This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Siggelkow, N. Articles by Rivkin, J. W. Search for Related Content

Speed and Search: Designing Organizations for Turbulence and Complexity

Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 2211 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Harvard Business School, 239 Morgan Hall, Boston, Massachusetts 02163
siggelkow{at}wharton.upenn.edu
jrivkin{at}hbs.edu

We use an innovative technique to examine an enduring but recently neglected question: How do environmental turbulence and complexity affect the appropriate formal design of organizations? We construct an agent-based simulation in which multidepartment firms with different designs face environments whose turbulence and complexity we control. The model’s results produce two sets of testable hypotheses. One set pinpoints formal designs that cope well with three different environments: turbulent settings, in which firms must improve their performance speedily; complex environments, in which firms must search broadly; and settings with both turbulence and complexity, in which firms must balance speed and search. The results shed new light on longstanding notions such as equifinality. The other set of hypotheses argues that the impact of individual design elements on speed and search often depends delicately on specific powers granted to department heads, creating effects that run contrary to conventional wisdom and intuition. Ample processing power at the bottom of a firm, for instance, can slow down the improvement and narrow the search of the firm as a whole. Differences arise between our results and conventional wisdom when conventional thinking fails to account for the powers of department heads—powers to withhold information about departmental options, to control decision-making agendas, to veto firmwide alternatives, and to take unilateral action. Our results suggest how future empirical studies of organizational design might be fruitfully coupled with rigorous agent-based modeling efforts.

Key Words: organizational design; turbulence; complexity; interactions; simulation model

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Lee and E. Van den Steen Managing Know-How Management Science, February 1, 2010; 56(2): 270 - 285. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Ennen and A. Richter The Whole Is More Than the Sum of Its Parts-- Or Is It? A Review of the Empirical Literature on Complementarities in Organizations Journal of Management, January 1, 2010; 36(1): 207 - 233. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. M. Grant Why Strategy Teaching Should be Theory Based Journal of Management Inquiry, December 1, 2008; 17(4): 276 - 281. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Press Divide to conquer? Limits to the adaptability of disintegrated, flexible specialization clusters J. Econ. Geogr., July 1, 2008; 8(4): 565 - 580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Rahmandad Effect of Delays on Complexity of Organizational Learning Management Science, July 1, 2008; 54(7): 1297 - 1312. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. O. Chao and S. Kavadias A Theoretical Framework for Managing the New Product Development Portfolio: When and How to Use Strategic Buckets Management Science, May 1, 2008; 54(5): 907 - 921. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. C. Kane and M. Alavi Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Investigation of Exploration and Exploitation Processes Organization Science, September 1, 2007; 18(5): 796 - 812. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M.-H. Chang and J. E. Harrington Jr. Innovators, Imitators, and the Evolving Architecture of Problem-Solving Networks Organization Science, July 1, 2007; 18(4): 648 - 666. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. W. Rivkin and N. Siggelkow Patterned Interactions in Complex Systems: Implications for Exploration Management Science, July 1, 2007; 53(7): 1068 - 1085. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Argote and H. R. Greve A Behavioral Theory of the Firm--40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact Organization Science, May 1, 2007; 18(3): 337 - 349. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. G. Jacobides The Inherent Limits of Organizational Structure and the Unfulfilled Role of Hierarchy: Lessons from a Near-War Organization Science, May 1, 2007; 18(3): 455 - 477. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. J. Foss The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and Characteristics Organization, January 1, 2007; 14(1): 29 - 52. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Knudsen and D. A. Levinthal Two Faces of Search: Alternative Generation and Alternative Evaluation Organization Science, January 1, 2007; 18(1): 39 - 54. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Z. Lin, X. Zhao, K. M. Ismail, and K. M. Carley Organizational Design and Restructuring in Response to Crises: Lessons from Computational Modeling and Real-World Cases Organization Science, September 1, 2006; 17(5): 598 - 618. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. M. Dunbar and W. H. Starbuck Learning to Design Organizations and Learning from Designing Them Organization Science, March 1, 2006; 17(2): 171 - 178. [Abstract] [PDF]