Separated by a Common Language: How the Nature of Code Differences Shapes Communication Success and Code Convergence

Abstract

Coordinated action within and beween organizations is easier when individuals share communication codes—mappings between stimuli and labels. Because codes are specific to the groups within which they arise as conventions, collaboration across organizational units that have developed their own distinctive codes is often difficult. However, not all code differences are equal in their implications for communication difficulty and the capacity of individuals starting out with different codes to develop a shared code. Using computational models, we develop a theory about the nature of differences in initial communication codes and how they impact convergence on a common code. Our results show that the difficulty of code convergence lies not as much in learning new codes as in unlearning existing ones. The most severe challenges to communication stem from “code clashes” where codes contain different mappings between the same labels and stimuli. Furthermore, clashes that arise when agents have developed their individual codes in different task environments but draw on a common set of labels are likely to be the hardest to recover from, reflecting the perils of being “separated by a common language.” This paper was accepted by Lamar Pierce, organizations.

Where are Managers Needed? How Culture and Coordinative Complexity Predict the Evolution of Reporting Relationships in Organizations

“…Across multiple disciplinary perspectives, organizational theorists have theorized and empirically demonstrated that interpersonal cultural alignment can facilitate coordination through such mechanisms as heightened motivation and shared commitment to joint goals (O'Reilly III, Caldwell 1991, Schein 2010, Van den Steen 2010), compatible linguistic "codes" that limit the risk of misunderstanding and confusion (Lazear 1999, Weber and Camerer 2003, Goldberg et al 2016, Koçak and Puranam 2022, and the ability to tacitly agree on and commit to the appropriate course of action in the face of uncertain contingencies (Kreps 1990, Camerer and Vepsalainen 1988, Gibbons and Henderson 2012, Gibbons, Siegel, and Weber 2021. Whereas earlier work in this tradition implicitly assumed that cultural alignment is a relatively stable property, more recent work has shown that it can vary considerably over time given that people have to not only accurately decipher subtle shifts in norms and linguistic codes but also invest the effort to stay aligned with these changes (Srivastava et al 2018, Lu et al 2023).…”

“…Prior research points to competing expectations about whether interpersonal cultural alignment will substitute for or instead complement formal supervision. The prevailing perspective suggests that they are substitutes: Because shared values, beliefs, and norms enable people to better coordinate with one another (Sørensen 2002, Weber and Camerer 2003, Van den Steen 2010, Koçak and Puranam 2022, two culturally aligned individuals can coordinate efficiently even without the help of a common supervisor. But some prior work also suggests that culture and structure can function as complements.…”