The Miniature Replica Model and Its Use in Laboratory Experiments of Complex Organizations

This paper represents an extensioni to the search for methods more appropriate to exploration and testinlg of sociological propositions about organizatiolns. This search has focused recently on the use of simulated organizationls in laboratory experinmenits. Based on their experiences with a unique laboratory experiment on organization, the authors suggest that the advantages which normally accrue to experimentation canniot be generalized easily to experiimenitation with the miniature replica mlodel of organizationis. Followinig a report of the structure of their laboratory experimlenit, the authors attend to four critical problems associated with this form of experimenitatiotn: (1) the nature and combilnatioln of properties considered to constitute the miniatture replica of an organization, (2) institutinlg system anld measuremenit con-trols, (3) the provision of structural proof, ancd (4) ranidomiiizationi. THE SEARCH FOR METHODS In a search f or methods more appropriate to the exploration and testing of sociological propositions about complex organizations, attention has been focused recently on laboratory experimenltation. This shift in attention is consistent with the contentionl of some organizational theorists that until researchers can create organizations as desired and control parts of themll wlile varying otlhers, scientific progress will be inhibited.1 In this regard, Morris Zeldlitch and William Evan have claimiied that the connlectionl between the laboratory anld simplicity of structure is largely accidental and unnecessary, but this fact is "not yet widely accepted among sociologists."2 They furtlher contend that "tthroughl simulatioln of such processes tlhey (complex situations) may be simplified, mneasured, and maniipulated, so that rare states may be created, exact replicates ensureed, necessary contrasts obtained, confounlding factors ranidomized, extraneous disturbanlces elimllinated, and the whole observed comprehelnsively, precisely, and more or less at the will of the investigator."3 Althouglh somle proof of these claimiis has been demonstrated in laboratory experilm-ents, many of these advantages do not accrue so readily to certain formlls of organizationlal experimenitation. For examllple, Zelditch himself, alonlg witlh Hopkins, has noted that the decision to simulate and engage in organizational experimenltationi in the laboratory setting "gives rise to problems of its own."14 However, the problemlatic features associated witlh one form of organizational experimentationl-the mtzinIahtire replica nmodel-are mninimized and insufficiently differenltiated from other form-s. Yet, in viewv of the search for miore effective tools for organizational research, the promllise wlich 1 Chris Argyris, Understaniding Organ1i.Y(ational Behavior (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1960), pp. 28-29. It is important to poinlt out, however, that experimental studies of simulated complex organizations are concerned with exploration and discovery as much as proof. On this point there seems to be considerable agreemlent. See, for example, Morris Zelditch, Jr. and William M. Evani, "Simulated Bureaucracies: A Methodological Analysis," in Harold Guetzkow (ed.), Sinlttlatio11 iii Social Scieonce: Readings (Eniglewoocl Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), p. 58. 2 Zelditch anid Evan, op. cit., p. 48. 3 Ibid., p. 2. By simulationi we imiean the process of selecting and generating a set of properties which represent, in part or wlhole, the essential properties of a setting for social action anid utilizing this set of properties to further an understanding of that social action. 4 Morris Zeiclitch, Jr. and Terence K. Hopkins, "Laboratory Experimlenits with Organizations," in Amitai Etzioni, Complex Organi-zatiois (New York: Holt, Rinehart, atd Winston, Inc., 1961), p. 468. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.39 on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 05:57:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MINIATURE REPLICA OF COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS 419 this form of experimiental researclh hiolds for the advanlcenment of organizationlal tlheory dleserves furtlher critical notice. Our intent, then, is to report the structure of a unique laboratory experimelnt on complex organization anld then to relate this experience to the claimis miiade for organizational experimentation with the miniature replica model. In view of the remarks of Chapman, et al., that "as of niow the miatter rests as a set of substantive and metlhodological insighlts in need of extensionl," this paper will explore the following problems: (1) the nature and combination of the properties considered to constitute the miniiature replica of an organization, (2) the problem of devising and instituting systemn and miieasuremiient controls, and (3) requiremenlts for the provision of structural proof. A brief comlmient is then directed toward the problem of ranldolmiizatioln in laboratory experimlents of complex organizations. THE ISR STUDY: A UNIQUE LABORATORY EXPERIMENT ON ORGANIZATION6 This laboratory experimeent stemmed from an interest in constructing a tlheory concerned witl the relationslhip betweenl types of organizational structures and the variations in types of rolestrains generated by these structures. For the laboratory experiment whlich represents one phase in a larger program of researclh, twventy adults, both nmales and femiiales, were employed and paid comnpetitive salaries for their work. Tbese employees were recruited fromii the labor market in the Seattle metropolitani area. They worked four hours a day for a montlb in the developnmze,nt of ideas concerning tbe stimulation of interest in and the person-to-person commnunication of information about a prominent civic event.7 Tbe ideas were forwarded to the conmmunity organization responsible for tbe entire success of this imnportant civic event. Representatives of this organization cooperated witlb tbe researchers by orienting the twenty emnployees of our simulated work organiization to the planls and efforts whiclh surrounded the civic evenit, by furnishing materials to assist in the clevelopmlent of ideas, by senclinlg liaison persons to visit the work teams to informn tlhemi of progress and new plans regarding the civic event, and hy extending tlheir gratitude and awarding lhonorary pilns to the emlployees wlho worked in the simulated organization (s). These contacts with the "parent" civic organization anld otlher activities were planned by the experimenters to promote a realistic work atmiosphere and to communicate to the employees a sense of being close to the organization for wlviclh their output had some actual significance. The laboratory organization contained two separate work units or suborganizations. Each worki unit emiployed ten persons, one of whlom was initially designated as the supervisor, and indeed hiired specifically for this position. After thie assignment of two males to the supervisory positiolns in the units, the remainder of the employees were assignied randomly to the two work units. A furtlher division of the employees witlhin eaclh of the work ulnits resulted in two work teams. Each of the work ulits also had one person wlho acted as observerinformialnt for the research team. The director of the entire work organization, including the two supervisors and the four work teams, was a member of the researclh teamn. The study was divided into two phases. a Robert L. Chapman, JohnL. Kennedy, Allen Newell, and William C. Diel, "The Systems Research Laboratory's Air Defense Experiment," Joitiiural of Manayeiiieiit Sciencc, 3 (April 1959), p. 268. 6 This experiment was conducted as onie phase in a larger two-year study of organizational structure and role-strains under Grant Number W-186 from the National Institutes of Health. The authors of this paper were the director and associate director, respectively, of this study. Research assistants and colleagues who were intimiiately involved in the experiment in its various phases were Joseph Jones, Pauline Lucas, Donald MacLeod, and Dr. Herbert L. Costner. ISR refers to the Institute for Sociological Research at the University of Washingtoni where this experimenital study was conducted. The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Director, Dr. Otto N. Larsen, and otlher mlembers of the ISR staff wN-ho assisted throughlout the study alnd to Dr. Costnerl for his suggestions in the critical reading of this paper. 7 The development of ideas within work teams involved highly verbal behavior of persons in close and continiual interaction with one another. This kind of task was selected, in part, because we were concerned with simulating unstandardized work activity with some facets of professional relationships. Appropriately trained and qualified personnel were selected for this kinid of task. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.39 on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 05:57:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms