Putting the organization back into computational organization theory: a complex Perrowian model of organizational action | Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Putting the organization back into computational organization theory: a complex Perrowian model of organizational action

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

Abstract

At best, computational models that study organizations incorporate only one perspective of how organizations are known to act within their environments. Such single-perspective models are limited in their generalizability and applicability to the real world and allow for researcher bias. This work develops a multi-agent simulation using eight different well-known organizational perspectives: Strategic choice, contingency theory, behavioral decision theory, enactment, resource dependence, institutional theory, population ecology, and transaction cost economics. A literature review of each field is applied to the construction of algorithms which, when combined with techniques derived from a literature review of computational modeling of organizations, was applied to the construction of a series of algorithms describing a multi-perspective computational model. Computer code was written based on the algorithms and run across different types of environments. Results were statistically analyzed to both validate the model and to generate contingency-oriented hypotheses. Conclusions were made with regard to the expected behavior of organizations and the model’s applicability toward further research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Alchain AA (1950) Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. J Polit Econ 58(6):211–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich HE (1979) Organizations and environments. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich HE, Pfeffer J (1976) Environments of organizations. Ann Rev Sociol 2:79–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Anastasi A (1988) Psychological testing. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff I (1965) Corporate strategy. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragon-Correa JA, Sharma S (2003) A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Acad Manag Rev 28(1):71–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth MJ, Carley KM (2007) Can tools help unify organization theory? Perspectives on the state of computational modeling. Comput Math Organ Theory 13(1):89–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1980) Effective choice in the prisoner’s dilemma. J Confl Resol 24(1):3–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker DD, Cullen JB (1993) Administrative reorganization and configurational context: the contingent effects of age, size, and change in size. Acad Manag J 36(6):1251–1277

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard CI (1938) The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron DN (2000) Simulating the dynamics of organizational populations: a comparison of three models of organizational entry, exit, and growth. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 209–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettis RA, Prahalad CK (1995) The dominant logic: retrospective and extension. Strateg Manag J 16(1):5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau PM (1956) Bureaucracy in modern society. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau PM, Meyer MW (1971) Bureaucracy in modern society, 3rd edn. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau PM, Shoenherr RA (1971) The structure of organizations. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonini CP (1963) Simulation of information and decision systems in the firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothner MS, White HC (2000) Market orientation and monopoly power. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 181–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding KE (1950) A reconstruction of economics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois LJI (1985) Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty, and economic performance in volatile environments. Acad Manag J 28(3):548–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer KK, Swink M, Rosenzweig ED (2005) Operations strategy research in the POMS journal. Prod Oper Manag 14(4):442–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockmann EN, Hoffman JJ, Dawley DD (2006) A contingency theory of CEO successor choice and post-bankruptcy strategic change. J Manag Issues 18(2):213–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruderer E, Singh JV (1996) Organizational evolution, learning, and selection: a genetic algorithm-based model. Acad Manag J 39(5):1322–1349

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruggeman J, Nualláin B (2000) A niche width model of optimal specialization. Comput Math Organ Theory 6(2):161–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The management of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, Obel B (2004) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design, 3rd edn. Kluwer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM (1995) Computational and mathematical organization theory: perspective and directions. Comput Math Organ Theory 1(1):39–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM (1996) Validating computer models (working paper). Available at http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/bios/carley/working_papers.php

  • Carley KM (1999) On generating hypotheses using computer simulations. Syst Eng 2(2):69–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM (2000) Organizational adaptation in volatile environments. In: Ilgen DR, Huin CL (eds) Computational modeling of behavior in organizations: the third scientific discipline. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 241–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM (2002) Intraorganizational complexity and computation. In: Baum JAC (ed) The Blackwell companion to organizations. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 208–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM, Hill V (2000) Structural change and learning within organizations. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 61–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM, Prietula MJ (1998) WebBots, trust, and organizational science. In: Prietula MJ, Carley KM, Gasser L (eds) Simulating organizations: computational models of institutions and groups. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM, Svoboda DM (1996) Modeling organization adaptation as a simulated annealing process. Sociol Methods Res 25(1):138–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Child J (1972) Organizational structure, environment, and performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology 6:2–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Child J (1974) Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance, part I. J Manag Stud 11:175–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Child J (1975) Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance, part II. J Manag Stud 12:12–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte R, Sichman JS (2002) Dependence graphs: dependence within and between groups. Comput Math Organ Theory 8(2):87–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni RA (1994) Hypercompetitive rivalries: competing in highly dynamic environments. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dacin TM, Goodstein J, Scott RW (2002) Institutional theory and institutional change: introduction to the special research forum. Acad Manag J 45(1):45–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels E (2003) Tight-loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation. Strateg Manag J 24(6):559–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse DL (1996) Does isomorphism legitimate? Acad Manag J 39(4):1024–1039

    Google Scholar 

  • Denis DD, Denis DK, Sarin A (1999) Agency theory and the influence of equity ownership structure on corporate diversification strategies. Strateg Manag J 20(11):1071–1076

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess GG, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environments. Adm Sci Q 29(1):52–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill WR (1958) Environments as an influence on managerial autonomy. Adm Sci Q 2(4):409–443

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48:147–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan RB (1972) Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Adm Sci Q 17(3):313–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton JM, Starbuck WH (1971a) Computer simulation of human behavior. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton JM, Starbuck WH (1971b) The plan of the book. In: Dutton JM, Starbuck WH (eds) Computer simulation of human behavior. Wiley, New York, pp 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery FE, Trist E (1965) The causal texture of organizational environments. Hum Relat 18:21–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JM, Axtell R (1996) Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. Brookings Institution Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith J (1973) Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47(2):209–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (2002) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Handley HAH, Levis AH (2001) A model to evaluate the effect of organizational adaptation. Comput Math Organ Theory 7(1):5–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Cannella AA (2004) CEOs who have COOs: contingency analysis of an unexplored structural form. Strateg Manag J 25(10):959–979

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manag Rev 9(2):193–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan MT, Freeman JH (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Am Sociol Rev 82:929–964

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JR, Carroll GR (2000) Modeling culture in organizations: formulation and extension to ecological issues. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 37–62

    Google Scholar 

  • He Z-L, Wong P-K (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15(4):481–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickson DJ, Hinings CR, Lee CA, Schneck RE, Pennings JM (1971) A strategic contingencies theory of intraorganizational power. Adm Sci Q 16(2):216–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch PM (1975) Organizational effectiveness and the institutional environment. Adm Sci Q 20(3):327–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson RE, Hitt MA (1990) Antecedents and performance outcomes of diversification: a review and critique of theoretical perspectives. J Manag 16(2):461–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough JR, White MA (2003) Environmental dynamism and strategic decision-making rationality: an examination at the decision level. Strateg Manag J 24(5):481–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough JR, White MA (2004) Scanning actions and environmental dynamism: gathering information for strategic decision making. Manag Decis 42(6):781–793

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberman BA (2001) The dynamics of organizational learning. Comput Math Organ Theory 7(2):145–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland RD, Miller CC (2004) Decision-making and firm success. Acad Manag Exec 18(4):8–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Janney JJ, Dess GG (2004) Can real-options analysis improve decision-making? Promises and pitfalls. Acad Manag Exec 18(4):60–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen M, Zajac EJ (2004) Corporate elites and corporate strategy: how demographic preferences and structural position shape the scope of the firm. Strateg Manag J 25(6):507–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurkovich R (1974) A core typology of organizational environments. Adm Sci Q 19(3):380–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketchen DJ, Snow CC, Street VL (2004) Improving firm performance by matching strategic decision-making processes to competitive dynamics. Acad Manag Exec 18(4):29–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketokivi M (2006) Elaborating the contingency theory of organizations: the case of manufacturing flexibility strategies. Prod Oper Manag 15(2):215–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt D (2000) Viscosity models and the diffusion of controversial innovation. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 243–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik BW (2005) Agency theory, reasoning, and culture: in search of a solution. J Bus Ethics 59(4):347–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik BW (2006) Strategic action and executive behavior: an agent-based simulation. PhD dissertation, Washington State University, Department of Management and Operations

  • Koufteros X, Vonderembse M, Jayaram J (2005) Internal and external integration for product development: the contingency effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decis Sci 36(1):97–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edn. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Law AM, Kelton WD (2000) Simulation modeling and analysis, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and environment: managing differentiation and integration. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA (1994) Surviving Schumpeterian environments: an evolutionary perspective. In: Baum JAC, Singh JV (eds) The evolution of evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 167–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA (2000) Modeling adaptation on rugged landscapes. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 329–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin Z (1998) The choice between accuracy and errors: a contingency analysis of external conditions and organizational decision making performance. In: Prietula MJ, Carley KM, Gasser L (eds) Simulating organizations: computational models of institutions and groups. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 67–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin Z, Hui C (1997) Adapting to the changing environment: a theoretical comparison of decision making proficiency of lean and mass organization systems. Comput Math Organ Theory 3(2):113–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Loch CH, Huberman BA, Ulku S (2000) Multi-dimensional status competition and group performance. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 119–140 ,

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomi A, Larsen ER (1998) Density delay and organizational survival: computational models and empirical comparisons. Comput Math Organ Theory 3(4):219–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomi A, Larsen ER (2000) Failure as a structural concept: a computational perspective on age dependence in organizational mortality rates. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 269–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Macy MW, Strang D (2000) Dedicated followers of success: a computational model of fashinable innovation. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 93–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba F, Nelson R, Orsenigo L, Winter S (2000) Product diversification in a “history friendly” model of the evolution of computer industry. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 350–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Malyankar RM, Findler NV (1998) A methodology for modeling coordination in intelligent agent societies. Comput Math Organ Theory 4(4):317–345

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1994) The evolution of evolution. In: Baum JAC, Singh JV (eds) Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 39–49

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Simon H (1958) Organizations. Blackwell, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Masuch M, Huang Z (1996) A case study in logical deconstruction: formalizing J.D. Thompson’s organizations in action in a multi-agent action logic. Comput Math Organ Theory 2(2):71–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masuch M, LaPotin P (1989) Beyond garbage cans: an AI model of organizational choice. Adm Sci Q 34(1):38–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezias SJ, Lant TK (1994) In: Baum JAC, Singh JV (eds) Mimetic learning and the evolution of organizational populations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 179–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Mild A, Taudes A (2007) An agent-based investigation into the new product development capability. Comput Math Organ Theory 13(3):315–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles RE, Snow CC (1978) Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller JH (2000) Evolving information processing organizations. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 307–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Naveh I, Sun R (2006) A cognitively based simulation of academic science. Comput Math Organ Theory 12(3):13–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt PC (2004) Expanding the search for alternatives during strategic decision-making. Acad Manag Exec 18(4):13–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver C (1992) The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organ Stud 13(4):563–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver C (1997) The influence of institutional task environment relationships on organizational performance: the Canadian construction industry. J Manag Stud 34(1):99–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T (1956) Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations. Adm Sci Q 1(1):63–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose ET (1952) Biological analogies in the theory of the firm. Am Econ Rev 62(5):804–819

    Google Scholar 

  • Perdu DM, Levis AH (1998) Adaptation as a morphing process: a methodology for the design and evaluation of adaptive organizational structures. Comput Math Organ Theory 4(1):5–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1986) Complex organizations: a critical essay, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad CK, Bettis RA (1986) The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strateg Manag J 7(6):485–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Prietula MJ (2000) Advice, trust and gossip among artificial agents. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 141–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Prietula MJ, Watson HS (2000) Extending the Cyert-March duopoly model: organizational and economic insights. Organ Sci 11(5):565–585

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakotobe-Joel T, McCarthy IP, Tranfield D (2002) A structural and evolutionary approach to change management. Comput Math Organ Theory 8(4):337–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Randolph WA, Dess GG (1984) The congruence perspective of organization design: a conceptual model and multivariate research approach. Acad Manag Rev 9(1):114–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed R, Luffman GA (1986) Diversification: the growing confusion. Strateg Manag J 7(1):29–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler-Smith E, Shefy E (2004) The intuitive executive: understanding and applying ‘gut feel’ in decision-making. Acad Manag Exec 18(4):76–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Saoud NB-B, Mark G (2007) Complexity theory and collaboration: an agent-based simulator for a space mission design team. Comput Math Organ Theory 13(2):113–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Sastry MA (2000) Understanding dynamic complexity in organizational evolution. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organization theories. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, pp 378–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer FM (1971) Industrial market structure and economic performance. Rand McNally, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven CB (1981) Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency “theory”. Adm Sci Q 26(3):349–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz M (1998) A model of obsolescence of organizational rules. Comput Math Organ Theory 4(3):241–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick P (1957) Leadership in administration: a sociological interpretation. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu K, Hitt MA (2004) Strategic flexibility: organizational preparedness to reverse ineffective strategic decisions. Acad Manag Exec 18(4):44–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillince JAA (2005) A contingency theory of rhetorical congruence. Acad Manag Rev 30(3):608–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1945) Administrative behavior, 4th edn. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck WH (1976) Organizations and their environments. In: Dunnette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Rand-McNally, Chicago, pp 1069–1123

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM, Szwajkowski E (1975) The scarcity-munificence of organizational environments and the commission of illegal acts. Adm Sci Q 20(3):345–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):571–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitelbaum D, Dowlatabadi H (2000) A computational model of technological innovation at the firm level. Comput Math Organ Theory 6(3):227–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosi H, Aldag R, Storey R (1973) On the measurement of the environment: an assessment of the Lawrence and Lorsch environmental uncertainty subscale. Adm Sci Q 18(1):27–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Tung RL (1979) Dimensions of organizational environments: an exploratory study of their impact on organization structure. Acad Manag J 22(4):672–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Romanelli E (1985) Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol VII. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 171–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner SF, Bettis RA, Burton RM (2002) Exploring depth versus breadth in knowledge management strategies. Comput Math Organ Theory 8(1):49–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher JM, Evans MT (1996) Life and death along gasoline alley: Darwinian and Lamarckian processes in a differentiating population. Acad Manag J 39(5):1428–1466

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman N (1989) The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad Manag Rev 14(3):423–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen I, Bruggeman J (2001) The logic of organizational markets: thinking through resource partitioning theory. Comput Math Organ Theory 7(2):87–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington M, Zajac EJ (2005) Status evolution and competition: theory and evidence. Acad Manag J 48(2):282–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick K (1979) The social psychology of organizing, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins RR, Ruefli TW (2005) Schumpeter’s ghost: is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strateg Manag J 26(10):887–911

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson O (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J (1958) Management and technology. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Qiu Q, Cameron GT (2004) A contingency approach to the Sino-U.S. conflict resolution. Public Relat Rev 30(4):391–399

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, College of Business, Central Washington University, 400 E. University Way, Ellensburg, WA, 98926, USA

    Brian W. Kulik

  2. Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University, 2710 University Drive, CIC 125N, Richland, WA, 99352-1671, USA

    Timothy Baker

Authors
  1. Brian W. Kulik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian W. Kulik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kulik, B.W., Baker, T. Putting the organization back into computational organization theory: a complex Perrowian model of organizational action. Comput Math Organiz Theor 14, 84–119 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-008-9022-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-008-9022-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation