The impact of informal contacts on communication efficiency in hierarchical organizations

The impact of informal contacts on communication efficiencyin hierarchical organizations

Modeling small-worldliness in a hierarchical network

Master thesis defense

Remko Arts




Remko Arts

“Lekenpraatje”

How do informal contacts impact the communication efficiency of a hierarchical organizational communication structure?


Informal contacts


Informal contactsCommunication efficiency


Hierarchical organizationsInformal contactsCommunication efficiency




What is ahierarchical organization?





Team clustering

Information qualityTeam specializationAvailability


Team members

are clustered

Communication efficiencyInformal contacts

Hierarchical organizations

What are

informal contacts?



ARE ABOUT :

COFFEE

Impact on communicationInformal contacts






Network reach

Communication efficiencyHierarchical organizationsInformal contacts

What isCommunication efficiency?


MeasureSomething we


Team Clustering

Networkreach

3 Components:

Team Clustering

Network reach

EfficiencyHierarchy Informalcontacts

Modeling

But

how?

Previously: empirical

Modeling

Modeling

Buthow

Exactly?

Aral, S., Brynjolfsson, E., & Van Alstyne, M. (2007). Productivity effects of information diffusion in network. Preliminary draft version, MIT Sloan School of Management. Barabási, A.-L. (1999). Diameter of the world-wide web. Nature, 401, 130-131.Bian, Y. (1997). Bringing strong ties back in: Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review, 62(3), 366-385. Brzozowski, M. (2011). Who should I follow?: Recommending people in directed social networks. Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/view/2867Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A précis. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 653-660.Cormen, T., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., & Stein, C., (2001). Introduction to Algorithms. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA, MIT Press and McGraw-Hill. pp. 595-601.Davis, W. & O’Connor, R. (1976). Serial transmission of information: A study of the grapevine. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 5, 61-72.Dörner, C., Pipek, V., & Won, M. (2007). Supporting expertise awareness: Finding out what others know. Proceedings of the 2007 symposium on Computer human interaction for the management of information technology. ACM New York, NY, USA.DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor psychology: Social & organizational approaches. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association.Dijkstra, E. (1959). A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische Mathematik 1, 269-271. Edmonds, B. (2001). Complexity and Scientific Modelling. Foundations of Science. 5(3), 379-390.Erdős, P., Rényi, A. (1959). On random graphs. I. Publicationes Mathematicae, 6, 290-297.Faloutsos, M., Faloutsos, P., & Faloutsos, C. (1999). On the power-law relationships of the internet topology. Computer Communications Review, 29, 251-262.Fell, D., & Wagner, A. (2001). The small world of metabolism. Nature, 18, 1121-1122.Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1360-1380.Granovetter, M. (1983) The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory. 1, 201–233. Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.Holland, P., & Leinhardt, S. (1971). Transitivity in structural models of small groups. Comparative Group Studies, 2, 107-124.Jeong, H., Tombor, B., Albert, R., Oltvai, Z., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000). The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature, 407, 651-654. Holland, P.W. & Leinhardt, S. (1971). Transitivity in structural models of small groups. Comparative Group Studies, 2, 107-124.Jalili, M. (2011).Synchronizability of dynamical scale-free networks subject to random errors. Physica A, 390, 4588-4595.John, A. & Seligmann, D. (2006). Collaborative tagging and expertise in the enterprise. Edinburgh, UK: Unpublished. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://wwwiti.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/iti_db/lehre/Seminar%20Virtual%20Engineering/Paper/folksonomy2.pdfKrackhardt, D., (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and Organizations, 216-239. Boston, M, Harvard Business School Press.Krackhardt D., & Hanson, R. (1993). Informal Networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review. 71(4), 104-111. McMillan, E. (2002). Considering organisation structure and design from a complexity paradigm perspective. In G. Frizzelle & H. Richards, (Eds.) Tackling industrial complexity: The ideas that make a difference. Institute of Manufacturing, University of Cambridge.Milgram, S. (1967). The small-world problem. Psychology Today, 1(1), 61 67.‐Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science. 26(3), 322-341.Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structures in fives: Designing effective organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.Newman, M., Barabási, A.-L., & Watts, D., (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Pool, I., & Kochen, M. (1978). Contacts and influence. Social Networks, 1(79), 5-51. Rapoport, A. & Horvath, W. (1961). A study of a large sociogram. Behavioral Science, 6, 279-291. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240-267.Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447-504.Walsh, T. (1999). Search in a small world. In Dean, T. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1172-1177). San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufman Publishers Inc.Watts, D. (1999). Networks, dynamics, and the small-world. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 493-527.Watts, D. & Strogatz, S., (1998). Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature, 393, 440-442.Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Retrieved Nov 20, 2010 from: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/ Wilensky, U. (2005). NetLogo Small Worlds model. Retrieved Nov 20, 2010 from: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/SmallWorlds. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Wu, L., Waber, B., Aral, S., Brynjolfsson, E., & Pentland, A. (2008). Mining face-to-face interaction networks using sociometric badges: Predicting productivity in an IT configuration task. Draft. Retrieved on September 20, 2012 from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1130251

Scientific papers

+/- 40 scientific papers

Watts & Strogatz (1998)

Watts, D. & Strogatz, S., (1998). Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature, 393, 440-442.




Remko Arts


X


Characteristic path length

Clustering coefficient

TeamClustering

Networkreach

Clustering and Ch. Path LengthShort Characteristic path length

High Clustering coefficient

𝑪(𝒑)=∑|𝒗|

(𝒌¿¿ 𝒗 ∙(𝒌𝒗−𝟏))/𝟐𝒆 ¿

C / L


Small-worldlinessSmall-worldliness

SW = C / L

Watts & Strogatz vs Remko RemkoWatts & Strogatz

Regular network (ring)Randomness

Efficiency

High Clustering +

Short characteristic path length

=High small-worldliness

Hierarchical networkInformal contactsCommunication efficiency

Tight teams+

Great network reach

= Efficient communication

Research question #1

How should the effect of informal contacts on communication efficiency in hierarchical organizations

be modeled?ANSWERED

NetLogo(Wilensky, 1999)

+/- 15 pagesof code

Exp. #1: Watts & StrogatzREPRODUCED

NetLogo Watts & Strogatz rep.

SW peak


Does the efficiency of organizational communication networks change when

informal connections are formed?

NetLogo hierarchy

Exp. #2: Hierarchy

Exp. #2: Hierarchy

No SW peak


Do informal connections affect different organizational communication structures

equally?

Exp. #3: Hierarchy depthDeep: 8 layersShallow: 2 layers

(Exp. # 4 in thesis)

Exp. #3: Hierarchy depthDeep: 8 layersShallow: 2 layers

No SW

SW

(Exp. # 4 in thesis)

Conclusions

What have we

Learned?

Thesis



Problem statement

How do informal contacts impact the communication efficiency of a hierarchical organizational communication structure?

Conclusions



Conclusions

Informal contacts Increase network reach

Decrease team clustering

Conclusions

Small organizationsSuffer more from the decreased

team clustering

… efficiency decreases

Conclusions

Large organizationsBenefit more from the

decreased network reach

… efficiency increases

Limitations

Thanks



Remko Arts

Let’s get informal.

: remkoarts http://remkoarts.nl/archive/Thesis and presentation available from:

Date post:	24-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vanya
View:	32 times
Download:	0 times

The impact of informal contacts on communication efficiency in hierarchical organizations

Documents