[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Unintended consequences of collocation: using agent-based modeling to untangle effects of communication delay and in-group favor

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

Abstract

In studies about office arrangements that have individuals working from remote locations, researchers usually hypothesize advantages for collocators and disadvantages for remote workers. However, empirical findings have not shown consistent support for the hypothesis. We suspect that there are unintended consequences of collocation, which can offset well-recognized advantages of being collocated. To explain these unintended consequences, we developed a multi-agent model to complement our laboratory-based experiment. In the lab, collocated subjects did not perform better than the remote even though collocators had faster communication channels and in-group favor towards each other. Results from the multi-agent simulation suggested that in-group favoritism among collocators caused them to ignore some important resource exchange opportunities with remote individuals. Meanwhile, communication delay of remote subjects protected them from some falsely biased perception of resource availability. The two unintended consequences could offset the advantage of being collocated and diminish performance differences between collocators and remote workers. Results of this study help researchers and practitioners recognize the hidden costs of being collocated. They also demonstrate the value of coupling lab experiments with multi-agent simulation.

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
£29.99 /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 (United Kingdom)

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

  • Ahuja M, Carley K (1999) Network structure in virtual organizations. Organ Sci 10(6):741–747

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja M, Galvin J (2003) Socialization in virtual groups. J Manag 29(2):161–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja M, Galletta D, Carley K (2003) Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: an empirical examination. Manag Sci 49(1):21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi M, Leidner DE (2001) Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q 25(1):107–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow H, McGrath JE, Berdahl JL (2000) Small group as complex systems: formation coordination, development and adaptation. Sage, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth BE, Mael F (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manag Rev 14(1):20–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1997) The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (2003) Advancing the art of simulation. Jpn J Manag Inf Syst 12(3)

  • Ba S, Stallaert J, Whinston AB (2001) Optimal investment in knowledge within a firm using a market mechanism. Manag Sci 47(9)

  • Ball S, Eckel C, Grossman PJ, Zame W (2001) Status in markets. Q J Econ, February

  • Banks J, Camerer CF, Porter D (1988) Experimental tests of Nash refinements in signaling games. Working paper. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Decision Science

  • Bednarz A (2006) Striving to keep teleworkers happy: clubs, social events, meeting all keep telecommuters in the corporate loop. Network World, 13 December 2006

  • Bordia P (1997) Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a synthesis of the experimental literature. J Bus Commun 34:99–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos ND, Shami NS, Olson JS, Cheshin A, Nan N (2004) Subgroup/out-group effects in distributed teams: an experimental simulation. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2004. ACM, New York, pp 429–436

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boston Globe (2004) After 125 years of electronic relations, workplaces face a growing disconnect. December, G1

  • Brewer MB (1979) In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychol Bull 86:307–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown R (2000) Social Identity Theory: past achievements, current problems, and future challenges. Eur J Soc Psychol 30:745–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon JK, Stern LA, Dillman L (1995) Interpersonal adaptation: dyadic interaction patterns. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon JK, Bonito JA, Ramirez A Jr, Dunbar NE, Kam K, Fischer J (2002) Testing the interactivity principle: effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. J Commun 52(3):657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke K, Chidambaram L (1999) How much bandwidth is enough? A longitudinal examination of media characteristics and group outcomes. MIS Q 23(4):557–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke K, Aytes K, Chidambaram L, Johnson JJ (1999) A study of partially distributed work groups: the impact of media, location, and time on perceptions and performance. Small Group Res 30(4):453–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (1992) Structural holes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (2000) The network structure of social capital. In: Sutton RI, Staw BM (eds) Research in organizational behavior. JAI, Greenwich

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM (2003) Computational laboratories for organization science: questions, validity and docking. Comput Math Organ Theory 9:91–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, Obel B (1995) The validity of computational models in organization science: from model realism to purpose of the model. Comput Math Organ Theory 1(1):57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer CF (1995) Individual decision making. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (eds) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer CF, Lowenstein G, Weber M (1989) The curse of knowledge in economic settings: an experimental analysis. J Polit Econ 97:1232–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canessa E, Riolo R (2003) The effect of organizational communication media on organizational culture and performance: an agent-based simulation model. Comput Math Organ Theory 9(2)

  • Carley KM (1991) A theory of group stability. Am Sociol Rev 56(3):331–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM (1996) Validating computational models. Paper available at http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/publications/papers.php

  • Cataldo M, Carley KM (2001) Modeling knowledge sharing in virtual organizations. In: 10th international conference on computational analysis of social and organizational systems, Pittsburgh, PA, July 2001

