The corporate center and shared services

The headquarters itself is designed as a unit: which parenting roles it plays for the businesses, and which services it pools for all of them.

What it is

The corporate center is the headquarters of a multibusiness company, designed as a unit in its own right: its parenting roles, how far it plans for and controls the businesses, and which support services it pools. It sits over an M-form, a holding company, or a business group, and coordinates through planning and control systems and the standard definitions of pooled services.

It groups by function (Chandler 1991; Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research offering propositions without a new test). Centralization is contested: centralized to mixed, since the center keeps strategic and financial decisions and Wulf (2012), a summary of the author's multi-firm panel studies, found flattened firms showing more control and decision making at the top; mixed to decentralized on Rajan and Wulf (2006), a panel study of more than 300 large firms, who read part of that flattening as delegation and the whole as neither simply centralization nor decentralization. The rest is our judgment: specialization high; formalization spanning medium to high; layers and span spanning flat to moderate; decision rights spanning limited horizontal to limited vertical decentralization; coordination spanning standardized work processes to standardized outputs; lateral mechanisms at direct contact and liaison roles; moderate differentiation against integration; bureaucratic exchange; and closed boundaries.

Where it came from

The headquarters dates from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Kunisch, Menz, and Collis 2020, a conceptual essay); Chandler (1962), several independent case histories by a historian, described the general office that freed the top of the multidivisional firm for strategic decisions.

From 1987 to 2000 the center became a unit to design, to answer what a center should do to add more value than it costs, and which services to pool. Goold and Campbell (1987) studied the centers of diversified British companies, and with Alexander (1994) posed the question of parenting advantage. Chandler (1991) divided headquarters' work into entrepreneurial functions, which create value, and administrative ones, which prevent loss. Quinn, Cooke, and Kris (2000), as practitioners, set out shared services as an internal supplier.

Where it fits

No work read tests a designed center, so all twelve ratings are our judgment; three are contested, and several rest on Burton and Obel (2004), the most developed scholarly fit model.

• Size. Contested. Strain small, partial medium, fits large, on untested premises: Collis, Young, and Goold (2007) found company size shaping headquarters, and Richter and Brühl (2017), a review of research with no new test, report shared services in more than three quarters of the Fortune 500; institutional theorists read such adoption as legitimacy, not fit (Meyer and Rowan 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Or strain small, fits medium, partial large: in multiunit banks Knott and Turner (2019) found scale and hierarchy suppressing innovation once the number and heterogeneity of units were accounted for.
• Age. Contested. Partial young, fits established and old, our judgment that a young firm has a founder's office, not a center (Chandler 1991 and Kunisch and colleagues 2020 as premises). Or partial old too: inertia rises with age, and attempts at reorganization raise death rates (Hannan and Freeman 1984).
• Environmental uncertainty. Fits stable and shifting, partial unpredictable, our reading that central planning and standard services can lag fast change: Kunisch and colleagues (2020) argue the headquarters may face a change as radical as its emergence, and Galbraith (1973) ties more uncertainty to more information to process. Schoonhoven (1981), a quantitative study of hospital operating room suites, found traditional hypotheses drawn from Galbraith unsupported, a limit, not a test: she tested work-unit technology, not the environment. Pennings (1975), a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model, found environment and structure fit not explaining effectiveness; Donaldson (2001) blames method.
• Munificence and hostility. Partial throughout: Burton and Obel lower centralization and complexity at high hostility and raise centralization at extreme hostility, for a unified effort; whether a center organizes that effort is our reading.
• Diversity. Contested. Partial single business, fits related, partial unrelated, our reading with Collis and colleagues (2007) as premise, since their survey did not test diversification levels. Or partial throughout on Goold and colleagues (1994): parenting fit, not relatedness, decides value.
• Strategy. Partial throughout, our reading: a center's design follows corporate strategy, the portfolio, a different scale (Collis and colleagues 2007), and Burton and Obel ask high centralization of the defender and medium or high of the analyzer without innovation, which overlap at high, so they single out no type.
• Interdependence. Fits pooled, partial sequential and reciprocal: shared services are Thompson's (1967) pooled interdependence, and reciprocal interdependence that spills across units calls for his liaison positions.
• Complexity, technology, and knowledge intensity. Partial throughout (Collis and colleagues 2007; Burton and Obel for complexity).
• Global integration pressure. Partial throughout: the regional center studies (Schotter and colleagues 2017; Chakravarty and colleagues 2017) set no level against integration pressure.
• Local responsiveness pressure. Partial low and moderate, fits high, on Nell and Ambos (2013), a quantitative study of 124 subsidiaries: headquarters that invested in local contexts added more value, so the fit needs that investment.

What it does well

Goold, Campbell, and Alexander (1994), several case studies by the same scholars, found four firms succeeding where a real opportunity, suitable skills, and a feel for the business coincided. Feldman (2020), a large-sample comparison of utilities under two legal regimes, found utilities whose holding companies were free to parent outperforming those legally limited.

It pools what each business would duplicate (our judgment) and keeps standards shared: Goold and Campbell (2002), a practitioner book, argue that common technical standards are unlikely without a corporate policy making them mandatory.

What it costs

The center is overhead the businesses pay for. Goold and colleagues (1994) argue that parents more often destroy value than add it, though four firms chosen as successes cannot show how often; Collis and colleagues (2007), a survey of more than 600 headquarters in Europe, the United States, Japan, and Chile, found no support for lean headquarters performing better.

Pooling costs autonomy, on our reading: a business with distinct needs must accept a pooled service's standard definition. Herbert and Seal (2012), one longitudinal case study, use a shared service organization to question consultants' claims of lower cost and better service.

How it fails

Head office costs more than it adds. Business heads see the center as a cost that second-guesses them, a symptom tied to Goold and colleagues' (1994) parenting advantage argument (subsystem self-perpetuation, our judgment). The remedy is contested: a small center or redesigned roles (Goold), or, as Collis and colleagues' (2007) cross-sectional data suggest, headquarters that fit corporate strategy.

The center holds decisions it cannot follow. At its centralized end the form meets Burton and Obel's (2004) undisputed rule, a proposition from theory, against central decisions when many dissimilar factors change unpredictably (regulator overload), so the rule flags it. Wulf (2012) found flattened firms holding more decisions at the top.

Corporate and business agendas fall out of step. Martin and Eisenhardt (2010), several case studies of six firms, found corporate-centric processes yielding worse collaborations than ones led by multibusiness teams of general managers; reading this as siloed knowledge is ours.

Standard services lag what the businesses need. Services defined for one picture of the businesses misserve them when needs change (model and world divergence, our reading). The nearest evidence is from agile software teams, not a center: in Mahringer and Danner-Schröder (2025), one ethnographic case study, pooled interdependence from shared resources could escalate into more complex types.

Every rule meets only a span's end, so none sinks the form. One is judgment and undisputed: reciprocal work run mainly by procedures (Thompson 1967), through shared services; ten are disputed. Burton and Obel's four against heavy rules apply in a prospector, a small organization, nonroutine work, and an unpredictable world. Sine and colleagues (2006), a quantitative study of new ventures in one sector, found more formalized founding teams doing better, against all but the nonroutine-work rule; Adler and Borys (1996), a conceptual argument, separate enabling from coercive formalization, against all but the small organization. Bigley and Roberts (2001), one inductive case study, found a bureaucratic incident command system flexible and reliable, against the unpredictable world; against nonroutine work, Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine (1999), one case study of a single plant, found NUMMI's bureaucracy handling nonroutine tasks through metaroutines, and Hickson and colleagues (1969), a multi-organization comparative survey, found operations technology bearing only on the structure nearest the workflow. Their three against decisions held at the top apply to a large organization, where Mintzberg (1980) places centralized power in older, larger ones; to a prospector, for which Burton and Obel's own book also recommends a simple, centralized configuration among three; and to nonroutine work, where Child and Mansfield (1972), a multi-firm comparative study, found size tied to structure much more strongly than technology. Miles and Snow's (1978) reactor yields two more on our reading: a defender holding to heavy rules in an unpredictable environment, their third route, open to the same dispute; and a prospector's strategy on heavy rules and central decisions, against which Burton, Obel, and Håkonsson (2015) hold that in a calm environment a reactor strategy and non-specific goals fit well together, and Snow and Hrebiniak (1980), a study of top managers' perceptions in four industries, found the other types outperforming reactors in competitive industries but not a highly regulated one, on data they call only suggestive.

The five against central decisions meet only the first view; two Burton and Obel rules against wide authority, only Rajan and Wulf's decentralized end: in an analyzer, undisputed, and in a defender, disputed by Mintzberg (1980), who places the professional bureaucracy's extensive decentralization in complex but stable environments.

What the research found

The view that corporate strategy does not matter rests largely on early variance decomposition studies that found little corporate effect. Bowman and Helfat (2001), a review of several independent quantitative studies, found the studies as a group showing corporate-level factors contributing to profitability differences; Vanneste (2017), a meta-analysis of 16 variance decomposition studies, whose simulations show the sum-of-squares measure depending on a sample's dimensions, put corporate effects above industry effects and at about half of business effects. A corporate effect, though, bundles everything that varies by owner, not the center's design alone.

Transaction cost economics holds that the general office separates strategic from operating decisions and works as an internal capital market (Williamson 1975). Freeland (1996), one historical case study, found General Motors intentionally keeping no clear line between strategic and tactical planning for most of its history, to create managerial consent; Ghoshal and Moran (1996) argue that transaction cost prescriptions are likely to be wrong and dangerous for managers. Knott and Turner (2019), a quantitative study of many firms in one industry, offer a third account, headquarters creating value by encouraging market-like dynamics among its businesses: in banking, knowledge growth rose with the number and heterogeneity of units, while neither Chandler's nor Williamson's resource-allocation account held.

Pan, Chakkol, and Johnson (2026), the most recent study and one firm's case study, found a Chinese conglomerate's zhongtai strategy addressing duplication, waste, and silos, and the firm restructuring to mirror its platform.

The evidence ledger holds 29 studies filed under this form.

In practice: one published case

General Electric, as Joseph and Ocasio (2012) describe it, is one historical case study of a corporate center at work, which the authors place within the M-form's architecture.

The authors analyzed GE's governance system from 1951 to 2001: the channels through which the corporate office and the business units met, including collective, cross-level channels between the two levels. On their account, the M-form's architecture includes these collective vertical interactions between the corporate office and the business units.

Despite an elaborate organizational architecture, there were periods when GE's governance system did not coordinate corporate and business unit agendas.

Their conclusion was that coupling specialized, cross-level channels in time creates an architecture that is both differentiated and integrated. It focuses attention sequentially, and so gives better conditions for joint attention, for coordination between the corporate office and the business units, and for adaptive change in the units.

The case is one firm, and the record read gives neither the names of GE's specific channels nor the periods in which they failed. The search, of the web and Crossref for case studies of corporate headquarters and shared services, also located Goold, Campbell, and Alexander's (1994) four cases, Dover, BTR, Emerson, and RTZ, chosen as successes.

Source: Joseph and Ocasio 2012. Architecture, attention, and adaptation in the multibusiness firm: General Electric from 1951 to 2001, Strategic Management Journal 33(6), 633 to 660; one historical case study.

Variants and near relatives

Parenting styles: financial control, strategic control, and strategic planning. Goold and Campbell (1987) define eight styles on planning influence and control influence; these three were the main ones among their 16 British companies, and another, Holding Company, leaves the center largely passive. Holding Company and Financial Control describe the holding company's center, and it differs by the tie, a center that owns and finances legally separate businesses without planning for or integrating them, where here Financial Control is one place on the two scales. On our reading, the scales also place the multidivisional form's cooperative, competitive, and corrupted M-forms and the management holding; the corporate center adds pooling.

Shared services center. A unit supplying finance, HR, IT, and other support to several businesses as an internal supplier, charged back at fully loaded cost (Quinn and colleagues 2000, practitioners). The project management office, on which Hobbs and Aubry (2007) report no consensus about structure, functions, or value, is on our reading one more unit a center may pool.

Center of excellence. Frost and colleagues' (2002) survey of 99 foreign units in Canada defines it as a unit whose capabilities the firm explicitly recognizes as an important source of value creation, to be spread across the firm. Its near relative is the transnational form, giving national units differentiated roles in one integrated network (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989).

Regional headquarters. A center for one region's subsidiaries, either dedicated or a mandate held by an operating subsidiary: Schotter and colleagues (2017) treat it as disaggregating the headquarters, and Chakravarty and colleagues (2017) found the two kinds critically different, both large-sample statistical studies, of Japanese multinationals and of 855 Japanese centers.

Middle platform (zhongtai). Pan and colleagues' (2026) single case: middle platforms of standardized shared services between front end and back end, near the shared services center, the Front-back organization, and the platform team under team-based.

Shared top roles. Galbraith (2012): an office of the CEO with two or three vice chairmen, letting three or four executives focus on the whole enterprise, designs the apex and so the center; two-in-a-box structures inside business units belong here only as the same move. Neither is how the top team itself works.

Multihospital health system. Bazzoli and colleagues (1999), a cluster analysis of several hundred health systems from a national survey, sorted them from centralized to decentralized; Luke (2006) argued that its data do not suit company-level systems. Dubbs and colleagues (2004), the analysis repeated on 1998 data, found systems dispersing across more varied decentralized forms and the definition of centralization itself changing; Shortell and colleagues (2021), a cluster analysis of several hundred health systems from national surveys, found 82 percent relatively decentralized, which they read as operating largely as holding companies, where those clusters belong; Luke's objection may reach it too, our reading. Bazzoli and colleagues (2000), a quantitative study of hospitals across many health systems and networks, found, cross-sectionally, hospitals in moderately centralized systems doing better financially than highly centralized ones. Centralization is measured by where services are provided, not where decisions are made.

Multicampus university. Lee and Bowen (1971): a single governing board and a separate system executive over the campuses and a central staff; not the collegiate university under federal, nor the academic matrix under matrix.

Under a capital-allocating general office, the Multidivisional (M-form) by product, the nearest neighbor, is cut by product; this form designs the center's role and pools however units are cut. Delayering is a move on the layers-and-span dimension open to any form, not a variant of this one.

Moving into or out of it

Quinn and colleagues (2000), practitioners, say a mature shared services center may operate as a separate business entity; no study read tests a sequence for moving in.

Chasserio and Botte (2020), one case study, describe a multinational decentralizing authority and shrinking its headquarters at an intensive pace, which, with managers' exclusion from consultation, may have affected implementation.

Hannan and Freeman (1984) argue that attempts at reorganization increase death rates, and Amburgey and colleagues (1993), a quantitative study of organizational change and failure rates, found the effects of change on failure varying by type of change and over time.

For guidance on running the reorganization, see Change & Transformation.

The thinking behind it

Alfred Chandler (1962, 1991): the general office, and headquarters' entrepreneurial and administrative functions, which account for the functional grouping.

Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell (1987), with Marcus Alexander (1994): parenting styles and parenting advantage; it explains why a center's roles must fit its businesses.

David Collis (2007): headquarters fitted to corporate strategy, lean ones no better, which is why the center's size is a choice.

Sven Kunisch (2020, with Menz and Collis): four canonical questions of headquarters design, and change that may transform it; it explains why the center is only partial in an unpredictable world.

James Thompson (1967): pooled interdependence, met by standardization; it explains the shared services.

Richard Burton and Børge Obel (2004): a multi-contingency model of fit and misfit rules; it explains several cells and most rules here.

Also called

Headquarters; corporate parent; global business services. The sources also write the HQ unit, the corporate office, head office, and the shared service organization; in the M-form literature, the general office.

