Self-organized structures, control hierarchy and information processing // Estructuras auto-organizadas, jerarquía de control y procesamiento de información // Estruturas auto-organizadas, hierarquia de controle e processamento de informação

Paula Sofia Castro-Acevedo
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8875-9841
Luz Esperanza Bohórquez Arévalo


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15665/dem.v16i1.1483

Abstract


The hierarchical structure has been dominant in the business context because of the ease with which it exercises control and reduces the risks of the limited rationality of the individual. However, the precariousness of these structures in the processing of information has been evidenced, and by extension the difficulty to adapt to the change. These difficulties can lead organizations to business failure and chain effects that arise from it, for these reasons it is necessary to find alternative structural ways to overcome these problems. In this research, a literature review is made of the way in which the organizational structure is related to the performance of organizations from different theoretical perspectives. Subsequently, the failures of hierarchical control structures are identified, as the dominant structural form in the current economic system in terms of how they process information, learn and make decisions, and then contrast the way in which these characteristics are presented in systems self-organized natural and artificial. Because of the review of literature in natural and artificial self-organized systems, it was found that they are highly robust in the way they process information, since they manage to transform information from the environment into knowledge to make agile, fast and quality decisions. From this, it is necessary to transfer these properties of the self-organized systems to the business organizations by means of the design of structures that encourage self-organization to increase their performance and avoid the failure and chain effects that this causes. The implications of an organization of this type and the lines of research that originate from this work are also discussed.

La estructura jerárquica ha sido dominante en el contexto empresarial por la facilidad que tiene para ejercer control y disminuir los riesgos de la racionalidad limitada del individuo. Sin embargo, se ha evidenciado la precariedad de estas estructuras en el procesamiento de información, y por extensión la dificultad para adaptarse al cambio. Estas dificultades pueden llevar a las organizaciones al fracaso empresarial y a los efectos en cadena que se desprenden de éste, por estas razones es necesario encontrar formas estructurales alternativas que superen estos problemas. En esta investigación se hace una revisión de literatura de la forma en que la estructura organizacional está relacionada con el desempeño de las organizaciones desde diferentes perspectivas teóricas. Posteriormente se identifican las fallas que presentan las estructuras jerárquicas de control, como la forma estructural dominante en el sistema económico actual en cuanto a la forma como procesan información, aprenden y toman decisiones, para luego contrastar la forma en que se presentan estas características en sistemas auto-organizados naturales y artificiales. Como resultado de la revisión de literatura en sistemas autoorganizados naturales y artificiales, se encontró que son altamente robustos en la forma como procesan información, ya que logran transformar la información del entorno en conocimiento para tomar decisiones ágiles, rápidas y de calidad. A partir de esto, es necesario trasladar estas propiedades de los sistemas autoorganizados a las organizaciones empresariales por medio del diseño de estructuras que fomenten la autoorganización para incrementar su desempeño y evitar el fracaso y los efectos en cadena que este origina. Se discuten también las implicaciones de una organización de este tipo y las líneas de investigación que se originan de este trabajo.

A estrutura hierárquica foi desenvolvida no contexto empresarial pela facilidade que tem para controle e diminuição dos riscos da racionalidade limitada do indivíduo. Sim embargo, se há evidenciado a precariedade de estruturas no processamento de informação, e por extensão a dificuldade para adaptar-se ao câmbio. Estas dificuldades podem levar a as organizações ao mercado financeiro e aos efeitos em cadeia, se você está desesperado, por estas razões, é necessário encontrar formas estruturais alternativas que superarem esses problemas. Esta pesquisa tem uma revisão da literatura da forma em que é a estrutura organizacional está relacionada com o desempenho das organizações de diferentes perspectivas teóricas. Posteriormente se identifica as faltas que apresentam as estruturas de controle, como a forma estrutural dominante no sistema econômico real em como a forma como processamento de informações, aprender e tomar decisões, para depois contrastar a forma em que se apresentar estas características em sistemas autoorganizados naturales y artificiales. Como resultado da revisão de literatura em sistemas auto naturais e artificiais, encontrou-se que é altamente robusto na forma como a informática, que deseja transformar a informação do entorno em conhecimento para tomar decisões ágiles, rápidas e de qualidade. A partir disto, é necessário transferir estas propriedades dos sistemas autoorganizados às organizações empresariais por meio de projeto de estruturas que fomentam a auto-organização para incrementar o desempenho e evitar o fracasso e os efeitos em cadeia que este origina. Se discutem também as implicações de uma organização deste tipo e as linhas de pesquisa que se originam deste trabalho.


Keywords


Self-organization, Organizational Structure, Information Processing // Autoorganización, Estructura Organizacional, Procesamiento de Información

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adler, P. (2001). Market, hierarchy and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, (March/April), 2001. Linthicum.

Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organizational Science, 10(3), 216–232.

Barnard CI. (1938). Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Baum JR, Wally S. 2003. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 24(11): 1107–1129

Benassi, M. (2009). Investigating modular organizations. Journal of Management and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-008-9078-1

Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Linked: the new science of networks, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub.

Bohórquez, L. E., & Espinosa, A. (2015). Theoretical approaches to managing complexity in organizations: A comparative analysis. Estudios Gerenciales, 31(134), 20–29.

Bohórquez, L (2016). La comprensión de las organizaciones empresariales y su ambiente como sistemas de complejidad creciente: rasgos e implicaciones. Revista Ingeniería Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas. Vol 21 Núm 3 2016

Bohórquez L, Acosta J y Gualdrón L (2017). Estructuras Organizacionales y Adaptación a las Condiciones Cambiantes del Entorno: Retos e Implicaciones. Revista Ingeniería Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas. Vol 23 Núm 2 2017

Bolton P, Dewatripont M. (1994). The firm as a com- munication network. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109(4): 809–839.

Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., & Theraulaz, G. (1999). Swarm Intelligence. From Naural to Artificial Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bonabeau, E., & Meyer, C. (2001). Swarm Intelligence A Whole New Way to Think About Business. Harvard Business Review, 106–114.

Bigley, G. and Roberts, K. 2001. The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6), 1281-1299.

Chandler AD. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Industrial Enterprise.The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA

Chirinos G., M. (2013), “Medición de contagio e interdependencia financieros medi- ante cópulas y eventos extremos en los países de la América Latina”, El Trimestre Económico, vol. LXXX (1), núm. 317, pp. 169-206

Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128–152

Correia, L. (2006) Self-organisation: a case for embodiment, In: Proceedings of The Evolution of ComplexityWorkshop at Artificial Life X: The 10th International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems, pp. 111–116

Csaszar, F. A. (2012). Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: Evidence from mutual funds. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1969

Cremer J. (1980). A partial theory of the optimal organization of a bureaucracy. Bell Journal of Economics 11(2): 683–693.

Engwall, M. (2003). “No project is an island: Linking

Floyd, S. W., & Hilb, M. (2013). Discontinuous Change and

Organizational Response: Exploring the Moderating Effects of Resources and Capabilities – the Case of Kodak. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1295–1324.

García-Marí, J. H., Sánchez-Vidal, J., & Tomaseti-Solano, E. (2016). FRACASO EMPRESARIAL Y EFECTOS CONTAGIO Un análisis espacial para España*. EL TRIMESTRE ECONÓMICO, LXXXIII (2, 429–449.

Geanakoplos J, Milgrom P. (1991). A theory of hierarchies based on limited managerial attention. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 5(3): 205–225

Giesecke, K., y S. Weber (2006), “Credit Contagion and Aggregate Losses”, Journal of Economics Dynamics & Control, núm. 30, pp. 741-767

Green DM, Swets JA. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Wiley: New York.

Harris M, Raviv A. (2002). Organization design. Management Science 48(7): 852–865.

Hart O, Moore J. (2005). On the design of hierarchies: coordination versus specialization. Journal of Political Economy 113(4): 675–702

Helbing, D. (2013). Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature, 497. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12047

Hilbert, M. (2012). How to measure “how much information”? Theoretical, methodological, and statistical challenges for the social sciences. International Journal of Communication, 6(1), 1042–1055.

Holland, J.H. (1998). Emergence: From Chaos to Order, ISBN 9780738201429.

Hudson, J. (1995). Bankruptcies, Firm Size and Unemployment: A Big Bang Theory of Economic Cycles. Small Business and Economics, 379–388.

Hunsader, K., N. Delcoure y G. Pennywell (2013), “Competitive Strategy and Industry Contagion Following Traditional Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Announcements”, Mana- gerial Finance, vol. 39, núm. 11, pp. 1032-1055

Hope K, (2017). Así se trabaja en la empresa de Suecia que decidió no tener jefes. BBC Mundo. Disponible online http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-39007890

Ivory, C. and Alderman, N. (2005). “Can project management learn anything from studies of fail- ure in complex systems?” Project Management Journal, ISSN 8756-9728, 36(3): 5-16.

Jaafari, A. (2003). “Project management in the age of complexity and change,” Project Management Journal, ISSN 8756-9728, 34(3): 47-57.

Johansson, S., Löfström, M. and Ohlsson, O. (2007). “Separation or integration? A dilemma when organizing development projects,” International Journal Project Management, ISSN 0263-7863, 25(5): 457-464

Jinhua, Z., Jian, Z., Haifeng, D., & Sun, W. (2009). Self-organizing genetic algorithm based tuning of PID controllers. Information Sciences, 179(7), 1007–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.11.038

Jugdev, K. and Müller, R. (2005). “A retroperspective look at our evolving understanding of project suc- cess,” Project Management Journal, ISSN 8756- 9728, 36(4): 19-31.

Klijn, E.H. and Teisman, G.R. (2003). “Institutional and strategic barriers to public-private partner- ships: An analysis of Dutch cases,” Public Money and Management, ISSN 0954-0962, 23: 137-146

Kownatzki, M., Airways, J., Walter, J., & Floyd, S. W. (2013). CORPORATE CONTROL AND THE SPEED OF STRATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT DECISION MAKING. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1295–1324. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0804

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71–87

Macmillan NA, Creelman CD. (2004). Detection Theory: A User’s Guide (2nd edn). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ

Maguire, B. McKelvey, M. Laurent & N. Ôztas, (2006) “Complexity Science and Organization Studies”. The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 165-214). London: Sage Publications, 2006.

Mandelli, A. (2004). Self-Organization and New Hierarchies in Complex Evolutionary Value Networks. In M. Huotari, & M. Iivonen (Eds.), Trust in Knowledge Management and Systems in Organizations (pp. 248-305). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-159140-126-1.ch010

Mezza-Garcia, N., & Maldonado, C. E. (2015). Crítica al control jerárquico de los regímenes políticos: complejidad y topología. Desafíos, 27(1), 27–1. Retrieved from http://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/desafios/article/view/3632/2654

Miller, K. D., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. J. (2006). Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March’s exploration-exploitation model. Academy of Management Journal.

Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2006). A COMPLEXITY APPROACH TO CO-CREATING AN INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENT. World Futures, 62, 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020500509553

Nesmahnow S (2004).Algoritmos genéticos paralelos y su aplicación al diseño de redes de comunicaciones confiables. Teisis de maestría . Universidad de la república de Montevideo Uruguay

Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (2007). La estructura de lo complejo: En el camino hacia una nueva comprensión de las ciencias. México: Alianza Editorial.

Park, N. K., Korea, S., Choi, K., & Lee, J. (2015). The Hierarchy Myopia of Organizational Learning. Seoul Journal of Business, 21(2).

Peterson W, Birdsall T, Fox W. 1954. The theory of signal detectability. IRE Professional Group on Information Theory 4(4): 171–212.

Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W. L. (2009). Corporate Entrepreneurship: Current Research and Future Directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3) May: 197-205.

Pirson, M., & Turnbull, S. (2011). Corporate Governance, Risk Management, and the Financial Crisis: An Information Processing View. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(5), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00860.x

Posada, J. (2016). Diseño de una simulación basada en agentes para la auto-organización empresarial. Tesis de maestría. Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas. Bogotá, Colombia.

Powell, T. C. (2001). Competitive advantage: logical and philosophical considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.173

Prokopenko, M., Boschetti, F., & Ryan, A. J. (2009). An information-theoretic primer on complexity, self-organization, and emergence. Complexity. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20249

Qian YY, Roland G, Xu CG. (2006). Coordination and experimentation in M-form and Uform organizations. Journal of Political Economy 114(2): 366–402.

Radner R. (1992). Hierarchy: the economics of managing. Journal of Economic Literature 30(3): 1382–1415

Salas-Fumás, V., Sáenz-Royo, C., & Lozano-Rojo, Á. (2015). Organisational structure and performance of consensus decisions through mutual influences: A computer simulation approach. Decision Support Systems, 86, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.03.008

Sah R & Stiglitz J. (1986). The architecture of economic systems: hierarchies and polyarchies. American Economic Review 76(4): 716–727

Simon HA. (1947/1997). Administrative Behavior (4th edn). Free Press: New York

Smith, E. B., Menon, T., & Thompson, L. (2011). Status Differences in the Cognitive Activation of Social Networks. Organization Science, 23(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0643

Stacey, R. D., & Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: and alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Long Range Planning, 28(6), 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(95)99970-B

Szulanski, G. (1996), “Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm,” Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43

Stubbart, C. I., & Knight^, M. B. (2006). Commentary The cBse of the disappearing firms: Empirical evidence and implications. Joumal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav, 27. https://doi.org/10.l002/job.361

Thiry, M. and Deguire, M. (2004). “Program man- agement as an emergent order phenomenon: An inductive longitudinal study in a natural work en- vironment,” PMI Research Conference, London

Torres C, & Toca E. (2014). ESTUDIOS GERENCIALES Inteligencia colectiva: enfoque para el análisis de redes Swarm intelligence: approach to the analysis of networks Inteligência colectiva: abordagem para a análise de redes. Estudios Gerenciales, 30, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.estger.2014.01.014

Tsai, W.-C. (2014). Application of Complexity Science Perspective on New Business Development: A Case Study of VISA Organization. The Journal of International Management Studies, 9(2).

Turnbull, S. (2002). A New Way to Govern: Organisations and Society After Enron. SSRN Electronic Journal, 14(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.319867

Turner, K. L., & Makhija, M. V. (2012). The role of individuals in the information processing perspective. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1970

Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design^. Academy of Management Review -, 613–624.

Valentine, M. A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2014). Team Scaffolds : How Meso- Level Structures Support Role-based Coordination in Temporary Groups.

Van Zandt T. (1999). Real-time decentralized information processing as a model of organizations with boundedly rational agents. Review of Economic Studies 66(3): 633– 658.

Watts, D. (2006) Seis grados de separación. La ciencia de las redes en la era de acceso. Barcelona, Paidos, Iberica, S.A.

Wally, S., & Baum, J. R. (1994). Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision mak- ing. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 932– 956.

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Williamson, O. E. (1981). The Modern Corporation: Origins, Evolution, Attributes. Journal of Economic Literature., 19(4), p1537. 32p.

White, L., Currie, G., & Lockett, A. (2016). Pluralized leadership in complex organizations: Exploring the cross network effects between formal and informal leadership relations. Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.004

Zhang, X., Wang, D., & Wang, T. (2016). Inspiration or Preparation? Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management - CIKM ’16, 741–750.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Paula Sofia Castro Acevedo

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


Our index:

Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals (WoS recognition): Citation Index (ESCI)=+3.5, DOAJ (EBSCO, EconLit, vLex, DOAJ)=5, SCIB (Secondary Composite Index Broadcasting)=9.5. Likewise, in the PUBLINDEX we were recognized as being a journal of the first quartile (Q1) for its level of reading and citation.

License by: