Agile at scale — Jawn Lam

Many small, cross-functional teams work in short, synchronized cycles under a shared cadence, with product owners setting priorities.

What it is

Agile at scale organizes a large product effort, or a whole business, as many small, cross-functional teams on one shared cadence of short cycles. Grouped around a product, they form units the frameworks call release trains or requirement areas. Product owners set priorities; teams decide how to do the work. Each cycle they plan and review together, adjusting to each other in between, inside one employer's hierarchy.

Agile at scale sets many cross-functional teams on one shared cadence

Select a unit or a letter to read it; the line between two teams stands for their inter-team meetings.

Reports toAdjust to each other directlyMMutual adjustmentWStandardization of work processes

Select a unit or a letter to read it. M, mutual adjustment: People coordinate their own work by informal communication with each other. W, standardization of work processes: The content of the work is specified or programmed in advance, usually by analysts.Management. Layer: Management. Reports to no one. The employer's hierarchy the teams sit inside. In Moe and colleagues (2021), a study of two organizations, alignment was kept top down through centralized decisions, supervisory roles, mandatory processes, and checklists, while one case aligned bottom up through a community of all teams, experts, and supporting roles that excluded managers.Middle line of managers. Layer: Middle line. Reports to Management. The profile's moderate depth puts a middle line of managers between the top and the teams, our judgment, as no source read sets the depth. In Moe and colleagues (2021), supervisory roles were among the means that kept alignment top down.Team. Layer: Teams. Reports to Middle line of managers. Train or area, one product. Holds a piece of work's specialties in one team, so overlapping phases replace handoffs (Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986). It decides how to do the work.Team. Layer: Teams. Reports to Middle line of managers. Train or area, one product. Takes its priorities from a product owner and decides how to do the work itself (Rigby, Sutherland, and Takeuchi 2016). In LeSS, two to eight teams share one product owner, one product backlog, and one common sprint (Larman and Vodde 2016).Team. Layer: Teams. Reports to Middle line of managers. Train or area, one product. Meets the other teams at inter-team stand-ups and retrospectives. One firm used 27 inter-team mechanisms, from communities of practice and shared tools to coordination roles (Berntzen and colleagues 2023, one case study).Team. Layer: Teams. Reports to Middle line of managers. Train or area, one product. Only partly self-managing in Moe and colleagues (2021), its autonomy limited by the need for alignment. In LeSS Huge, more than eight teams divide the product into requirement areas, each with an area product owner (Larman and Vodde 2016).M, mutual adjustment. People coordinate their own work by informal communication with each other.W, standardization of work processes. The content of the work is specified or programmed in advance, usually by analysts.

The structure in words

Management
- Management, reports to no one. The employer's hierarchy the teams sit inside. In Moe and colleagues (2021), a study of two organizations, alignment was kept top down through centralized decisions, supervisory roles, mandatory processes, and checklists, while one case aligned bottom up through a community of all teams, experts, and supporting roles that excluded managers.
Middle line
- Middle line of managers, reports to Management. The profile's moderate depth puts a middle line of managers between the top and the teams, our judgment, as no source read sets the depth. In Moe and colleagues (2021), supervisory roles were among the means that kept alignment top down.
Teams
- Team, reports to Middle line of managers, grouped train or area, one product. Holds a piece of work's specialties in one team, so overlapping phases replace handoffs (Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986). It decides how to do the work.
- Team, reports to Middle line of managers, grouped train or area, one product. Takes its priorities from a product owner and decides how to do the work itself (Rigby, Sutherland, and Takeuchi 2016). In LeSS, two to eight teams share one product owner, one product backlog, and one common sprint (Larman and Vodde 2016).
- Team, reports to Middle line of managers, grouped train or area, one product. Meets the other teams at inter-team stand-ups and retrospectives. One firm used 27 inter-team mechanisms, from communities of practice and shared tools to coordination roles (Berntzen and colleagues 2023, one case study).
- Team, reports to Middle line of managers, grouped train or area, one product. Only partly self-managing in Moe and colleagues (2021), its autonomy limited by the need for alignment. In LeSS Huge, more than eight teams divide the product into requirement areas, each with an area product owner (Larman and Vodde 2016).

Team and Team: adjust to each other directly, coordinated by mutual adjustment.
Train or area, one product: coordinated by standardization of work processes.

Teams grouped around one product plan and review together each cycle and adjust to one another in between. Product owners set the priorities and the teams decide how to do the work, inside one employer's hierarchy.

Source: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Rigby and colleagues 2016; Larman and Vodde 2016; Moe and colleagues 2021, a study of two organizations; Berntzen and colleagues 2023, one case study.

Its profile, mostly our judgment:

Grouping by product or purpose; specialization medium; layers and span moderate; differentiation moderate; mode of exchange bureaucracy; boundary permeability selective; decision rights selective vertical and horizontal decentralization, Mintzberg's (1980) type in which different decisions go to different places.
Coordinating mechanism: both mutual adjustment, as in Takeuchi and Nonaka's (1986) self-organizing teams, and standardization of work processes, our reading of the frameworks' cadences.
Formalization spans medium and high, and centralization mixed and decentralized, on evidence. In Moe and colleagues (2021), a study of two organizations in telecom, teams were only partly self-managing, aligned top down by centralized decisions.
Lateral mechanisms span direct contact and liaison roles, and task forces and teams, on evidence: Berntzen and colleagues (2023, one case study) found 27 inter-team mechanisms in one firm.

Where agile at scale sits on the eleven dimensions

The filled segments are the form's levels; select a row for its reason and sources.

Select a dimension to read why the form sits there, and on what basis.Basis of grouping: Product or purpose. Basis: Judgment. Cross-functional teams grouped into larger units around a product, as in LeSS, where two to eight teams share one product backlog, and LeSS Huge, which keeps one product backlog above eight teams by dividing it into Requirement Areas, each with an Area Product Owner and an Area Product Backlog; the basis for the form as a whole is judgment. Sources: Larman and Vodde 2016; Rigby and colleagues 2016.Specialization: Medium. Basis: Judgment. Cross-functional teams hold specialists together; judgment. Sources: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Rigby and colleagues 2016.Standardization and formalization: Medium to high. Basis: Evidence. Organizational alignment was kept through mandatory processes and checklists in the agile programs studied. Sources: Moe and colleagues 2021.Centralization: Mixed to decentralized. Basis: Evidence. Teams were partly self-managing, their autonomy limited by alignment maintained top down through centralized decisions and supervisory roles, while one of the two cases aligned bottom up through a community of all teams, experts, and supporting roles that excluded managers. Sources: Moe and colleagues 2021.Layers and span of control: Moderate. Basis: Judgment. Nothing in the sources read sets the depth; judgment. Sources: Dikert and colleagues 2016.Decision rights and the locus of authority: Selective vertical and horizontal decentralization. Basis: Judgment. Product owners set priorities and teams decide how to do the work, so different decisions go to different places; judgment for the type. Sources: Rigby and colleagues 2016; Mintzberg 1980.Prime coordinating mechanism: Mutual adjustment and standardization of work processes. Basis: Judgment. Takeuchi and Nonaka's self-organizing teams with overlapping phases coordinate by mutual adjustment; reading the scaled frameworks' shared cadences and ceremonies as standardized work processes is judgment. Sources: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Rigby and colleagues 2016.Lateral mechanisms: Direct contact and liaison roles to task forces and teams. Basis: Evidence. Twenty-seven inter-team mechanisms were found: communities of practice and shared tools such as Slack, JIRA, boards, and backlogs (level 2), inter-team stand-ups and retrospectives (level 3), and coordination roles such as program architects, nearer level 4. Sources: Berntzen and colleagues 2023.Differentiation against integration: Moderate differentiation, some integrating roles. Basis: Judgment. Teams differ by product area and are joined by cadence and inter-team meetings; judgment. Sources: Berntzen and colleagues 2023; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a.Mode of exchange and control: Bureaucracy. Basis: Judgment. One firm's hierarchy with teams inside it; judgment. Sources: Rigby and colleagues 2016; Ouchi 1980.Boundary permeability: Selective. Basis: Judgment. Functional boundaries are opened inside cross-functional teams while integrating other functions remained a challenge; judgment. Sources: Dikert and colleagues 2016; Ashkenas and colleagues 1995.

Three levels rest on evidence, all spans: formalization and centralization from a study of two organizations (Moe and colleagues 2021), and lateral mechanisms from 27 inter-team mechanisms in one firm (Berntzen and colleagues 2023). The other eight are judgment, and no row is contested.

Source: Larman and Vodde 2016; Rigby and colleagues 2016; Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Moe and colleagues 2021, a study of two organizations; Dikert and colleagues 2016, a systematic review of 52 publications on 42 industrial cases, almost all of them practitioners' experience reports; Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Berntzen and colleagues 2023, one case study; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a, a multi-firm comparative field study; Ouchi 1980, a conceptual article; Ashkenas and colleagues 1995.

Where it came from

Its roots are in Takeuchi and Nonaka's (1986) practitioner article: a holistic, rugby-like method of new product development, with self-organizing project teams and overlapping phases. Rigby, Sutherland, and Takeuchi (2016), also a practitioner article, say Jeff Sutherland helped develop scrum, inspired in part by that article; he was among the authors of the Agile Manifesto (Beck and colleagues 2001, a practitioner declaration).

The schools of organization design and the forms' origins, 1900 to now

Each row is a school's era; each square under them is a form at its first year. Select a row or a square to read it; on a form's page, its own square and span are marked, with the schools that treat it.

The forms by first year

Schools that treat this form: Modularity and the mirroring hypothesis; Institutional theory; Scandinavian institutionalism; and the new-forms debate.