  • Chapanis A (1988) Interaction human communication. In: Grief I (ed) Computer-supported cooperative work: a book of readings. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 127–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen KJ, Cyert RM (1965) Simulation of organizational behavior. In: March JG (ed) Handbook of organizations. Rand-McNally, Chicago, pp 305–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1990) Foundation of social theory. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Constant D, Kiesler S, Sproull L (1994) What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Inf Syst Res 5(4):400–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Constant D, Sproull L, Kiesler S (1996) The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organ Sci 7(2):119–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32(5):554–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport T, Prusak L (1998) Working knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Demidenko E (2004) Mixed models: theory and application. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Kinney ST (1998) Testing media richness theory in the new media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Inf Syst Res 9(3):256–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbs M, Crano WD (2001) Outgroup accountability in the minimal group paradigm: implications for aversive discrimination and social identity theory. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 27(3):355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn KE, Sellen AJ, Wilbur SB (1997) Video-mediated communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahway

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiol CM, O’Connor EJ (2005) Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: untangling the contradictions. Organ Sci 16(1):19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foppa K (1995) On mutual understanding and agreement in dialogues. In: Markova I, Graumann G, Foppa K (eds) Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 149–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe R, Kennan J, Sopher B (1987) An experimental analysis of bargaining and trikes with one sided private information. Working Paper, No 87-4. Department of Economics, University of Iowa, Iowa City

  • Fowler GD, Wackerbarth ME (1980) Audio teleconferencing versus face-to-face conferencing: a synthesis of the literature. West J Speech Commun 44:236–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter MS (1983) The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In: Sociology theory. Wiley, New York, pp 201–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JR, Lin Z, Carroll GR, Carley KM (2007) Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1229–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewstone M, Mark R, Willis H (2002) Intergroup bias. Annu Rev Psychol 53

  • Hoyle RH, Georgesen JC, Webster JM (2001) Analyzing data from individuals in groups: the past, the present, and the future. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 5(1)

  • Jost JT, Azzi AE (1996) Microjustice and macrojustice in the allocation of resources between experimental groups. J Soc Psychol 136:349–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalchuk RK, Keselman HJ (2001) Mixed-model pairwise multiple comparisons of repeated measures means. Psychol Methods 6(3)

  • Krauss RM, Fussell SR, Chen Y (1995) Coordination of perspective in dialogue: intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. In: Markova I, Graumann C, Foppa K (eds) Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 124–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Lea M, Spears R (1992) Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. J Organ Comput 2:321–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin N (2002) Social capital. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandel M, Hamm S, Matlack C, Farrell C (2005) The real reasons you’re working so hard. Bus Week 3953:60

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1992) Learning from notes organizational issues in groupware. Implementation. In: Proceedings of CSCW’92. ACM, New York, pp 362–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ Sci 11(4):404–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palfrey TR, Prisbrey JE (1997) Anomalous behavior in public goods experiments: how much and why? Am Econ Rev 87:829–846

    Google Scholar 

  • Panteli N, Davison RM (2005) The role of subgroups in the communication patterns of global virtual teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 48(2):191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pool J (1976) Coalition formation in small groups with incomplete communication networks. J Pers Soc Psychol 34(1):82–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes A (1998) Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu Rev Sociol 24:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren Y, Carley K, Argote L (2006) The contingency effects of transactive memory: when is it more beneficial to know what others know? Manag Sci 52(5):671–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal E (1997) Social networks and team performance. Team Perform Manag 3(4):288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggles R (1998) The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice. Calif Manag Rev 40(3):80–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith VL (1962) An experimental study of competitive market behavior. J Polit Econ 70(2):111–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull LS, Kiesler S (1986) Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Manag Sci 32:1492–1512

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel H (1978) Differentiation in social groups: studies in social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Worchel S, Austin W (eds) Psychology of intergroup relations. Nelson-Hall, Chicago, pp 2–24

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2006) The new organization: a survey of the company. January 21, 2006

  • Williams E (1977) Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: a review. Psychol Bull 84(5):963–976

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U (1999) NetLogo. Center for connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo

  • Wong SS, Burton RM (2000) Virtual teams: what are their characteristics, and impact on team performance? Comput Math Organ Theory 6:339–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood DJ (1998) Ingroups and outgroups: what psychology doesn’t say. Bus Ethics Q 1052-150X:173–178

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019, USA

    Ning Nan

  2. School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA

    Erik W. Johnston

  3. Ross School of Business, School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Judith S. Olson

Authors
  1. Ning Nan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erik W. Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judith S. Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ning Nan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nan, N., Johnston, E.W. & Olson, J.S. Unintended consequences of collocation: using agent-based modeling to untangle effects of communication delay and in-group favor. Comput Math Organiz Theor 14, 57–83 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-008-9024-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-008-9024-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation