How Do Internet Enterprises Obtain Sustainable Development of Organizational Ecology? A Case Study of LeEco Using Institutional Logic Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-21, August.
    10. Su Zhongfeng & Wang Donghan, 2018. "Entrepreneurial Orientation, Control Systems, and New Venture Performance: A Dominant Logic Perspective," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 8(3), pages 1-17, July.
    11. Stephen K. Kim & Amrit Tiwana, 2016. "Chicken or egg? Sequential complementarity among salesforce control mechanisms," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 316-333, May.
    12. Sandeep Rustagi & William R. King & Laurie J. Kirsch, 2008. "Predictors of Formal Control Usage in IT Outsourcing Partnerships," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 126-143, June.
    13. Christian Jung-Gehling & Erik Strauss, 2018. "A Contemporary Concept of Organizational Control: Its Dependence on Shared Values and Impact on Motivation," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 70(4), pages 341-374, November.
    14. Johnson, William H.A., 2011. "Managing university technology development using organizational control theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 842-852, July.
    15. Sungyong Um & Bin Zhang & Sunil Wattal & Youngjin Yoo, 2023. "Software Components and Product Variety in a Platform Ecosystem: A Dynamic Network Analysis of WordPress," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1339-1374, December.
    16. Sylvain Bureau & Jean-Baptiste Suquet, 2007. "Renouveler l’approche de la profession en contrôle organisationnel," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 10(4), pages 17-35, December.
    17. Selena Aureli & Andrea Cardoni & Mara Del Baldo & Rosa Lombardi, 2019. "Traditional management accounting tools in SMEs? network. Do they foster partner dialogue and business innovation?," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(1 suppl.), pages 35-50.
    18. Berchicci, L. & Tucci, C.L., 2008. "Market Feedback and Team Commitment in Radical Product Innovation Process," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-069-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    19. Habib Mahama & Zhichao (Alex) Wang, 2023. "Impact of the interactive and diagnostic uses of performance measurement systems on procedural fairness perception, cooperation and performance in supply alliances," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3253-3296, September.
    20. Walid F. Nasrallah & Charbel J. Ouba & Ali A. Yassine & Issam M. Srour, 2015. "Modeling the span of control of leaders with different skill sets," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 296-317, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2206.02142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.