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.
• 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.
• Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989. Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School Press, Boston; case studies of nine multinational companies in three industries.
• Bazzoli and colleagues 1999. A taxonomy of health networks and systems: bringing order out of chaos, Health Services Research 33(6), 1683 to 1717; a cluster analysis of several hundred health systems from a national survey.
• Bazzoli and colleagues 2000. The financial performance of hospitals belonging to health networks and systems, Inquiry 37(3), 234 to 252; a quantitative study of hospitals across many health systems and networks.
• 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.
• Bowman and Helfat 2001. Does corporate strategy matter?, Strategic Management Journal 22(1), 1 to 23; a review of several independent quantitative studies.
• 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.
• 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 2015b. Organizational Design: A Step-by-Step Approach, Cambridge University Press (third edition; hardback ISBN 978-1-107-09765-0, paperback ISBN 978-1-107-48361-3).
• 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).
• Cameron and colleagues 1987. Organizational Effects of Decline and Turbulence, Administrative Science Quarterly 32(2), from p. 222; a six-year study of 334 institutions of higher education.
• 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.
• Chakravarty and colleagues 2017. Multinational enterprise regional management centres: characteristics and performance, Journal of World Business 52(2), 296 to 311; a large-sample statistical study.
• 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.
• Chandler 1991. The functions of the HQ unit in the multibusiness firm, Strategic Management Journal 12(S2), 31 to 50.
• Chasserio and Botte 2020. Transforming corporate headquarters: a case study of a collaborative journey, Journal of Organization Design 9, article 9; one case study.
• 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.
• Collis and colleagues 2007. The size, structure, and performance of corporate headquarters, Strategic Management Journal 28(4), 383 to 405; a survey of more than 600 headquarters in Europe, the United States, Japan, and Chile.
• 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.
• DiMaggio and Powell 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review 48(2), from p. 147.
• 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.
• Dubbs and colleagues 2004. Reexamining organizational configurations: an update, validation, and expansion of the taxonomy of health networks and systems, Health Services Research 39(1), 207 to 220; a cluster analysis of a national survey of health systems, repeated over time.
• 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.
• Feldman 2020. The corporate parenting advantage, revisited, Strategic Management Journal 42(1), 114 to 143 (online 2020, in print 2021); a large-sample comparison of utilities under two legal regimes.
• 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.
• Freeland 1996. The myth of the M-form? Governance, consent, and organizational change, American Journal of Sociology 102(2), 483 to 526; one historical case study.
• Frost and colleagues 2002. Centers of excellence in multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal 23(11), 997 to 1018.
• 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.
• Galbraith 1973. Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
• Galbraith 1974. Organization design: an information processing view, Interfaces 4(3), 28 to 36.
• Galbraith 2012a. The future of organization design, Journal of Organization Design 1(1), 3 to 6.
• Ghoshal and Moran 1996. Bad for practice: a critique of the transaction cost theory, Academy of Management Review 21(1), 13 to 47.
• Goold and Campbell 1987. Strategies and Styles: The Role of the Centre in Managing Diversified Corporations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford and New York (x and 374 pages).
• Goold and Campbell 2002a. Designing effective organizations: how to create structured networks, Wiley, June 2002 (ISBN 978-0-7879-6064-3), 368 pages.
• Goold and colleagues 1994a. Corporate-Level Strategy: Creating Value in the Multibusiness Company, Wiley, New York.
• Goold and colleagues 1994b. How corporate parents add value to the stand-alone performance of their businesses, Business Strategy Review 5(4), 33 to 56; several case studies by the same scholars.
• 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.
• Guadalupe and colleagues 2014. Who lives in the C-suite? Organizational structure and the division of labor in top management, Management Science 60(4), 824 to 844; a panel study of many large firms.
• 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.
• Herbert and Seal 2012. Shared services as a new organisational form: some implications for management accounting, The British Accounting Review 44(2), 83 to 97; one longitudinal case study.
• 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.
• Hill and colleagues 1992. Cooperative versus competitive structures in related and unrelated diversified firms, Organization Science 3(4), 501 to 521; a survey of many firms.
• Hobbs and Aubry 2007. A multi-phase research program investigating project management offices (PMOs): the results of phase 1, Project Management Journal 38(1), 74 to 86.
• 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.
• Joseph and Ocasio 2012. Architecture, attention, and adaptation in the multibusiness firm: General Electric from 1951 to 2001, Strategic Management Journal 33(6), 633 to 660; one historical case study.
• 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.
• Kleinbaum and Stuart 2014. Inside the black box of the corporate staff: social networks and the implementation of corporate strategy, Strategic Management Journal 35(1), 24 to 47; one firm's network data.
• Knott and Turner 2019. An innovation theory of headquarters value in multibusiness firms, Organization Science 30(1), 19 to 39; a quantitative study of many firms in one industry, with a formal model.
• Kunisch and colleagues 2020. Corporate headquarters in the twenty-first century: an organization design perspective, Journal of Organization Design 9, article 22; a conceptual essay with no empirical test.
• 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 and Bowen 1971. The Multicampus University: A Study of Academic Governance, McGraw-Hill, New York (xix and 481 pages; a report for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, with a commentary by William Friday).
• 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.
• Luke 2006. Taxonomy of health networks and systems: a reassessment, Health Services Research 41(3, part 1), 618 to 628.
• 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.
• Martin and Eisenhardt 2010. Rewiring: cross-business-unit collaborations in multibusiness organizations, Academy of Management Journal 53(2), 265 to 301; several case studies by scholars.
• 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.
• Mohr 1971. Organizational Technology and Organizational Structure, Administrative Science Quarterly 16(4), 444-459; a quantitative field study of technology and structure.
• Nell and Ambos 2013. Parenting advantage in the MNC: an embeddedness perspective on the value added by headquarters, Strategic Management Journal 34(9), 1086 to 1103; a quantitative study of 124 subsidiaries.
• 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.
• 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.
• Pan and colleagues 2026. Examining innovation in digital platforms: unveiling the strategy of Zhongtai, International Journal of Operations and Production Management 46(4), 611 to 641; one firm's case study, with three embedded platform cases.
• 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.
• Quinn and colleagues 2000. Shared Services: Mining for Corporate Gold, Financial Times Prentice Hall (Pearson Education), Harlow and London.
• Rajan and Wulf 2006. The flattening firm: evidence from panel data on the changing nature of corporate hierarchies, Review of Economics and Statistics 88(4), 759 to 773; a panel study of more than 300 large firms.
• 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.
• Richter and Brühl 2017. Shared service center research: a review of the past, present, and future, European Management Journal 35(1), 26 to 38; a review of research, with no new test.
• Rumelt 1974. Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Division of Research, Harvard Business School, Boston; a multi-firm study of large corporations.
• 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.
• Schotter and colleagues 2017. MNE headquarters disaggregation: the formation antecedents of regional management centers, Journal of Management Studies 54(8), 1144 to 1169; a large-sample statistical study.
• Shortell and colleagues 2021. Hospital-based health systems 20 years later: a taxonomy for policy research and analysis, Health Services Research 56(3), 453 to 463; a cluster analysis of several hundred health systems from national surveys.
• 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.
• Snow and Hrebiniak 1980. Strategy, Distinctive Competence, and Organizational Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly 25(2), from p. 317; a study of top managers' perceptions in four industries.
• 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).
• 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.
• 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.
• Vanneste 2017. How much do industry, corporation, and business matter, really? A meta-analysis, Strategy Science 2(2), 121 to 139; a meta-analysis of 16 variance decomposition studies.
• 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.
• Williamson 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Free Press, New York (xvii and 286 pages).
• 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.
• Wulf 2012. The flattened firm: not as advertised, California Management Review 55(1), 5 to 23; a summary for managers of the author's multi-firm panel studies, with interviews and time-use data.
• 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.