Nowadays, the introduction of digital technology improves the condition of the workplace and employees’ productivity, but the unstable behavior of employees is still typical in Internet enterprises in China. Sometimes, employees frequently show their behavior reversals between cooperation and conflict. An integrated analysis method with three steps is performed to explore its reason. First, an evolutionary game model is employed to examine the strategies of individual employee’s behavior selection between cooperation and conflict. Second, the cellular automata are developed to simulate the evolution of employee group behavior selection over time. The frequent behavior turnovers between cooperation and conflict are illustrated. Third, catastrophe theory and method are used to identify the hidden cusp catastrophe patterns under the evolution of group behavior selection. Research results reveal that individual employee selects cooperation if the penalty exceeds half the cost. Simulation results show intense and sudden changes in employee group behavior selection, in which cusp catastrophe patterns exist. The cusp catastrophe model can intuitively interpret the mechanism by which factors, such as average perceived payoff and proportion of cooperation employees, influence the behavior state of the employee group. The mechanism of catastrophe in frequent behavior turnover is explored. This methodology, which is based on the theoretical framework of social exchange theory, integrates evolutionary game theory, simulation, and catastrophe theory to identify the catastrophe mechanism in behavior turnover and make theoretical and practical contributions to behavior selection research.
BautistaJRRosenthalSLinTTC, et al. Predictors and outcomes of nurses’ use of smartphones for work purposes. Comput Human Behav2018; 84: 360–374.
2.
CascioWFMontealegreR. How technology is changing work and organizations. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav2016; 3: 349–375.
3.
XanthopoulouDStamovlasisD. Job crafting and work engagement: probing nonlinear effects with catastrophe theory models. In: 19th EAWOP congress, Turin, 29 May–1 June 2019, pp. 305–326. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
4.
HengstlerMEnkelEDuelliS. Applied artificial intelligence and trust-the case of autonomous vehicles and medical assistance devices. Technol Forecast Soc2016; 105: 105–120.
5.
CarlsonJRCarlsonDSZivnuskaS, et al. Applying the job demands resources model to understand technology as a predictor of turnover intentions. Comput Human Behav2017; 77: 317–325.
6.
HaesevoetsTBostynDHFolmerCR, et al. Decision making in the prisoner’s dilemma game: the effect of exit on cooperation and social welfare. J Behav Decis Making2019; 32: 61–78.
7.
LawlerEJ. An affect theory of social exchange. AJS2001; 107: 321–352.
8.
HomansGC. Social behavior as exchange. AJS1958; 63: 597–606.
9.
WilmerHHShermanLECheinJM. Smartphones and cognition: a review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Front Psychol2017; 8: 1–16.
10.
RavidDMTomczakDLWhiteJC, et al. EPM 20/20: a review, framework, and research agenda for electronic performance monitoring. J Manage2020; 46: 100–126.
11.
JusupMHolmePKanazawaK, et al. Social physics. Phys Rep2022; 948: 1–148.
12.
FangYPercMZhangH. A game theoretical model for the stimulation of public cooperation in environmental collaborative governance. R Soc Open Sci2022; 9: 1–17.
13.
Bruk-LeeVNixonAESpectorPE. An expanded typology of conflict at work: task, relationship and non-task organizational conflict as social stressors. Work Stress2013; 27: 339–350.
14.
SimonHA. Bounded rationality. In: EatwellJMilgateMNewmanP (eds) Utility and Probability. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990, pp. 15–18.
15.
SmithJMPriceGR. The logic of animal conflict. Nature1973; 246: 15–18.
16.
StamovlasisDVaiopoulouJ. The role of dysfunctional myths in a decision-making process under bounded rationality: a complex dynamical systems perspective. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci2017; 21: 267–288.
17.
LauRSCobbAT. Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: the intervening roles of trust and exchange. J Organ Behav2010; 31: 898–917.
18.
ArrowHMcGrathJEBerdahlJL. Small groups as complex systems: formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2000.
19.
CapraroVPercM. Mathematical foundations of moral preferences. J R Soc Interface2021; 18: 1–13.
20.
GrahamRJSeltzerJ. An application of catastrophe theory to management science process. Omega1979; 7: 61–66.
21.
CropanzanoRMitchellMS. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J Manage2005; 31: 874–900.
22.
LyonsBJScottBA. Integrating social exchange and affective explanations for the receipt of help and harm: a social network approach. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2012; 117: 66–79.
23.
AbubakarAMBehraveshERezapouraghdamH, et al. Applying artificial intelligence technique to predict knowledge hiding behavior. Int J Inf Manage2019; 49: 45–57.
24.
ColeMSSchaningerWSHarrisSG. The workplace social exchange network—a multilevel, conceptual examination. Group Organ Manag2002; 27: 142–167.
25.
MurrayARhymerJSirmonDG. Humans and technology: forms of conjoined agency in organizations. Acad Manage Rev2021; 46: 552–571.
26.
KelloggKC. Local adaptation without work intensification: experimentalist governance of digital technology for mutually beneficial role reconfiguration in organizations. Organ Sci2022; 33: 571–599.
27.
UribeJSytchMKimYH. When friends become foes: collaboration as a catalyst for conflict. Adm Sci Q2020; 65: 751–794.
28.
WescheJSSondereggerA. When computers take the lead: the automation of leadership. Comput Human Behav2019; 101: 197–209.
29.
BhaveDPTeoLHDalalRS. Privacy at work: a review and a research agenda for a contested terrain. J Manage2020; 46: 127–164.
30.
CropanzanoRAnthonyELDanielsSR, et al. Social exchange theory: a critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad of Manag Ann2017; 11: 479–516.
31.
HanakiNPeterhanslADoddsPS, et al. Cooperation in evolving social networks. Manage Sci2007; 53: 1036–1050.
32.
AllenBLippnerGChenYT, et al. Evolutionary dynamics on any population structure. Nature2017; 544: 227–230.
33.
BenaimMWeibullJW. Deterministic approximation of stochastic evolution in games. Econometrica2003; 71: 873–903.
34.
BellocFBurdinGCattaniL, et al. Coevolution of job automation risk and workplace governance. Res Policy2022; 51: 104441.
35.
RoosPGelfandMNauD, et al. Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: an evolutionary basis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2015; 129: 14–23.
36.
DinnieEBrownKMMorrisS. Reprint of “Community, cooperation and conflict: negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban greenspace experiences.”Landsc Urban Plan2013; 118: 103–111.
37.
LiQSongCGWuB, et al. Social hotspot propagation dynamics model based on heterogeneous mean field and evolutionary games. Physica A2018; 508: 324–341.
38.
WangDLiB. Behavioral selection strategies of members of enterprise community of practice—an evolutionary game theory approach to the knowledge creation process. IEEE Access2020; 8: 153322–153333.
39.
CardosoFMGracia-LázaroCMorenoY. Dynamics of heuristics selection for cooperative behaviour. New J Phys2020; 22: 1–20.
40.
ThomR. Structural stability and morphogenesis: an outline of a general theory of models. 1st ed. Reading, MA: W. A. Benjamin, 1975, p. 348.
HuBXiaN. Cusp catastrophe model for sudden changes in a person’s behavior. Inf Sci2015; 294: 489–512.
45.
NordbeckPCSoterLKViklundJS, et al. Effects of task constraint on action dynamics. Cogn Syst Res2019; 55: 192–204.
46.
FlayBR. Catastrophe theory in social psychology: some applications to attitudes and social behavior. Behav Sci1978; 23: 335–350.
47.
SheridanJEAbelsonMA. Cusp catastrophe model of employee turnover. Acad Manage J1983; 26: 418–436.
48.
SongYHuBXueH. Evolution of employee opinion in a crowdsourcing logistics company: a catastrophe-embedded RA model. Simulation2021; 98: 347–360.
49.
DimasIDRebeloTLourencoPR, et al. A cusp catastrophe model for satisfaction, conflict, and conflict management in teams. Comput Sci Appl2018; 10961: 335–350.
50.
GuastelloSJCorreroANMarraDE. Cusp catastrophe models for cognitive workload and fatigue in teams. Appl Ergon2019; 79: 152–168.
51.
GrasmanRvan der MaasHLJWagenmakersEJ. Fitting the cusp catastrophe in R: a cusp package primer. J Stat Softw2009; 32: 1–27.
52.
GuastelloSJ. Discontinuities and catastrophes with polynomial regression. In: GuastelloSJGregsonRAM (eds) Nonlinear dynamics systems analysis for the behavioral sciences using real data. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2011, pp. 251–280.
53.
ChowSMWitkiewitzKGrasmanR, et al. The cusp catastrophe model as cross-sectional and longitudinal mixture structural equation models. Psychol Methods2015; 20: 142–164.
54.
AxelrodRHamiltonWD. The evolution of cooperation. Science1981; 211: 1390–1396.
55.
HofbauerJSigmundK. Evolutionary game dynamics. Bull Am Math Soc2003; 40: 479–519.
56.
HofbauerJ. Deterministic evolutionary game dynamics. Proc Sym Ap2011; 69: 61–79.
57.
ClaggettJLKarahannaE. Unpacking the structure of coordination mechanisms and the role of relational coordination in an era of digitally mediated work processes. Acad Manage Rev2018; 43: 704–722.
58.
HoffmannAG. Connectionist functionality and the emergent network behavior. Neurocomputing1991; 2: 161–172.
59.
CarleyKMGasserL. Computational organization theory. In: Weiss G (ed) Multi-agent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999, pp. 299–330.
60.
AllportGW. Concepts of trait and personality. Psychol Bull1927; 24: 284–293.
LvSLYangRXHuangCC. Contusion and recovery of individual cognition based on catastrophe theory: a computational model. Neurocomputing2017; 220: 210–220.
CaiGKockN. An evolutionary game theoretic perspective on e-collaboration: the collaboration effort and media relativeness. Eur J Oper Res2009; 194: 821–833.
66.
FehrEGachterS. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature2002; 415: 137–140.
67.
BallietDMulderLBVan LangePAM. Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull2011; 137: 594–615.
ShahPPPetersonRSJonesSL, et al. Things are not always what they seem: the origins and evolution of intragroup conflict. Adm Sci Q2021; 66: 426–474.
70.
DongYBartolKMZhangZX, et al. Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. J Organ Behav2017; 38: 439–458.
71.
TeeceDLeihS. Uncertainty, innovation, and dynamic capabilities: an introduction. Calif Manage Rev2016; 58: 5–12.
72.
ThiemannDHesseFWKozlovM. The benefits benefits of collaboration in computer-mediated preference exchange in teams: a psychological perspective. Comput Human Behav2019; 97: 24–34.
73.
BicchieriCXiaoE. Do the right thing: but only if others do so. J Behav Decis Making2009; 22: 191–208.