Select a school's row or a form's square to read it.Select a form's square to read it; open a school below.Bureaucracy and its critics1900s to 1950s, revived from the 1990sWhat it claimsWeber held that rational-legal authority exercised through an office hierarchy, written rules, trained officials, and promotion by qualification is technically superior in precision, speed, and reliability. Critics studied its unintended consequences, Michels's iron law sharpest.What it has shownMerton (1940) argued, with no test, that rules can turn from means into ends; case studies followed. The Aston group concluded that the type's dimensions vary independently, and Wagner's meta-analysis (2021) found that many of their interrelationships have weakened.Who disputes itHuman relations and System 4 sets the costs of impersonal rules to motivation and cooperation against the technical superiority Weber stresses.Bureaucracy and its critics in The Schools of Organization DesignClassical administration1910s to 1940s, and in German to the 1970sWhat it claimsThere are general principles of administration, among them division of work, unity of command, a scalar chain of authority, and a limited span of control, and a structure built to them will be efficient in most settings. Taylor added that planners should set work methods.What it has shownThe school offered reasoning and experience, not tests. Woodward (1965) found that the spans and levels of the more successful firms in her sample differed by production system, and Simon (1946) showed that the principles come in pairs that point in opposite directions.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory found that the structure of successful firms varies with technology and environment, where classical writers treat their principles as general.Classical administration in The Schools of Organization DesignHuman relations and System 41920s to 1960sWhat it claimsOutput depends on the social relations of work, the norms of informal groups, and the style of supervision as much as on formal design. Likert's System 4, overlapping work groups joined by linking-pin managers under participative management, outperforms authoritative systems.What it has shownThe founding evidence is the Hawthorne studies, which later reanalyses dispute (Carey 1967; Levitt and List 2011). Likert's support came largely from his own institute's surveys. Wagner (1994) found participation's effects on performance and satisfaction significant but small.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads human relations as a technique of managerial control rather than a change in the distribution of power.Human relations and System 4 in The Schools of Organization DesignTransaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis1937, then the 1970s to the presentWhat it claimsFirms exist, and are organized as they are, to economize on transaction costs. Hierarchy replaces the market when assets are specific, uncertainty is high, and exchange is frequent, and the multidivisional form should outperform the functional form in large, diversified firms.What it has shownArmour and Teece (1978) found, in United States petroleum firms from 1955 to 1973, a positive relationship between the multidivisional form and profitability while the form was spreading, but not once an equilibrium in organizational form was reached.Who disputes itThe network perspective on organizations: Granovetter argued that the theory undersocializes economic action, which is embedded in networks of personal relations that also produce trust and order.Transaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis in The Schools of Organization DesignThe Carnegie school and the attention-based view1940s to the presentWhat it claimsPeople in organizations are boundedly rational, so structure matters because it sets the premises of their decisions and channels their attention: who sees which problems, which goals they pursue, and which routines they follow. Ocasio makes structure distribute attention.What it has shownMarch and Simon (1958) drew propositions from the existing literature, and Cyert and March (1963) added process models and simulations. Two studies show hierarchy shaping what is sent up as well as what is chosen (Reitzig and Maciejovsky 2015; Keum and See 2017).Who disputes itOrganizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities models a principal and agents with defined objectives; the Carnegie school, firms as coalitions with unresolved goal conflict.The Carnegie school and the attention-based view in The Schools of Organization DesignSocio-technical systems1950s to 1980sWhat it claimsAn organization is a social system and a technical system that must be designed together. The same technology admits more than one way of organizing work, and groups that own a whole task and control its variances at the source perform better and are more satisfied.What it has shownTrist and Bamforth (1951) found that longwall mechanization broke up self-regulating work groups. A review of 134 experiments found them extremely successful overall, and Stewart (2006) linked team autonomy to performance; studies of socialist brigades and Volkswagen qualify it.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory: Kelly argued that labor intensification, not joint optimization, accounts for what socio-technical redesign achieved, and that the part of pay incentives was seriously underestimated.Socio-technical systems in The Schools of Organization DesignThe economics of the labor-managed firm and of enterprise ownership1958 to the presentWhat it claimsA firm run by its workers behaves differently from one run for investors: Ward modeled the Yugoslav-style firm as maximizing income per worker. Hansmann argued that an ownership form's success depends on the balance between the costs of market contracting and of ownership.What it has shownBurdín (2014) found a 29 percent lower hazard of dissolution for Uruguayan worker-managed firms than for conventional ones, and Fakhfakh, Pérotin, and Gago (2012) found French labor-managed firms as productive or more so in every industry studied.Who disputes itOrganizational economics (Jensen and Meckling) contrasts the labor-managed firm, in which tradable residual claims are legally prohibited, with cooperatives and partnerships that arise out of voluntary contracting.The economics of the labor-managed firm and of enterprise ownership in The Schools of Organization DesignModularity and the mirroring hypothesis1960s to the presentWhat it claimsComplex systems are built of nearly decomposable parts, and an organization's structure tends to mirror the architecture of what it makes: modular products allow loosely coupled organizations, and tightly coupled products need tightly coupled teams. Conway's law runs in reverse.What it has shownColfer and Baldwin (2016) review the empirical studies and report both support and principled exceptions. Direct tests point both ways: MacCormack, Baldwin, and Rusnak (2012) found open source products more modular than their commercial pairs; dynamic components break the mirror.Who disputes itNo school in the record disputes it head on; it answers information processing, which meets the coordination load inside the organization; mirroring writers locate it in the product's architecture.Modularity and the mirroring hypothesis in The Schools of Organization DesignStrategy and structure1960s to 1980sWhat it claimsStructure follows strategy: firms that diversify by product or geography outgrow the centralized functional structure and, after a lag and usually a crisis, adopt divisions. Chandler drew this from the histories of DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Sears.What it has shownChandler (1962) is comparative business history of four firms set against a wider survey. Rumelt (1974) related diversification and structure to performance, and Egelhoff (1988), with 34 multinationals, found some of Stopford and Wells's relationships supported and others not.Who disputes itInstitutional theory: in Fligstein's model divisions spread with a product-related or unrelated strategy, presidents from sales or finance, and other firms in the industry changing; strategy was one of three.Strategy and structure in The Schools of Organization DesignStructural contingency theory1960s to the presentWhat it claimsThere is no one best structure. Performance depends on fit between structure and contingencies such as environment, technology, size, and strategy, on an open-system view of the organization. Drazin and Van de Ven separate fit as selection, interaction, and systems.What it has shownBurns and Stalker, Woodward, and the Aston group related structure to context; Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) supported selection and systems fit only. Pennings (1975) found that fit did not explain effectiveness; Schoonhoven (1981) found traditional hypotheses unsupported.Who disputes itStrategic choice: Child argued that contingency theory explains structure by the constraints of context and leaves out the political process by which power-holders choose strategic action, structural forms included.Structural contingency theory in The Schools of Organization DesignThe French bureaucratic school (strategic analysis)1960s to 1980sWhat it claimsA bureaucracy is a system of power relations organized around zones of uncertainty. Impersonal rules and centralization protect members from depending on one another, those who control uncertainties hold power, and, unable to correct its errors, it changes only through crisis.What it has shownLe phénomène bureaucratique (1963; English 1964) rests on two case studies, a clerical agency and a state industrial monopoly. L'acteur et le système (1977; English 1980) is theoretical.Who disputes itSocietal effect and comparative business systems: D'Iribarne argues that national logics of conduct, such as a French logic of honor, explain differences that Crozier attributed to power games.The French bureaucratic school (strategic analysis) in The Schools of Organization DesignThe Japanese-firm literature1960s to the presentWhat it claimsThe large Japanese firm coordinates operating decisions through horizontal information sharing among semi-autonomous shops and uses its ranking hierarchy mainly as an incentive scheme (Aoki). It creates knowledge through middle-up-down management (Nonaka and Takeuchi).What it has shownAoki (1986) is a formal model. Lincoln, Hanada, and McBride (1986) compared 51 Japanese and 55 United States manufacturing plants, and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) rest on case studies, chiefly of Japanese firms. Fruin (1994) found the enterprise system defined at three levels.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads shop-floor delegation as control: Sewell and Wilkinson argue that just-in-time and total quality regimes delegate tactical responsibility while centralizing strategic control.The Japanese-firm literature in The Schools of Organization DesignThe Scandinavian and Dutch socio-technical schools1960s to 2000sWhat it claimsThe Scandinavian program sought democracy at work through field experiments with semi-autonomous groups, then through democratic dialogue. The Dutch school's design theory turns complex organizations with simple jobs into simple organizations with complex jobs.What it has shownEmery and Thorsrud reported field experiments in Norwegian industry; Gustavsen (1992) records that they spread less than hoped, his reason for turning to dialogue. Berggren studied work organization in the Swedish auto industry. The Dutch work rests on design cases and argument.Who disputes itThe Japanese-firm literature: defenders of the Toyota system hold that standardized work with employee participation learns faster; Berggren reports Swedish long-cycle plants matching a line plant on productivity.The Scandinavian and Dutch socio-technical schools in The Schools of Organization DesignConfiguration theory1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructures cluster into a small number of internally coherent configurations whose elements reinforce one another, so organizations move between a few types in large jumps, not small steps. Mintzberg's five configurations each rest on one coordinating mechanism.What it has shownDoty, Glick, and Huber (1993) found that fit to Miles and Snow's ideal types predicted effectiveness while fit to Mintzberg's did not. A meta-analysis of 40 tests (Ketchen and colleagues 1997) found that configuration partly explains performance, more so with broad definitions.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Donaldson counters that most organizations sit at intermediate points on a continuum of fits, not in a few configurations, and that studies over time find mostly incremental change.Configuration theory in The Schools of Organization DesignInformation processing1970s to the presentWhat it claimsThe more uncertain the task, the more information must be processed during its execution. An organization either reduces that need, through slack resources or self-contained tasks, or raises its capacity, through vertical information systems or lateral relations up to the matrix.What it has shownGalbraith (1973, 1974) built the framework from cases and from Simon's theory of bounded rationality, and Tushman and Nadler (1978) set it out as an integrating concept for design. Daft and Lengel (1986) argued that structure must reduce equivocality as well as supply data.Who disputes itThe Carnegie school and the attention-based view: Ocasio holds that firm behavior results from how the firm channels and distributes attention, so structure governs where attention goes, not only how much is processed.Information processing in The Schools of Organization DesignLabor process and critical theory1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructure is above all a system of control over labor. Braverman argued that management deskills work by separating conception from execution; Edwards traced a sequence from simple control by the boss to technical control through machines to bureaucratic control through rules.What it has shownHistorical and theoretical (Braverman 1974; Edwards 1979). Delbridge (1995), observing a Japanese-owned plant in England, found that just-in-time and total quality regimes combined the control of labor with management's economic goals more completely than piece rates had.Who disputes itBureaucracy and its critics: Adler argues that labor process theory ignores the progressive socialization of the labor process, which drives long-term skill upgrading, and disputes deskilling as the trend.Labor process and critical theory in The Schools of Organization DesignStrategic choice1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructure is the outcome of choices by those with power in the organization, who decide on strategic action, including the structural form, the manipulation of environmental features, and the performance standards to be met. Context constrains but does not determine structure.What it has shownLargely conceptual: Child (1972) built the argument from gaps in contingency findings, and the empirical case rests mostly on the modest share of structural variance contingencies explain. A 2026 review of 42 studies finds upper echelons theory their main theoretical anchor.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Donaldson replies that organizations mostly adopt the structures their contingencies dictate, to avoid the loss of performance misfit brings, so choice over structure is at most limited.Strategic choice in The Schools of Organization DesignThe German codetermination literature1970s to the presentWhat it claimsWorks councils and employee board seats form a structural layer through which coordination can become negotiation between management and employees. Defenders argue that it supports long-term employment, training, and cooperation; critics, that it weakens shareholder control.What it has shownJäger, Schoefer, and Heining (2021) found board-level codetermination left wages unchanged and, if anything, raised capital formation. Jirjahn (2011) reports studies pointing to positive works council effects; a meta-analysis found codetermination laws tied to lower productivity.Who disputes itOrganizational economics (Gorton and Schmid) found that firms with equal employee and shareholder representation did worse for their shareholders than firms with one-third employee representation.The German codetermination literature in The Schools of Organization DesignOrganizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities1976 to the presentWhat it claimsDesign is the joint choice of who holds which decision rights, how performance is measured, and how it is rewarded. Rights should be placed where the specific knowledge lies, formal authority differs from real authority, and practices are complements that pay off in clusters.What it has shownIchniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi (1997) found, on 36 steel finishing lines, that lines using a set of innovative work practices achieved substantially higher productivity, consistent with complementarities. Bloom and colleagues found more decentralization where trust was higher.Who disputes itGhoshal argued that management research has shaped managers' worldview with ideologically inspired amoral theories, built on a scientific model that excludes human intentionality and so denies moral considerations.Organizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities in The Schools of Organization DesignInstitutional theory1977 to the presentWhat it claimsFormal structures are often adopted because they are legitimate in the organization's field, as rationalized myths, and then decoupled from the work done. Organizations in a field grow alike through coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism, whether or not it is efficient.What it has shownTolbert and Zucker (1983) found that city characteristics predicted early but not later adoption of civil service reform, which they read as institutionalization. Palmer, Jennings, and Zhou (1993) found support for institutional and economic accounts of late M-form adoption.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Kraatz and Zajac found little support for neoinstitutional predictions in 631 liberal arts colleges, which grew less alike; the change they studied was curricular, not structural.Institutional theory in The Schools of Organization DesignPopulation ecology1977 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations face strong structural inertia, because selection favors the reliability and accountability of stable structures. Change in a population's forms comes mainly from founding and failure, not adaptation, and changing core features resets the liability of newness.What it has shownAmburgey, Kelly, and Barnett (1993) found that the effects of change on the hazard of failure vary by type of change and over time, and that rates of change depend on how often and how recently an organization has changed. Carroll and Hannan (2000) set out the program's methods.Who disputes itFor structural contingency theory, Donaldson argues that ecology understates managers' capacity to adapt structure.Population ecology in The Schools of Organization DesignResource dependence1978 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations depend on outside parties for critical resources, and structure follows the management of that dependence: units that cope with critical dependencies gain power, and boundaries are redrawn through cooptation, joint ventures, and mergers to absorb constraint.What it has shownPfeffer and Salancik (1978) assembled studies of boards, mergers, and joint ventures. A meta-analysis of 157 tests (Drees and Heugens 2013) corroborated the main prediction: organizations meet resource dependencies with interorganizational arrangements that raise their autonomy.Who disputes itTransaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis explains boundaries by efficiency; resource dependence, by power and constraint.Resource dependence in The Schools of Organization DesignThe business-groups literature1978 to the presentWhat it claimsGroups of legally independent firms bound by ownership and social ties are a durable form of their own, neither one firm nor a market. Where institutions function poorly, groups can benefit member firms and can destroy value; they are sometimes paragons, sometimes parasites.What it has shownKhanna and Palepu (2000) found that affiliates of the most diversified Indian groups outperformed unaffiliated firms. A meta-analysis of 141 studies (Carney and colleagues 2011) found that affiliation lowers performance in general, less so where institutions are underdeveloped.Who disputes itOrganizational economics: agency writers read pyramids and cross-holdings as devices that separate control from ownership; Almeida and Wolfenzon offer a financing rationale for pyramids instead.The business-groups literature in The Schools of Organization DesignScandinavian institutionalism1980s to the presentWhat it claimsIdeas of organizing do not diffuse unchanged; they travel and are translated as they are adopted, so a form taken up in one place is not the same form elsewhere. Organizations can also be built of organizations (meta-organizations), which behave differently.What it has shownA discussion paper by Czarniawska and Joerges (1995) contrasts the diffusion of ideas with their translation, drawing on examples such as Swedish municipal reform; the work on meta-organizations (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008) is conceptual.Who disputes itInstitutional theory can read the same processes, seen from a translocal view, as institutional isomorphism, though translation holds that each adopter modifies an idea, so an institution re-created elsewhere is new.Scandinavian institutionalism in The Schools of Organization DesignSocietal effect and comparative business systems1980s to the presentWhat it claimsFirms matched on size, technology, and industry differ systematically by country, because how a society educates, trains, recruits, and promotes its workforce, and its industrial relations, shape how work is divided and supervised, so structure is partly a national product.What it has shownMaurice, Sorge, and Warner (1980) compared closely matched manufacturing units in France, West Germany, and Great Britain and found more pervasive differences in their organization than usually recognized. Whitley (1999) set out a comparative account of business systems.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory stresses culture-free elements of structure; matched comparisons find nationally different shapes of organization.Societal effect and comparative business systems in The Schools of Organization DesignThe network perspective on organizations1985 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations and their members are nodes joined by ties, and the pattern of ties shapes what they can do. Economic action is embedded in networks of personal relations (Granovetter 1985), and network forms are a distinct form, not a hybrid of market and hierarchy (Powell 1990).What it has shownPodolny and Page (1998) review the research and find that network forms foster learning, confer status and legitimacy, bring economic benefits, help manage resource dependencies, and give employees considerable autonomy, and they ask for attention to networks' dysfunctions.Who disputes itTransaction cost economics: Williamson treats the hybrid as a third generic form between market and hierarchy; for Powell, network forms are a distinct form, not a mix of the two.The network perspective on organizations in The Schools of Organization DesignComputational organization design and search1990s to the presentWhat it claimsDesign choices interact, so design space is a rugged landscape with many local peaks, and structure affects how well an organization searches it. Decentralizing interdependent decisions can trap units on poor peaks; temporary decentralization, then reintegration, can help.What it has shownMostly simulation, with one field test: Csaszar (2012), with more than 150,000 stock-picking decisions by 609 mutual funds, found that decision-making structure affects the number of initiatives pursued and the omission and commission errors made.Who disputes itNo school in the record disputes it head on; it disputes structural contingency theory, whose bivariate fit, its simulations show, cannot capture how the best design depends on interactions among choices.Computational organization design and search in The Schools of Organization DesignThe new-forms debate1990s to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations must solve four universal problems (dividing tasks, allocating them, providing rewards, and providing information), and a form is new when it solves them in new ways. Self-managing organizations radically decentralize authority; skeptics hold hierarchy reappears.What it has shownFoss (2003) traced the rise and partial reversal of Oticon's spaghetti organization to the problem of selective intervention. A meta-analysis of 54 studies of 13,914 teams (Greer and colleagues 2018) found that hierarchy within teams on net slightly lowers team performance.Who disputes itBureaucracy and its critics: removing formal structure leaves informal elites whose power is unaccountable (Freeman), and democratic and network organizations are much less hierarchy-free than their labels suggest.The new-forms debate in The Schools of Organization DesignThe algorithmic-management literature2015 to the presentWhat it claimsSoftware does much of the directing, evaluating, and disciplining that managers and rules once did. Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin (2020) call algorithmic control a new contested terrain; Puranam (2021) treats dividing decisions between people and machines as a design problem.What it has shownMostly qualitative field studies of gig work. Wood and colleagues (2019), with 107 interviews in six countries and 679 survey respondents, found that algorithmic management tends to give remote gig workers flexibility and autonomy, but also low pay, isolation, and overwork.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads control at work as contested terrain; Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin take up that view but argue that algorithmic control is distinct from earlier forms.The algorithmic-management literature in The Schools of Organization DesignFunctional structureOrigin: 1911 to 1937.Family: Classical hierarchies.Line and staffOrigin: 1916 to 1943.Family: Classical hierarchies.Multidivisional (M-form) by productOrigin: 1920s practice; named and analyzed 1962 to 1975.Family: Divisionalized forms.Machine bureaucracyOrigin: 1922 (Weber); 1979 (Mintzberg).Family: Classical hierarchies.Divisional by customer or market segmentOrigin: 1937; 2005.Family: Divisionalized forms.Matrix organizationOrigin: 1950s to 1960s practice; analyzed 1971 to 1977.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Co-determined organizationOrigin: 1951 to 1976 (the laws); 1984 to 2022 (the main studies).Family: Forms from other traditions.Socio-technical autonomous work groupsOrigin: 1951 to 1965.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.Stratified hierarchy (requisite organization)Origin: 1951 to 1989.Family: Classical hierarchies.Cooperative organizationOrigin: 1958 to 1999.Family: Forms from other traditions.Linking-pin organization (System 4)Origin: 1961 to 1967.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.Divisional by regionOrigin: 1962 to 1972.Family: Divisionalized forms.Adhocracy (innovative organization)Origin: 1968 to 1979.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.J-form (the Japanese firm)Origin: 1968 to 1990.Family: Forms from other traditions.Professional bureaucracyOrigin: 1968 to 1979.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.Holding company (H-form)Origin: 1972 to 1975; 1987.Family: Divisionalized forms.Ambidextrous organizationOrigin: 1976 to 2004.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.Simple structureOrigin: 1979.Family: Classical hierarchies.Hybrid structureOrigin: 1980 to the present.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Missionary (ideological) organizationOrigin: 1980 to 1989.Family: Ideological forms.Network, modular, and virtual organizationOrigin: 1986 to 1990.Family: Network and market-like forms.Transnational and multidimensional organizationOrigin: 1987 to 1989.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Business group (keiretsu, chaebol, family house)Origin: 1988 to 2007.Family: Forms from other traditions.Shamrock organizationOrigin: 1988 to 1989.Family: Network and market-like forms.Federal organizationOrigin: 1989 to 1992.Family: Network and market-like forms.Self-managing organization (less-hierarchical forms)Origin: 1989 to 2017.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.Boundaryless organizationOrigin: 1990 to 1995.Family: Network and market-like forms.Front-back organizationOrigin: 1990s to 2007.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Professional partnership (P2 form)Origin: 1990.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.The corporate center and shared servicesOrigin: 1991 to 2000.Family: Divisionalized forms.Internal market organizationOrigin: 1993 to 1994.Family: Network and market-like forms.Process (horizontal) organizationOrigin: 1993 to 1999.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Cellular organizationOrigin: 1994 to 1997.Family: Network and market-like forms.Hypertext organizationOrigin: 1994 to 1995.Family: Forms from other traditions.Team-based organizationOrigin: 1995.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.Project-based organizationOrigin: 2000 to 2006.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.Agile at scaleOrigin: 2001 to 2016.Family: Contemporary and emerging forms.Distributed (all-remote) organizationOrigin: 2002 to 2021.Family: Contemporary and emerging forms.Open-source and community-based organizationOrigin: 2002 to 2007.Family: Contemporary and emerging forms.Algorithmically managed organizationOrigin: 2015 to 2020.Family: Contemporary and emerging forms.Team of teamsOrigin: 2015.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.

The schools by first year

Bureaucracy and its critics1900s to 1950s, revived from the 1990sWhat it claimsWeber held that rational-legal authority exercised through an office hierarchy, written rules, trained officials, and promotion by qualification is technically superior in precision, speed, and reliability. Critics studied its unintended consequences, Michels's iron law sharpest.What it has shownMerton (1940) argued, with no test, that rules can turn from means into ends; case studies followed. The Aston group concluded that the type's dimensions vary independently, and Wagner's meta-analysis (2021) found that many of their interrelationships have weakened.Who disputes itHuman relations and System 4 sets the costs of impersonal rules to motivation and cooperation against the technical superiority Weber stresses.
Classical administration1910s to 1940s, and in German to the 1970sWhat it claimsThere are general principles of administration, among them division of work, unity of command, a scalar chain of authority, and a limited span of control, and a structure built to them will be efficient in most settings. Taylor added that planners should set work methods.What it has shownThe school offered reasoning and experience, not tests. Woodward (1965) found that the spans and levels of the more successful firms in her sample differed by production system, and Simon (1946) showed that the principles come in pairs that point in opposite directions.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory found that the structure of successful firms varies with technology and environment, where classical writers treat their principles as general.
Human relations and System 41920s to 1960sWhat it claimsOutput depends on the social relations of work, the norms of informal groups, and the style of supervision as much as on formal design. Likert's System 4, overlapping work groups joined by linking-pin managers under participative management, outperforms authoritative systems.What it has shownThe founding evidence is the Hawthorne studies, which later reanalyses dispute (Carey 1967; Levitt and List 2011). Likert's support came largely from his own institute's surveys. Wagner (1994) found participation's effects on performance and satisfaction significant but small.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads human relations as a technique of managerial control rather than a change in the distribution of power.
Transaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis1937, then the 1970s to the presentWhat it claimsFirms exist, and are organized as they are, to economize on transaction costs. Hierarchy replaces the market when assets are specific, uncertainty is high, and exchange is frequent, and the multidivisional form should outperform the functional form in large, diversified firms.What it has shownArmour and Teece (1978) found, in United States petroleum firms from 1955 to 1973, a positive relationship between the multidivisional form and profitability while the form was spreading, but not once an equilibrium in organizational form was reached.Who disputes itThe network perspective on organizations: Granovetter argued that the theory undersocializes economic action, which is embedded in networks of personal relations that also produce trust and order.
The Carnegie school and the attention-based view1940s to the presentWhat it claimsPeople in organizations are boundedly rational, so structure matters because it sets the premises of their decisions and channels their attention: who sees which problems, which goals they pursue, and which routines they follow. Ocasio makes structure distribute attention.What it has shownMarch and Simon (1958) drew propositions from the existing literature, and Cyert and March (1963) added process models and simulations. Two studies show hierarchy shaping what is sent up as well as what is chosen (Reitzig and Maciejovsky 2015; Keum and See 2017).Who disputes itOrganizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities models a principal and agents with defined objectives; the Carnegie school, firms as coalitions with unresolved goal conflict.
Socio-technical systems1950s to 1980sWhat it claimsAn organization is a social system and a technical system that must be designed together. The same technology admits more than one way of organizing work, and groups that own a whole task and control its variances at the source perform better and are more satisfied.What it has shownTrist and Bamforth (1951) found that longwall mechanization broke up self-regulating work groups. A review of 134 experiments found them extremely successful overall, and Stewart (2006) linked team autonomy to performance; studies of socialist brigades and Volkswagen qualify it.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory: Kelly argued that labor intensification, not joint optimization, accounts for what socio-technical redesign achieved, and that the part of pay incentives was seriously underestimated.
The economics of the labor-managed firm and of enterprise ownership1958 to the presentWhat it claimsA firm run by its workers behaves differently from one run for investors: Ward modeled the Yugoslav-style firm as maximizing income per worker. Hansmann argued that an ownership form's success depends on the balance between the costs of market contracting and of ownership.What it has shownBurdín (2014) found a 29 percent lower hazard of dissolution for Uruguayan worker-managed firms than for conventional ones, and Fakhfakh, Pérotin, and Gago (2012) found French labor-managed firms as productive or more so in every industry studied.Who disputes itOrganizational economics (Jensen and Meckling) contrasts the labor-managed firm, in which tradable residual claims are legally prohibited, with cooperatives and partnerships that arise out of voluntary contracting.
Modularity and the mirroring hypothesis1960s to the presentWhat it claimsComplex systems are built of nearly decomposable parts, and an organization's structure tends to mirror the architecture of what it makes: modular products allow loosely coupled organizations, and tightly coupled products need tightly coupled teams. Conway's law runs in reverse.What it has shownColfer and Baldwin (2016) review the empirical studies and report both support and principled exceptions. Direct tests point both ways: MacCormack, Baldwin, and Rusnak (2012) found open source products more modular than their commercial pairs; dynamic components break the mirror.Who disputes itNo school in the record disputes it head on; it answers information processing, which meets the coordination load inside the organization; mirroring writers locate it in the product's architecture.
Strategy and structure1960s to 1980sWhat it claimsStructure follows strategy: firms that diversify by product or geography outgrow the centralized functional structure and, after a lag and usually a crisis, adopt divisions. Chandler drew this from the histories of DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Sears.What it has shownChandler (1962) is comparative business history of four firms set against a wider survey. Rumelt (1974) related diversification and structure to performance, and Egelhoff (1988), with 34 multinationals, found some of Stopford and Wells's relationships supported and others not.Who disputes itInstitutional theory: in Fligstein's model divisions spread with a product-related or unrelated strategy, presidents from sales or finance, and other firms in the industry changing; strategy was one of three.
Structural contingency theory1960s to the presentWhat it claimsThere is no one best structure. Performance depends on fit between structure and contingencies such as environment, technology, size, and strategy, on an open-system view of the organization. Drazin and Van de Ven separate fit as selection, interaction, and systems.What it has shownBurns and Stalker, Woodward, and the Aston group related structure to context; Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) supported selection and systems fit only. Pennings (1975) found that fit did not explain effectiveness; Schoonhoven (1981) found traditional hypotheses unsupported.Who disputes itStrategic choice: Child argued that contingency theory explains structure by the constraints of context and leaves out the political process by which power-holders choose strategic action, structural forms included.
The French bureaucratic school (strategic analysis)1960s to 1980sWhat it claimsA bureaucracy is a system of power relations organized around zones of uncertainty. Impersonal rules and centralization protect members from depending on one another, those who control uncertainties hold power, and, unable to correct its errors, it changes only through crisis.What it has shownLe phénomène bureaucratique (1963; English 1964) rests on two case studies, a clerical agency and a state industrial monopoly. L'acteur et le système (1977; English 1980) is theoretical.Who disputes itSocietal effect and comparative business systems: D'Iribarne argues that national logics of conduct, such as a French logic of honor, explain differences that Crozier attributed to power games.
The Japanese-firm literature1960s to the presentWhat it claimsThe large Japanese firm coordinates operating decisions through horizontal information sharing among semi-autonomous shops and uses its ranking hierarchy mainly as an incentive scheme (Aoki). It creates knowledge through middle-up-down management (Nonaka and Takeuchi).What it has shownAoki (1986) is a formal model. Lincoln, Hanada, and McBride (1986) compared 51 Japanese and 55 United States manufacturing plants, and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) rest on case studies, chiefly of Japanese firms. Fruin (1994) found the enterprise system defined at three levels.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads shop-floor delegation as control: Sewell and Wilkinson argue that just-in-time and total quality regimes delegate tactical responsibility while centralizing strategic control.
The Scandinavian and Dutch socio-technical schools1960s to 2000sWhat it claimsThe Scandinavian program sought democracy at work through field experiments with semi-autonomous groups, then through democratic dialogue. The Dutch school's design theory turns complex organizations with simple jobs into simple organizations with complex jobs.What it has shownEmery and Thorsrud reported field experiments in Norwegian industry; Gustavsen (1992) records that they spread less than hoped, his reason for turning to dialogue. Berggren studied work organization in the Swedish auto industry. The Dutch work rests on design cases and argument.Who disputes itThe Japanese-firm literature: defenders of the Toyota system hold that standardized work with employee participation learns faster; Berggren reports Swedish long-cycle plants matching a line plant on productivity.
Configuration theory1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructures cluster into a small number of internally coherent configurations whose elements reinforce one another, so organizations move between a few types in large jumps, not small steps. Mintzberg's five configurations each rest on one coordinating mechanism.What it has shownDoty, Glick, and Huber (1993) found that fit to Miles and Snow's ideal types predicted effectiveness while fit to Mintzberg's did not. A meta-analysis of 40 tests (Ketchen and colleagues 1997) found that configuration partly explains performance, more so with broad definitions.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Donaldson counters that most organizations sit at intermediate points on a continuum of fits, not in a few configurations, and that studies over time find mostly incremental change.
Information processing1970s to the presentWhat it claimsThe more uncertain the task, the more information must be processed during its execution. An organization either reduces that need, through slack resources or self-contained tasks, or raises its capacity, through vertical information systems or lateral relations up to the matrix.What it has shownGalbraith (1973, 1974) built the framework from cases and from Simon's theory of bounded rationality, and Tushman and Nadler (1978) set it out as an integrating concept for design. Daft and Lengel (1986) argued that structure must reduce equivocality as well as supply data.Who disputes itThe Carnegie school and the attention-based view: Ocasio holds that firm behavior results from how the firm channels and distributes attention, so structure governs where attention goes, not only how much is processed.
Labor process and critical theory1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructure is above all a system of control over labor. Braverman argued that management deskills work by separating conception from execution; Edwards traced a sequence from simple control by the boss to technical control through machines to bureaucratic control through rules.What it has shownHistorical and theoretical (Braverman 1974; Edwards 1979). Delbridge (1995), observing a Japanese-owned plant in England, found that just-in-time and total quality regimes combined the control of labor with management's economic goals more completely than piece rates had.Who disputes itBureaucracy and its critics: Adler argues that labor process theory ignores the progressive socialization of the labor process, which drives long-term skill upgrading, and disputes deskilling as the trend.
Strategic choice1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructure is the outcome of choices by those with power in the organization, who decide on strategic action, including the structural form, the manipulation of environmental features, and the performance standards to be met. Context constrains but does not determine structure.What it has shownLargely conceptual: Child (1972) built the argument from gaps in contingency findings, and the empirical case rests mostly on the modest share of structural variance contingencies explain. A 2026 review of 42 studies finds upper echelons theory their main theoretical anchor.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Donaldson replies that organizations mostly adopt the structures their contingencies dictate, to avoid the loss of performance misfit brings, so choice over structure is at most limited.
The German codetermination literature1970s to the presentWhat it claimsWorks councils and employee board seats form a structural layer through which coordination can become negotiation between management and employees. Defenders argue that it supports long-term employment, training, and cooperation; critics, that it weakens shareholder control.What it has shownJäger, Schoefer, and Heining (2021) found board-level codetermination left wages unchanged and, if anything, raised capital formation. Jirjahn (2011) reports studies pointing to positive works council effects; a meta-analysis found codetermination laws tied to lower productivity.Who disputes itOrganizational economics (Gorton and Schmid) found that firms with equal employee and shareholder representation did worse for their shareholders than firms with one-third employee representation.
Organizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities1976 to the presentWhat it claimsDesign is the joint choice of who holds which decision rights, how performance is measured, and how it is rewarded. Rights should be placed where the specific knowledge lies, formal authority differs from real authority, and practices are complements that pay off in clusters.What it has shownIchniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi (1997) found, on 36 steel finishing lines, that lines using a set of innovative work practices achieved substantially higher productivity, consistent with complementarities. Bloom and colleagues found more decentralization where trust was higher.Who disputes itGhoshal argued that management research has shaped managers' worldview with ideologically inspired amoral theories, built on a scientific model that excludes human intentionality and so denies moral considerations.
Institutional theory1977 to the presentWhat it claimsFormal structures are often adopted because they are legitimate in the organization's field, as rationalized myths, and then decoupled from the work done. Organizations in a field grow alike through coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism, whether or not it is efficient.What it has shownTolbert and Zucker (1983) found that city characteristics predicted early but not later adoption of civil service reform, which they read as institutionalization. Palmer, Jennings, and Zhou (1993) found support for institutional and economic accounts of late M-form adoption.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Kraatz and Zajac found little support for neoinstitutional predictions in 631 liberal arts colleges, which grew less alike; the change they studied was curricular, not structural.
Population ecology1977 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations face strong structural inertia, because selection favors the reliability and accountability of stable structures. Change in a population's forms comes mainly from founding and failure, not adaptation, and changing core features resets the liability of newness.What it has shownAmburgey, Kelly, and Barnett (1993) found that the effects of change on the hazard of failure vary by type of change and over time, and that rates of change depend on how often and how recently an organization has changed. Carroll and Hannan (2000) set out the program's methods.Who disputes itFor structural contingency theory, Donaldson argues that ecology understates managers' capacity to adapt structure.
Resource dependence1978 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations depend on outside parties for critical resources, and structure follows the management of that dependence: units that cope with critical dependencies gain power, and boundaries are redrawn through cooptation, joint ventures, and mergers to absorb constraint.What it has shownPfeffer and Salancik (1978) assembled studies of boards, mergers, and joint ventures. A meta-analysis of 157 tests (Drees and Heugens 2013) corroborated the main prediction: organizations meet resource dependencies with interorganizational arrangements that raise their autonomy.Who disputes itTransaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis explains boundaries by efficiency; resource dependence, by power and constraint.
The business-groups literature1978 to the presentWhat it claimsGroups of legally independent firms bound by ownership and social ties are a durable form of their own, neither one firm nor a market. Where institutions function poorly, groups can benefit member firms and can destroy value; they are sometimes paragons, sometimes parasites.What it has shownKhanna and Palepu (2000) found that affiliates of the most diversified Indian groups outperformed unaffiliated firms. A meta-analysis of 141 studies (Carney and colleagues 2011) found that affiliation lowers performance in general, less so where institutions are underdeveloped.Who disputes itOrganizational economics: agency writers read pyramids and cross-holdings as devices that separate control from ownership; Almeida and Wolfenzon offer a financing rationale for pyramids instead.
Scandinavian institutionalism1980s to the presentWhat it claimsIdeas of organizing do not diffuse unchanged; they travel and are translated as they are adopted, so a form taken up in one place is not the same form elsewhere. Organizations can also be built of organizations (meta-organizations), which behave differently.What it has shownA discussion paper by Czarniawska and Joerges (1995) contrasts the diffusion of ideas with their translation, drawing on examples such as Swedish municipal reform; the work on meta-organizations (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008) is conceptual.Who disputes itInstitutional theory can read the same processes, seen from a translocal view, as institutional isomorphism, though translation holds that each adopter modifies an idea, so an institution re-created elsewhere is new.
Societal effect and comparative business systems1980s to the presentWhat it claimsFirms matched on size, technology, and industry differ systematically by country, because how a society educates, trains, recruits, and promotes its workforce, and its industrial relations, shape how work is divided and supervised, so structure is partly a national product.What it has shownMaurice, Sorge, and Warner (1980) compared closely matched manufacturing units in France, West Germany, and Great Britain and found more pervasive differences in their organization than usually recognized. Whitley (1999) set out a comparative account of business systems.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory stresses culture-free elements of structure; matched comparisons find nationally different shapes of organization.
The network perspective on organizations1985 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations and their members are nodes joined by ties, and the pattern of ties shapes what they can do. Economic action is embedded in networks of personal relations (Granovetter 1985), and network forms are a distinct form, not a hybrid of market and hierarchy (Powell 1990).What it has shownPodolny and Page (1998) review the research and find that network forms foster learning, confer status and legitimacy, bring economic benefits, help manage resource dependencies, and give employees considerable autonomy, and they ask for attention to networks' dysfunctions.Who disputes itTransaction cost economics: Williamson treats the hybrid as a third generic form between market and hierarchy; for Powell, network forms are a distinct form, not a mix of the two.
Computational organization design and search1990s to the presentWhat it claimsDesign choices interact, so design space is a rugged landscape with many local peaks, and structure affects how well an organization searches it. Decentralizing interdependent decisions can trap units on poor peaks; temporary decentralization, then reintegration, can help.What it has shownMostly simulation, with one field test: Csaszar (2012), with more than 150,000 stock-picking decisions by 609 mutual funds, found that decision-making structure affects the number of initiatives pursued and the omission and commission errors made.Who disputes itNo school in the record disputes it head on; it disputes structural contingency theory, whose bivariate fit, its simulations show, cannot capture how the best design depends on interactions among choices.
The new-forms debate1990s to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations must solve four universal problems (dividing tasks, allocating them, providing rewards, and providing information), and a form is new when it solves them in new ways. Self-managing organizations radically decentralize authority; skeptics hold hierarchy reappears.What it has shownFoss (2003) traced the rise and partial reversal of Oticon's spaghetti organization to the problem of selective intervention. A meta-analysis of 54 studies of 13,914 teams (Greer and colleagues 2018) found that hierarchy within teams on net slightly lowers team performance.Who disputes itBureaucracy and its critics: removing formal structure leaves informal elites whose power is unaccountable (Freeman), and democratic and network organizations are much less hierarchy-free than their labels suggest.
The algorithmic-management literature2015 to the presentWhat it claimsSoftware does much of the directing, evaluating, and disciplining that managers and rules once did. Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin (2020) call algorithmic control a new contested terrain; Puranam (2021) treats dividing decisions between people and machines as a design problem.What it has shownMostly qualitative field studies of gig work. Wood and colleagues (2019), with 107 interviews in six countries and 679 survey respondents, found that algorithmic management tends to give remote gig workers flexibility and autonomy, but also low pay, isolation, and overwork.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads control at work as contested terrain; Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin take up that view but argue that algorithmic control is distinct from earlier forms.

The forms by first year

Functional structure: 1911 to 1937
Line and staff: 1916 to 1943
Multidivisional (M-form) by product: 1920s practice; named and analyzed 1962 to 1975
Machine bureaucracy: 1922 (Weber); 1979 (Mintzberg)
Divisional by customer or market segment: 1937; 2005
Matrix organization: 1950s to 1960s practice; analyzed 1971 to 1977
Co-determined organization: 1951 to 1976 (the laws); 1984 to 2022 (the main studies)
Socio-technical autonomous work groups: 1951 to 1965
Stratified hierarchy (requisite organization): 1951 to 1989
Cooperative organization: 1958 to 1999
Linking-pin organization (System 4): 1961 to 1967
Divisional by region: 1962 to 1972
Adhocracy (innovative organization): 1968 to 1979
J-form (the Japanese firm): 1968 to 1990
Professional bureaucracy: 1968 to 1979
Holding company (H-form): 1972 to 1975; 1987
Ambidextrous organization: 1976 to 2004
Simple structure: 1979
Hybrid structure: 1980 to the present
Missionary (ideological) organization: 1980 to 1989
Network, modular, and virtual organization: 1986 to 1990
Transnational and multidimensional organization: 1987 to 1989
Business group (keiretsu, chaebol, family house): 1988 to 2007
Shamrock organization: 1988 to 1989
Federal organization: 1989 to 1992
Self-managing organization (less-hierarchical forms): 1989 to 2017
Boundaryless organization: 1990 to 1995
Front-back organization: 1990s to 2007
Professional partnership (P2 form): 1990
The corporate center and shared services: 1991 to 2000
Internal market organization: 1993 to 1994
Process (horizontal) organization: 1993 to 1999
Cellular organization: 1994 to 1997
Hypertext organization: 1994 to 1995
Team-based organization: 1995
Project-based organization: 2000 to 2006
Agile at scale: 2001 to 2016
Distributed (all-remote) organization: 2002 to 2021
Open-source and community-based organization: 2002 to 2007
Algorithmically managed organization: 2015 to 2020
Team of teams: 2015

Twenty-three of the 29 schools run to the present, and 16 of those began in the 1970s or later. The forms arrive in waves: 14 of the 41 first appear between 1985 and 1994.

Source: Fayol 1949; Weber 1978; Mayo 1933; Trist and Bamforth 1951, an interview-based field study in one industry; Burns and Stalker 1961, a field study of twenty firms; Mintzberg 1979; Child 1972a; Coase 1937; Meyer and Rowan 1977; Hannan and Freeman 1977; Galbraith 1973; Jensen and Meckling 1976; Crozier 1963; Emery and Thorsrud 1969; Yoshino 1968; Streeck 1984a; Kellogg and colleagues 2020, a review of earlier research through one theoretical lens, with no new data; Puranam and colleagues 2014, a conceptual argument; Chandler 1962, several independent case histories by a historian; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978; Simon 1946; Maurice and colleagues 1980, a comparison of matched factories in three countries; Levinthal 1997; Simon 1962; Braverman 1974; Hamilton and Biggart 1988, a comparison of three economies by scholars; Ward 1958; Czarniawska and Joerges 1995; Granovetter 1985.

The scaled form answers how to keep small-team speed and learning when hundreds of teams build one product or run one business. Leffingwell (2007) set out team practices and organizational capabilities that include the agile release train, and Larman and Vodde (2008) the organizational tools for large-scale Scrum behind LeSS. Both are practitioner frameworks, not tested models. Dikert, Paasivaara, and Lassenius (2016) reviewed the field: a systematic review of 52 publications on 42 industrial cases, almost all of them practitioners' experience reports. The sector of origin is software development.

Where it fits

No work tests agile at scale against any factor; all twelve cells are our judgment, and one is contested. Burton and Obel's (2004) multi-contingency model is the most developed scholarly fit model.

Agile at scale against the twelve contingency factors

Each factor at its three levels, Fits, Partial, or Strain; select a row for its reason, sources, and grade.

Select a factor to read its reason, sources, basis, and grade.Size. Scaling frameworks exist to coordinate many teams on one product; a small organization runs agile without them, and large transformations meet many reported challenges. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Dikert and colleagues 2016; Moe and colleagues 2021.Age. Older organizations bring entrenched functions and resistance to change, which large-scale agile transformations report among their main challenges. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Dikert and colleagues 2016; Hannan and Freeman 1984.Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism). Short, synchronized cycles and frequent replanning pay when requirements keep changing; where they are stable, the ceremonies are overhead. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Galbraith 1973; Burton and Obel 2004; Pennings 1975.Environmental complexity. Shared cadences among many teams answer change and interdependence more than complexity; the studies are experience reports. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Dikert and colleagues 2016; Paasivaara and colleagues 2018.Munificence and hostility. Shared cadences across many teams serve change more than scarcity; nothing read ties the form to munificence. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Dikert and colleagues 2016.Diversity of products and markets. Trains and tribes are built around the products of one business; nothing read shows them spanning unrelated businesses. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Dikert and colleagues 2016; Rigby and colleagues 2018.Strategy type. Short cycles and product owners who reset priorities each cycle serve continual search for new products, and the method began in new product development; no work tests it against strategy type. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Rigby and colleagues 2016; Burton and Obel 2004.Technology and routineness. The method comes from new product development, where self-organizing teams and overlapping phases replace a sequential approach; routine operations do not need its cycles. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Dikert and colleagues 2016; Hickson and colleagues 1969; Mohr 1971.Interdependence. The shared cadence is built to synchronize teams whose work must be integrated each cycle, but a review of large-scale cases places the method's distinctive challenges in that synchronization. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Thompson 1967; Dikert and colleagues 2016. View 1: Pooled partial, Sequential partial, Reciprocal fits. The shared cadence of planning and review cycles is built to synchronize teams whose work must be integrated each cycle, and the method replaced sequential handoffs with overlapping phases inside one team. Sources: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Thompson 1967. View 2: Pooled partial, Sequential partial, Reciprocal partial. A review of 42 large-scale transformations found that methods designed for small, single teams meet distinctive challenges when teams must synchronize their activities and interface with other units, and almost 90 percent of its sources were experience reports. Sources: Dikert and colleagues 2016.Knowledge intensity and professionalization. Agile at scale grew up in software and product development, but no work read ties it to outside professional training; the training its reviews stress is training in the agile methods themselves. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Dikert and colleagues 2016.Global integration pressure. Agile programs have run across sites on several continents, but no work read sets agile at scale against integration pressure across countries. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Paasivaara and colleagues 2018.Local responsiveness pressure. No work read ties agile at scale to local responsiveness across countries, so this factor gives no reason for or against. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Rigby and colleagues 2016.

Counting the one contested cell, interdependence, by its first view, the 36 settings read Fits at 10 and Partial at 26, with no strain. All twelve cells rest on judgment.

Source: Dikert and colleagues 2016, a systematic review of 52 publications on 42 industrial cases, almost all of them practitioners' experience reports; Moe and colleagues 2021, a study of two organizations; Hannan and Freeman 1984; Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Galbraith 1973; Burton and Obel 2004; Pennings 1975, a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model; Paasivaara and colleagues 2018, one case study; Rigby and colleagues 2018, a practitioner's report; Rigby and colleagues 2016; Hickson and colleagues 1969, a multi-organization comparative survey; Mohr 1971, a quantitative field study of technology and structure; Thompson 1967.

Your own situation against agile at scale

Set any factor to outline its cell in the strip above; the lines under the switches give the counts, the form's place among the 41, and the misfit rules that fire.

Size

Age

Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism)

Environmental complexity

Munificence and hostility

Diversity of products and markets

Strategy type

Technology and routineness

Interdependence

Knowledge intensity and professionalization

Global integration pressure

Local responsiveness pressure

Set: 0 of 12 factors. Fits on 0, Partial on 0, Strain on 0, Contested on 0.

Its place in the explorer's rankingEvery factor is on Any: all 41 forms tie, and the explorer lists them alphabetically.1st of 411st of 41, tied with one other1st of 41, tied with 0 othersSunk by a misfit rule: 1st of 41Sunk by a misfit rule: 1st of 41, tied with one otherSunk by a misfit rule: 1st of 41, tied with 0 others

Flagged (its sources disagree): A prospector bound by heavy rules. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Sine and colleagues 2006; Adler and Borys 1996.
Flagged (its sources disagree): A defender with authority spread wide. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
Flagged (it meets the form only through part of its profile): An analyzer with authority spread wide. Source: Burton and Obel 2004.
Flagged (its sources disagree): A small organization with a large one's rules. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Sine and colleagues 2006.
Flagged (its sources disagree): Nonroutine work bound by procedures. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Adler and colleagues 1999; Adler and Borys 1996; against it, Hickson and colleagues 1969; Child and Mansfield 1972.
Flagged (its sources disagree): Heavy rules in an unpredictable environment. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Sine and colleagues 2006; Bigley and Roberts 2001; Adler and Borys 1996.
Flagged (its sources disagree): Reactor: a defender's structure kept after the environment changed. Disputed: Miles and Snow 1978; Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Sine and colleagues 2006; Bigley and Roberts 2001; Adler and Borys 1996.
Flagged (it meets the form only through part of its profile): Reciprocal work coordinated by standards. Source: Thompson 1967; Van de Ven and colleagues 1976.

Ranking rule: by count of Fits on the factors the reader has set, then fewest Strains, then alphabetical; a fired misfit rule that no source disputes sinks the form to the bottom when every level of the form's profile meets it, a disputed one, or one that meets the form only through one end of a spanned level, one view of a contested profile cell, or one part of a two-part form, is flagged on the row (with both views where it is disputed), and a misfit between two of the reader's own settings is shown once above the list; a contested cell counts only where its views agree at the reader's level, and otherwise shows as Contested; factors on "Any" count for nothing; with every factor on "Any" the list is alphabetical and says so.

Open these settings in the explorer

The misfit rules that can fire for this form

A prospector bound by heavy rules fires when Strategy type at Prospector (exploration): flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Sine and colleagues 2006; Adler and Borys 1996.
A defender with authority spread wide fires when Strategy type at Defender (exploitation): flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
An analyzer with authority spread wide fires when Strategy type at Analyzer (exploitation and exploration): flagged (it meets the form only through part of its profile). Source: Burton and Obel 2004.
A small organization with a large one's rules fires when Size at Small: flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Sine and colleagues 2006.
Nonroutine work bound by procedures fires when Technology and routineness at Nonroutine: flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Adler and colleagues 1999; Adler and Borys 1996; against it, Hickson and colleagues 1969; Child and Mansfield 1972.
Heavy rules in an unpredictable environment fires when Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism) at Unpredictable: flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Sine and colleagues 2006; Bigley and Roberts 2001; Adler and Borys 1996.
Reactor: a defender's structure kept after the environment changed fires when Strategy type at Defender (exploitation) and Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism) at Unpredictable: flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Miles and Snow 1978; Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Sine and colleagues 2006; Bigley and Roberts 2001; Adler and Borys 1996.
Reciprocal work coordinated by standards fires when Interdependence at Reciprocal: flagged (it meets the form only through part of its profile). Source: Thompson 1967; Van de Ven and colleagues 1976.

Eight of the 39 contingency misfit rules can fire for this form, each meeting only one end of a span, so none would sink it. Five concern heavy rules at the high end of its formalization, two concern authority spread wide at the decentralized end of its centralization, and one, reciprocal work coordinated by standards, meets the standardization end of its coordinating mechanism.

Source: Burton and Obel 2004; Burton and colleagues 2020a.

Size. Partial small, fits medium and large: scaling frameworks exist to coordinate many teams on one product, which a small organization does without; large transformations meet many reported challenges (Dikert and colleagues).
Age. Fits young and established, partial old: older organizations bring entrenched functions and resistance to change, among the review's challenges. Premise: Hannan and Freeman (1984, a theoretical argument) on inertia.
Environmental uncertainty. Partial stable, fits shifting and unpredictable: short cycles pay when requirements keep changing and are overhead when they are stable. Premises: Takeuchi and Nonaka; Galbraith (1973) on uncertainty as information to process; Burton and Obel, for whom a flexible structure fits turbulence and a nonflexible one is a misfit. Limit: Pennings (1975, a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model) found environment and structure fit failing to explain effectiveness.
Strategy. Partial defender and analyzer, fits prospector, our judgment on Takeuchi and Nonaka and on Rigby and colleagues (2016): product owners who reset priorities each cycle serve a continual search for new products. Burton and Obel's prospector does not support the fit: they prescribe it low formalization and centralization, and this form's formalization runs medium to high, so their disputed heavy-rules prospector rule flags the high end.
Technology. Partial routine and mixed, fits nonroutine, since the method comes from new product development (our mapping). Limits: Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey (1969, a multi-organization comparative survey) found the technological imperative generally unsupported, and Mohr (1971, a quantitative field study of technology and structure) found effectiveness not resting on matching technology and structure.
Diversity. Fits a single or dominant business, partial related and unrelated: its units are built around one business's products, and nothing read, including Rigby, Sutherland, and Noble (2018, a practitioner's report), shows them spanning unrelated businesses.
Interdependence. Contested at reciprocal, where the ranking counts nothing. One view, partial pooled and sequential, fits reciprocal: the cadence is built to synchronize teams whose work must be integrated each cycle. It is our judgment, not theory: Takeuchi and Nonaka wrote about one team, and Thompson (1967) contains reciprocal interdependence in local units first, then liaison positions, then committees, task forces, or project teams. The other view, partial throughout: methods made for single teams meet distinctive challenges when teams must synchronize and interface with other units (Dikert and colleagues).
Complexity, munificence, knowledge intensity, global integration, and local responsiveness. Partial throughout; no work read ties the form to them.

What it does well

Its promise is the practitioners' claim; no study read measures it against another form.

By design, it gives many teams one rhythm, so work that must be integrated meets at known points. Its coordination can adapt: in a 12-team program, Dingsøyr, Moe, and Seim (2018, one case study) found coordination modes based on feedback and coordination practices changing over time.

It puts a piece of work's specialties inside one team, so overlapping phases replace handoffs (Takeuchi and Nonaka).

It splits decisions by kind. In one of Moe and colleagues' cases, a community without managers kept alignment bottom up, one way, the authors suggest, to balance control and autonomy.

What it costs

It costs training and management attention: among the review's most salient success factors are management support and training and coaching (Dikert and colleagues).

Some autonomy is given back to alignment (Moe and colleagues).

Annosi, Foss, and Martini (2020), one multi-site case study, identify six potential pitfalls of agile practices at scale that may harm individual learning, ideation, and exploitation capabilities.

How it fails

Case studies and one review of experience reports are the evidence.

How agile at scale fails, and the coordination failures behind it

The entry's failure modes at the left, each tied to the Coordination Failures patterns it names at the right; a pattern links its entry there.

Coordination overhead overrun Local optimization against the global constraint Jurisdictional gap or overlap Grounding failure

How many ties the failure has. Highest: Synchronizing the teams becomes the workThe rest of the business runs on another clockAlignment takes back the teams' authorityThe teams lose a common directionCoordination overhead overrunLocal optimization against the global constraintJurisdictional gap or overlapGrounding failure

Select a failure to read its place in the network.Synchronizing the teams becomes the work. Degree 1The rest of the business runs on another clock. Degree 1Alignment takes back the teams' authority. Degree 1The teams lose a common direction. Degree 1Coordination overhead overrun. Degree 1Local optimization against the global constraint. Degree 1Jurisdictional gap or overlap. Degree 1Grounding failure. Degree 1

Failure	Degree
Synchronizing the teams becomes the work	1
The rest of the business runs on another clock	1
Alignment takes back the teams' authority	1
The teams lose a common direction	1
Coordination overhead overrun	1
Local optimization against the global constraint	1
Jurisdictional gap or overlap	1
Grounding failure	1

Four failure modes name four different patterns, from coordination overhead overrun, when synchronizing the teams becomes the work, to grounding failure, when they lose a common direction. The evidence is case studies and one review of experience reports, and each link to a pattern is our reading.

Source: Dikert and colleagues 2016, a systematic review of 52 publications on 42 industrial cases, almost all of them practitioners' experience reports; Berntzen and colleagues 2023, one case study; Moe and colleagues 2021, a study of two organizations; Paasivaara and colleagues 2018, one case study.

Synchronizing the teams becomes the work. Dikert and colleagues report unique challenges when teams must synchronize, and one firm used 27 inter-team mechanisms (Berntzen and colleagues). Neither measures cost; our reading is that the load outgrows what teams add, coordination overhead overrun.

The rest of the business runs on another clock. Integrating other functions is among the review's 35 challenges. On our reading, teams speed up while work waits in functions outside them, local optimization against the global constraint.

Alignment takes back the teams' authority. Moe and colleagues found centralized decisions and mandatory processes limiting team autonomy, not authority unowned or owned twice; that a decision can fall to both team and center, a jurisdictional gap or overlap, is our reading.

The teams lose a common direction. Without a common framework, training, and coaching, an organization can lack common direction (Paasivaara and colleagues 2018, one case study). In our reading, teams then assume a shared picture they lack, a grounding failure.

The misfit rules are Burton and Obel's propositions, tested only as a set in an earlier version (Burton, Lauridsen, and Obel 2002, a quantitative study of 224 Danish small and medium-sized firms), or our judgment. Two limits: seven of the eight rules below are single pairings, the interaction form of fit, unsupported in Drazin and Van de Ven (1985), a quantitative study of 629 work units in two states' employment security agencies; and Volberda and colleagues (2012), a survey of 3,259 respondents in 1,904 companies, found that contingency fit and institutional fit jointly explained performance, firms high in contingency fit were less vulnerable to deviation from institutional fit, firms in quasi fit gained from improving either, and firms in perfect institutional fit lost slightly striving for contingency fit, so a firing rule does not show a move would help a firm its field already treats as legitimate.

No rule names this form or meets all its profile's levels, so none sinks it; each of the eight meets one of two and is flagged. The two undisputed are Burton and Obel's against authority spread wide in an analyzer, met only at its centralization span's decentralized end and stated only for the analyzer that does not innovate, though the fit table has one analyzer level; and, our judgment, reciprocal work coordinated mainly by standard procedures, which Thompson pairs with pooled work, met only by its standardization, not mutual adjustment. The nearest test of that premise (Van de Ven, Delbecq, and Koenig 1976, a quantitative study of 197 work units in one agency) largely supported Thompson and found modes added as a mix. It fires where one interdependence view says fits.

Six are disputed. Against authority spread wide in a defender, Mintzberg (1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test) places the extensively decentralized professional bureaucracy in complex but stable environments, a defender's in our reading; Doty, Glick, and Huber (1993, a quantitative test across a sample of organizations) found his types not predicting effectiveness and Miles and Snow's (1978) predicting it. Five concern heavy rules: in a prospector, a small organization, nonroutine work, or an unpredictable environment, and, our judgment, in a defender facing one, resembling Miles and Snow's third route to the reactor. Against them: formalized founding teams outperforming (Sine, Mitsuhashi, and Kirsch 2006, a quantitative study of new ventures in one sector), though in Lee (2022), a quantitative study of many start-ups in one industry, flatter hierarchy helped creative success and hurt execution; enabling formalization (Adler and Borys 1996, a conceptual argument); a flexible incident command system (Bigley and Roberts 2001, one inductive case study); and, on nonroutine work, NUMMI (Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine 1999, one case study of a single plant) and the Aston reappraisal (Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey; Child and Mansfield 1972, a multi-firm comparative study). Limits: Schoonhoven (1981, a quantitative study of hospital operating room suites) found traditional contingency hypotheses unsupported, though more precise ones did better, and Glisson (1978, a path analysis of 30 human service organizations) found structure shaping routinization. Donaldson (2001, a book) lays the failures of Pennings and Mohr to methodological limits and reports later studies of the job unpredictability Mohr studied finding positive evidence for contingency theory.

What the research found

Dikert and colleagues' 35 challenges and 29 success factors are reported, not tested. Uludağ and colleagues (2022), a mapping study of 136 studies, map what has been studied, not what works; Edison, Wang, and Conboy (2022), a systematic review of published studies of five methods, found no earlier empirical comparison of methods.

Bremer, Rylander Eklund, and Elmquist (2025), one case study with a normative proposal, in a Swedish software company, is the most recent study filed under this form, and the only article on agile at scale the form's 2010 to 2026 search found in eight major management journals. They argue against scaling agile and for growing it from the original Agile Manifesto, in our reading a dissent from Leffingwell's and Larman and Vodde's frameworks. No replication failure is recorded. The same search found Mahringer and Danner-Schröder (2025, one ethnographic case study), filed under the team-based form because its abstract speaks of neither agile at scale nor a scaling framework: agile software teams meant to work autonomously shared resources, creating interdependencies that challenged their autonomy.

The form is read by four schools, and no study read tests them on it. Institutional theory holds that structures are adopted for legitimacy, decoupled from the work, and spread until fields grow alike (Meyer and Rowan 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983, both theory); Kraatz and Zajac (1996, a longitudinal study of 631 private liberal arts colleges) found little support, for curricular, not structural, change. Scandinavian institutionalism questions the determinism of field forces: ideas are translated as they travel, so imitation produces variety, though from a translocal view the same processes can be read as isomorphism (Czarniawska and Joerges 1995, a discussion paper).

In the new-forms debate, a form is new when it solves the universal problems of organizing in new ways (Puranam, Alexy, and Reitzig 2014); Martela (2019) holds the self-managing organization novel, and Foss and Dobrajska (2015) that Valve does not challenge fundamental design theory, all three conceptual arguments. Skeptics hold that hierarchy reappears: companies need authority to coordinate work, creative work included (Foss and Klein 2022, a book); no group is structureless (Freeman 1972, an essay; Diefenbach and Sillince 2011, a conceptual analysis); and concertive control in self-managing teams controlled workers more completely than the bureaucracy it replaced (Barker 1993, one ethnographic case study). Greer and colleagues (2018, a meta-analysis of 54 studies) found that hierarchy within teams slightly lowers performance and viability, which they read as largely supporting dysfunctional views on hierarchy; setting Foss and Klein's firm-level argument beside it is our reading.

The modularity school holds that structure tends to mirror the architecture of what is made; Conway's law, its software version, has organizations design systems that copy their communication structure (Conway 1968, an essay). Colfer and Baldwin (2016), a review of 142 empirical studies, found mirroring prevalent but not universal, partial mirroring likely superior in technologically dynamic industries, and no support in open collaborative projects. Direct tests point both ways. For: MacCormack, Baldwin, and Rusnak (2012), a matched comparison of five pairs of software products, found the loosely coupled organization's product the more modular in every pair. Against: Sosa, Eppinger, and Rowles (2004, ungraded here), in one aircraft engine program, found design interfaces no team interaction addressed and team interactions no interface predicted; Furlan, Cabigiosu, and Camuffo (2014, a study of supply relationships in one industry) found the mirror breaking for technologically dynamic components. Against information processing, the school puts the coordination load in the product's architecture, whose standardized interfaces embed coordination (Sanchez and Mahoney 1996, ungraded here).

The evidence ledger holds 10 studies filed under this form.

In practice: one published case

Ericsson, as Paasivaara, Behm, Lassenius, and Hallikainen (2018) name it, is one case study: they studied a large-scale agile transformation there, in an R&D program developing an XaaS platform and related services, through 45 semi-structured interviews at four sites and five observation sessions at three. The account here is taken from the study's abstract.

Ericsson introduced agile in the new program while scaling the program up aggressively. The R&D organization was distributed over five sites on two continents, and its goal was continuous feature delivery.

The organization experimented with different setups for its tens of agile teams, from component-based virtual teams to fully cross-functional, cross-component, cross-site teams, and met challenges it worked to mitigate.

The authors' four lessons are to use an experimental approach to the transformation; to implement it step-wise in complex large-scale settings; to expect team interchangeability to be limited in a complex product, so that some specialization may be needed; and to recognize that not using a common agile framework, with too little common training and coaching, can leave the organization without a common direction.

Other published cases located name no organization; practitioner accounts of bank and telecom transformations were left out under the case rule.

Source: Paasivaara and colleagues 2018. Large-scale agile transformation at Ericsson: a case study, Empirical Software Engineering 23(5), 2550 to 2596; one case study.

Variants and near relatives

SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) is a practitioner framework of agile release trains, in its own pages' words long-lived teams of agile teams, aligned by cadence through planning intervals, each opening with PI Planning; the train comes from Leffingwell (2007).

LeSS (Large-Scale Scrum) is Larman and Vodde's (2016) practitioner framework, in two sizes sharing one product owner, one product backlog, and one common sprint across all teams: LeSS for two to eight teams, and LeSS Huge for more than eight, divided into requirement areas, each with an area product owner.

The Team-based organization, the nearest neighbor, designs the whole organization, management included, as a system of teams joined by integrating teams and management teams, where agile at scale coordinates many teams by a shared, fixed cadence of planning and review cycles. Team Topologies (Skelton and Pais 2019), a practitioner framework under the team-based form, links four team types by three interaction modes, not a cadence.

Relatives: Team of teams shares information with every team at once; the Adhocracy forms and dissolves teams around problems, with no stable line above; the Self-managing organization removes the manager-subordinate relationship this form keeps; the dual operating system (Kotter 2012, a practitioner article), under the Ambidextrous organization, runs a networklike system beside the hierarchy; and in the Hypertext organization a member belongs to one layer at a time.

Agile at scale beside its nearest neighbor, the team-based organization

Select a number to fill what it marks in both drawings; the list under them gives the dimensions on which the two profiles differ.

It coordinates many teams by a shared, fixed cadence of planning and review cycles, where the team-based form coordinates by integrating teams and management teams.

Agile at scale

Reports toAdjust to each other directlyMMutual adjustmentWStandardization of work processes

Team-based organization

Reports toAdjust to each other directlyMMutual adjustment

Every team in the product group works to one shared cadence of planning and review, where the team-based form joins its work teams across units through an integrating team.
In Moe and colleagues' two organizations, teams were partly self-managing, aligned top down by centralized decisions and supervisory roles, though one aligned bottom up; team-based design moves many decisions into teams.

Differs on 7 of 11 dimensions

Specialization Medium; Team-based organization: Low to medium
Standardization and formalization Medium to high; Team-based organization: Medium
Centralization Mixed to decentralized; Team-based organization: Decentralized
Layers and span of control Moderate; Team-based organization: Flat to moderate
Prime coordinating mechanism Mutual adjustment and standardization of work processes; Team-based organization: Mutual adjustment
Lateral mechanisms Direct contact and liaison roles to task forces and teams; Team-based organization: Task forces and teams
Mode of exchange and control Bureaucracy; Team-based organization: Bureaucracy and clan

Each builds the work out of teams grouped around a product and keeps managers above them. Agile at scale holds its teams together by a shared cadence of planning and review, whereas the team-based form joins them through integrating teams and management teams.

Source: Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986; Rigby and colleagues 2016; Larman and Vodde 2016; Moe and colleagues 2021, a study of two organizations; Mohrman and colleagues 1995.

Moving into or out of it

No study read measures the cost of moving in or out or describes an organization leaving; the sequence is reported, not tested.

Into it, challenges include difficult implementation, integrating other functions, and resistance to change (Dikert and colleagues). Paasivaara and colleagues advise transforming experimentally and step-wise; Rigby, Sutherland, and Noble, in an account with no stated method or data, that leaders use agile themselves and take small steps. Hannan and Freeman's theory has attempts at reorganization raising death rates; Amburgey, Kelly, and Barnett (1993, a quantitative study of organizational change and failure rates) found the effects varying by type.

On how to run the reorganization, see Change & Transformation.

The thinking behind it

Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi: the rugby approach to product development (1986).
Dean Leffingwell: scaling software agility (2007), behind SAFe. Craig Larman and Bas Vodde: large-scale Scrum (2008) and LeSS (2016).
Kim Dikert, Maria Paasivaara, and Casper Lassenius: challenges and success factors of large-scale transformations (2016), behind most cells.
James D. Thompson: interdependence (1967), behind that cell. Richard M. Burton and Børge Obel: multi-contingency fit (2004), behind the rules.

Also called

Scaled agile. The sources also say large-scale agile (Dikert and colleagues), organization-level agile (Bremer and colleagues), and large-scale Scrum (Larman and Vodde). Burton, Obel, and Håkonsson (2020) list the agile organization among new properties of organizations, which any design can have, not a form.

Works cited

Adler and Borys 1996. Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive, Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1), from p. 61; a conceptual argument with no new test.
Adler and colleagues 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system, Organization Science 10(1), 43 to 68; one case study of a single plant.
Ahrne and Brunsson 2008. Meta-organizations, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Amburgey and colleagues 1993. Resetting the clock: the dynamics of organizational change and failure, Administrative Science Quarterly 38(1), from p. 51; a quantitative study of organizational change and failure rates.
Annosi and colleagues 2020. When agile harms learning and innovation: (and what can be done about it), California Management Review 63(1), 61 to 80; one multi-site case study.
Aoki 1986. Horizontal vs. vertical information structure of the firm, American Economic Review 76(5), 971 to 983; a formal economic model.
Armour and Teece 1978. Organizational structure and economic performance: a test of the multidivisional hypothesis, Bell Journal of Economics 9(1), 106 to 122; a multi-firm statistical study in one industry.
Ashkenas and colleagues 1995. The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Barker 1993. Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams, Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3), 408 to 437; one ethnographic case study.
Beck and colleagues 2001. Manifesto for Agile Software Development, agilemanifesto.org.
Berntzen and colleagues 2023. A taxonomy of inter-team coordination mechanisms in large-scale agile, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49(2), 699 to 718; one case study.
Bigley and Roberts 2001. The incident command system: high-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments, Academy of Management Journal 44(6), 1281 to 1299; one inductive case study.
Brandstätter and Graf-Vlachy 2026. Strategic leadership and organizational design: a review and research agenda, Journal of Organization Design 15(3), 165 to 210.
Braverman 1974. Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth century, Monthly Review Press, New York; the linked publisher's page is the 1998 twenty-fifth anniversary edition.
Bremer and colleagues 2025. Scaling or growing agile? Proposing a manifesto for agile organization development, Journal of Organization Design 14(1), 23 to 34; one case study with a normative proposal.
Burdín 2014. Are worker-managed firms more likely to fail than conventional enterprises? Evidence from Uruguay, ILR Review 67(1), 202 to 238; a survival study of many firms in one country.
Burns and Stalker 1961. The Management of Innovation, Tavistock Publications, London (first edition 1961); the DOI is for the Oxford University Press revised edition of 1994; a field study of twenty firms.
Burton and colleagues 2002. Return on assets loss from situational and contingency misfits, Management Science 48(11), 1461 to 1485; a quantitative study of 224 Danish small and medium-sized firms.
Burton and colleagues 2020a. Organizational design: a step-by-step approach (fourth edition), Cambridge University Press.
Burton and Obel 2004. Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: the dynamics of fit, Kluwer Academic Publishers (third edition).
Carey 1967. The Hawthorne studies: a radical criticism, American Sociological Review 32(3), 403 to 416.
Carney and colleagues 2011. Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: a meta-analysis, Academy of Management Journal 54(3), 437 to 460; a meta-analysis of 141 studies in 28 countries.
Carroll and Hannan 2000. The demography of corporations and industries, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Chandler 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (xiv and 463 pages); several independent case histories by a historian.
Child 1972a. Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice, Sociology 6(1), 1 to 22.
Child and Mansfield 1972. Technology, size, and organization structure, Sociology 6(3), 369 to 393; a multi-firm comparative study.
Coase 1937. The nature of the firm, Economica 4(16), 386 to 405 (November 1937).
Colfer and Baldwin 2016. The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions, Industrial and Corporate Change 25(5), 709 to 738; a review of 142 empirical studies.
Conway 1968. How do committees invent?, Datamation 14(4) (April 1968).
Crozier 1963. Le phénomène bureaucratique: essai sur les tendances bureaucratiques des systèmes d'organisation modernes et sur leurs relations en France avec le système social et culturel, Éditions du Seuil, Paris, 414 pages; English translation The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, University of Chicago Press and Tavistock, 1964 (Crozier 1964).
Crozier 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, University of Chicago Press, Chicago; Tavistock, London; two case studies by a scholar.
Crozier and Friedberg 1977. L'acteur et le système: les contraintes de l'action collective, Éditions du Seuil, Paris (Sociologie politique series); English translation Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action, University of Chicago Press, 1980 (Crozier and Friedberg 1980).
Crozier and Friedberg 1980. Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London; translated by Arthur Goldhammer from L'acteur et le système (Seuil, 1977; Crozier and Friedberg 1977).
Csaszar 2012. Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: evidence from mutual funds, Strategic Management Journal 33(6), 611 to 632; a large-sample quantitative study of 609 mutual funds.
Cyert and March 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Czarniawska and Joerges 1995. Travels of ideas: organizational change as translation, Discussion paper FS II 95-501, Forschungsschwerpunkt Technik, Arbeit, Umwelt, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin (40 pages; a substantially revised version of the authors' essay 'Winds of organizational change' in Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1994).
Daft and Lengel 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design, Management Science 32(5), 554 to 571.
Delbridge 1995. Surviving JIT: control and resistance in a Japanese transplant, Journal of Management Studies 32(6), 803 to 817; a participant-observation study of one plant.
Diefenbach and Sillince 2011. Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization, Organization Studies 32(11), 1515 to 1537; a conceptual analysis.
Dikert and colleagues 2016. Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: a systematic literature review, Journal of Systems and Software 119, 87 to 108; a systematic review of 52 publications on 42 industrial cases, almost all of them practitioners' experience reports.
DiMaggio and Powell 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review 48(2), from p. 147.
Dingsøyr and colleagues 2018. Coordinating knowledge work in multiteam programs: findings from a large-scale agile development program, Project Management Journal 49(6), 64 to 77; one case study.
Donaldson 2001. The contingency theory of organizations, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA (Foundations for Organizational Science).
Doty and colleagues 1993. Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories, Academy of Management Journal 36(6), 1196 to 1250; a quantitative test across a sample of organizations.
Drazin and Van de Ven 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory, Administrative Science Quarterly 30(4), from p. 514; a quantitative study of 629 work units in two states' employment security agencies.
Drees and Heugens 2013. Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: a meta-analysis, Journal of Management 39(6), 1666 to 1698; a meta-analysis of 157 tests.
Edison and colleagues 2022. Comparing methods for large-scale agile software development: a systematic literature review, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48(8), 2709 to 2731; a systematic review of published studies of five methods.
Edwards 1979. Contested terrain: the transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century, Basic Books.
Egelhoff 1988. Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: a revision of the Stopford and Wells model, Strategic Management Journal 9(1), 1 to 14; a multi-firm study of multinationals.
Emery and Thorsrud 1969. Form and Content in Industrial Democracy: Some Experiences from Norway and Other European Countries, Tavistock Publications, London; reissued by Routledge.
Fakhfakh and colleagues 2012. Productivity, capital, and labor in labor-managed and conventional firms: an investigation on French data, ILR Review 65(4), 847 to 879; a study of large representative samples of French firms.
Fayol 1949. General and Industrial Management, Translated by Constance Storrs, with a foreword by L. Urwick. Pitman, London.
Foss 2003. Selective intervention and internal hybrids: interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon spaghetti organization, Organization Science 14(3), 331 to 349; one case study.
Foss and Dobrajska 2015. Valve's way: wayward, visionary, or voguish?, Journal of Organization Design 4(2), 12 to 15; a conceptual argument.
Foss and Klein 2022. Why Managers Matter: The Perils of the Bossless Company, PublicAffairs, New York (320 pages).
Freeman 1972. The tyranny of structurelessness, Berkeley Journal of Sociology 17 (1972 to 1973), 151 to 165.
Fruin 1994. The Japanese Enterprise System: Competitive Strategies and Cooperative Structures, Clarendon Press, Oxford; first published 1992 (ISBN 0198283180, LCCN 91033285); the DOI is the 1994 edition (ISBN 0198288980), in Oxford Scholarship Online from 2003; a historical study of Japan's 200 leading industrial firms by one scholar.
Furlan and colleagues 2014. When the mirror gets misted up: modularity and technological change, Strategic Management Journal 35(6), 789 to 807; a study of supply relationships in one industry.
Galbraith 1973. Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Galbraith 1974. Organization design: an information processing view, Interfaces 4(3), 28 to 36.
Glisson 1978. Dependence of Technological Routinization on Structural Variables in Human Service Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly 23(3), from p. 383; a path analysis of 30 human service organizations.
Granovetter 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology 91(3), 481 to 510.
Greer and colleagues 2018. Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: a meta-analytic integration, Journal of Applied Psychology 103(6), 591 to 613; a meta-analysis of 54 studies.
Gustavsen 1992. Dialogue and Development: Theory of Communication, Action Research and the Restructuring of Working Life, Van Gorcum, Assen; Swedish Center for Working Life, Stockholm (viii and 127 pages).
Hamilton and Biggart 1988. Market, culture, and authority: a comparative analysis of management and organization in the Far East, American Journal of Sociology 94 (supplement), S52 to S94; a comparison of three economies by scholars.
Hannan and Freeman 1977. The population ecology of organizations, American Journal of Sociology 82(5), 929 to 964.
Hannan and Freeman 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change, American Sociological Review 49(2), 149 to 164.
Hickson and colleagues 1969. Operations technology and organization structure: an empirical reappraisal, Administrative Science Quarterly 14(3), from p. 378; a multi-organization comparative survey.
Ichniowski and colleagues 1997. The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing lines, American Economic Review 87(3), 291 to 313; a quantitative study of 36 steel finishing lines in 17 companies.
Jäger and colleagues 2021. Labor in the boardroom, Quarterly Journal of Economics 136(2), 669 to 725; a natural experiment across many German firms.
Jensen and Meckling 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3(4), 305 to 360.
Jirjahn 2011. Ökonomische Wirkungen der Mitbestimmung in Deutschland: ein Update, Schmollers Jahrbuch 131(1), 3 to 57 (in German); a review of many independent econometric studies.
Kellogg and colleagues 2020. Algorithms at work: the new contested terrain of control, Academy of Management Annals 14(1), 366 to 410; a review of earlier research through one theoretical lens, with no new data.
Ketchen and colleagues 1997. Organizational configurations and performance: a meta-analysis, Academy of Management Journal 40(1), 223 to 240; a meta-analysis of 40 tests.
Keum and See 2017. The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and selection in the innovation process, Organization Science 28(4), 653 to 669; a field study combined with an experiment.
Khanna and Palepu 2000a. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups, The Journal of Finance 55(2), 867 to 891; a statistical study of many firms in one country.
Kotter 2012. Accelerate!, Harvard Business Review (November 2012).
Kraatz and Zajac 1996. Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: the causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change, American Sociological Review 61(5), 812 to 836; a longitudinal study of 631 private liberal arts colleges.
Larman and Vodde 2008. Scaling Lean and Agile Development: Thinking and Organizational Tools for Large-Scale Scrum, Addison-Wesley (copyright 2009).
Larman and Vodde 2016. Large-Scale Scrum: More with LeSS, Addison-Wesley, Boston.
Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston (xv and 279 pages); a multi-firm comparative field study.
Lee 2022. The myth of the flat start-up: reconsidering the organizational structure of start-ups, Strategic Management Journal 43(1), 58 to 92; a quantitative study of many start-ups in one industry.
Leffingwell 2007. Scaling Software Agility: Best Practices for Large Enterprises, Addison-Wesley (Agile Software Development Series).
Levinthal 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes, Management Science 43(7), 934 to 950.
Levitt and List 2011. Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3(1), 224 to 238; a reanalysis of one plant's original experimental data.
Lincoln and colleagues 1986. Organizational structures in Japanese and U.S. manufacturing, Administrative Science Quarterly 31(3), 338 to 364; a survey of about a hundred plants in two countries.
MacCormack and colleagues 2012. Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: a test of the "mirroring" hypothesis, Research Policy 41(8), 1309 to 1324; a matched comparison of five pairs of software products.
Mahringer and Danner-Schröder 2025. Autonomous, yet interdependent: designing interfaces across routine clusters, Academy of Management Journal 68(6), 1300 to 1327; one ethnographic case study.
March and Simon 1958. Organizations, Wiley, New York (262 pages; with the collaboration of Harold Guetzkow); second edition, Blackwell, 1993.
Martela 2019. What makes self-managing organizations novel? Comparing how Weberian bureaucracy, Mintzberg's adhocracy, and self-organizing solve six fundamental problems of organizing, Journal of Organization Design 8(1), article 23; a conceptual argument.
Maurice and colleagues 1980. Societal differences in organizing manufacturing units: a comparison of France, West Germany, and Great Britain, Organization Studies 1(1), 59 to 86; a comparison of matched factories in three countries.
Mayo 1933. The human problems of an industrial civilization, Macmillan; reissued by Routledge, 2004.
Merton 1940. Bureaucratic structure and personality, Social Forces 18(4), 560 to 568; a conceptual essay with no test.
Meyer and Rowan 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology 83(2), 340 to 363.
Miles and Snow 1978. Organizational strategy, structure, and process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978; reissued by Stanford University Press, 2003 (Stanford Business Classics).
Mintzberg 1979. The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mintzberg 1980. Structure in 5's: a synthesis of the research on organization design, Management Science 26(3), 322 to 341; a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test.
Moe and colleagues 2021. Finding the sweet spot for organizational control and team autonomy in large-scale agile software development, Empirical Software Engineering 26(5); a study of two organizations.
Mohr 1971. Organizational Technology and Organizational Structure, Administrative Science Quarterly 16(4), 444-459; a quantitative field study of technology and structure.
Mohrman and colleagues 1995. Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, xxvii and 389 pages.
Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York; case studies of several Japanese firms by the theory's authors.
Ouchi 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans, Administrative Science Quarterly 25(1), 129 to 141; a conceptual article.
Paasivaara and colleagues 2018. Large-scale agile transformation at Ericsson: a case study, Empirical Software Engineering 23(5), 2550 to 2596; one case study.
Palmer and colleagues 1993. Late adoption of the multidivisional form by large U.S. corporations: institutional, political, and economic accounts, Administrative Science Quarterly 38(1), 100 to 131; a multi-firm statistical study of adoption.
Pennings 1975. The relevance of the structural-contingency model for organizational effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly 20(3), from p. 393 (September 1975); a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model.
Pfeffer and Salancik 1978. The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective, Harper and Row; reissued by Stanford University Press, 2003.
Podolny and Page 1998. Network forms of organization, Annual Review of Sociology 24, 57 to 76.
Powell 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization, Research in Organizational Behavior 12, 295 to 336 (JAI Press).
Puranam 2021. Human-AI collaborative decision-making as an organization design problem, Journal of Organization Design 10(2), 75 to 80.
Puranam and colleagues 2014. What's "new" about new forms of organizing?, Academy of Management Review 39(2), 162 to 180; a conceptual argument.
Reitzig and Maciejovsky 2015. Corporate hierarchy and vertical information flow inside the firm: a behavioral view, Strategic Management Journal 36(13), 1979 to 1999; a field study combined with experiments.
Rigby and colleagues 2016. Embracing agile, Harvard Business Review (May 2016).
Rigby and colleagues 2018. Agile at scale, Harvard Business Review (May 2018); a practitioner's report.
Rumelt 1974. Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Division of Research, Harvard Business School, Boston; a multi-firm study of large corporations.
Sanchez and Mahoney 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design, Strategic Management Journal 17 (winter special issue), 63 to 76.
Schoonhoven 1981. Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency 'theory', Administrative Science Quarterly 26(3), 349 to 377; a quantitative study of hospital operating room suites.
Simon 1946. The proverbs of administration, Public Administration Review 6(1), from page 53.
Simon 1962. The architecture of complexity, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106(6), 467 to 482 (12 December 1962).
Sine and colleagues 2006. Revisiting Burns and Stalker: formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors, Academy of Management Journal 49(1), 121 to 132; a quantitative study of new ventures in one sector.
Skelton and Pais 2019. Team Topologies: Organizing Business and Technology Teams for Fast Flow, IT Revolution Press (first edition September 2019, 240 pages, ISBN 9781942788812; second edition 2025).
Sosa and colleagues 2004. The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development, Management Science 50(12), 1674 to 1689.
Stewart 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance, Journal of Management 32(1), 29 to 55; a meta-analysis of 93 studies.
Streeck 1984a. Industrial Relations in West Germany: A Case Study of the Car Industry, Heinemann, London; St. Martin's Press, New York (178 pages).
Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986. The new new product development game, Harvard Business Review (January 1986).
Thompson 1967. Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory, McGraw-Hill; reissued by Routledge, 2017.
Tolbert and Zucker 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880 to 1935, Administrative Science Quarterly 28(1), from p. 22.
Trist and Bamforth 1951. Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting, Human Relations 4(1), 3 to 38; an interview-based field study in one industry.
Tushman and Nadler 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design, Academy of Management Review 3(3), from p. 613.
Uludağ and colleagues 2022. Revealing the state of the art of large-scale agile development research: a systematic mapping study, Journal of Systems and Software 194, article 111473; a mapping study of 136 studies.
Van de Ven and colleagues 1976. Determinants of coordination modes within organizations, American Sociological Review 41(2), from p. 322; a quantitative study of 197 work units in one agency.
Volberda and colleagues 2012. Contingency Fit, Institutional Fit, and Firm Performance: A Metafit Approach to Organization-Environment Relationships, Organization Science 23(4), 1040-1054; a survey of 3,259 respondents in 1,904 companies.
Wagner 1994. Participation's effects on performance and satisfaction: a reconsideration of research evidence, Academy of Management Review 19(2), 312 to 330; a meta-analytic reanalysis that compares eleven reviews.
Wagner 2021. Dimensional research on organization structure: meta-analysis and conceptual redirection, Journal of Management & Organization 31(4), 1854 to 1871 (published online December 2021; issue of July 2025); a meta-analysis of 346 correlations from 155 published articles.
Ward 1958. The firm in Illyria: market syndicalism, American Economic Review 48(4) (1958); reprinted in David F. Heathfield (ed.), The Economics of Co-Determination, Palgrave Macmillan, 1977, 1 to 25.
Weber 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Whitley 1999. Divergent capitalisms: the social structuring and change of business systems, Oxford University Press.
Wood and colleagues 2019. Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy, Work, Employment and Society 33(1), 56 to 75; interviews in six countries and a survey of 679 workers.
Woodward 1965. Industrial organization: theory and practice, Oxford University Press, London and New York; a survey of a hundred manufacturing firms with case studies.
Yoshino 1968. Japan's Managerial System: Tradition and Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

On this page, “read” means read by this series: where a line says a work, or part of one, was not read, the series did not read it.