Divisional by customer or market segment

Each division serves one customer group or market segment end to end, with its own products and functions.

What it is

A customer structure cuts the organization by the people it serves. Under the chief executive sit the heads of customer divisions, each answering for one customer group or market segment and running the products and functions that group needs. A center sets targets, allocates capital, and judges each division by its results, not by directing the work.

How complete the cut is varies with strategy, across Galbraith's (2005) four degrees of customer-centricity (light, medium, complete, and high). Mintzberg (1980), citing Channon, says diversity only in client leads to an incomplete divisionalization, with critical functions kept at headquarters.

Its grouping is by client or market segment, the structure's primary basis (Homburg, Workman, and Jensen 2000). Centralization is mixed, under that incomplete divisionalization; decision rights sit at limited vertical decentralization (his Type C), delegated to segment managers; and the prime coordinating mechanism is standardization of outputs. The rest are our judgment: specialization medium; standardization and formalization medium to high; moderate layers and span; lateral mechanisms from hierarchy alone to direct contact and liaison roles, since full divisions need few links; differentiation moderate; exchange by bureaucracy; and a selective boundary, open toward the customer group and firm elsewhere.

Where it came from

Luther Gulick named clientele among his four bases of grouping in 1937, a tenet of the classical administration school; his examples are government agencies, such as the veterans' administration and the immigration bureau.

Jay Galbraith set it out as a customer-centric design in Designing the Customer-Centric Organization (2005), drawing on a three-year, fifteen-company study with McKinsey's organization design practice, not reported in a peer-reviewed venue. It addressed how to organize around the needs of distinct customer groups when what wins is serving the customer, not making the product.

Where it fits

Most ratings here rest on theory or our judgment, one on evidence.

• Size. Strain small, partial medium, fits large, as theory: each segment run end to end duplicates products and functions, which only a large firm can afford (Mintzberg 1980; Galbraith 2005). Untested on this form.
• Age. Contested, our judgment. Mintzberg (1980), placing divisionalized forms in mature organizations, and Galbraith (2005): partial young, fits established and old. Hannan and Freeman (1984): partial at old too, since inertia rises with age and attempts at reorganization raise death rates.
• Environmental uncertainty. Contested, our judgment. The first view is ours: fits throughout, on Galbraith's (1973) premise that more uncertainty means more information to process, met in part by self-contained tasks, and our reading that units close to each customer group sense its shifts. Mintzberg, in Miller and Friesen (1984): fits stable, partial shifting, strain unpredictable, since divisionalized forms suit environments neither very complex nor very dynamic. Burton, Obel, and Håkonsson (2015): strain stable, partial shifting, fits unpredictable, since they pair the divisional configuration with the locally stormy, highly unpredictable environment. The middle levels of the other two are our reading. Schoonhoven (1981), a quantitative study of hospital operating room suites, found hypotheses drawn from Galbraith (1973) unsupported while more precise interactive, nonmonotonic hypotheses did better; studying work units and naming no form, she limits the premise and sets no level.
• Environmental complexity. Contested, theory. Burton and Obel (2004), the most developed scholarly fit model, with Galbraith (2005): strain simple, partial moderate, fits complex, since a complex environment that can be segmented calls for decentralized units. Mintzberg (1980; in Miller and Friesen 1984): fits simple, partial moderate, strain complex, on the same passage. Pennings (1975), a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model, found environment and structure fit did not explain effectiveness; naming no form, it sets no level here or on munificence, and Donaldson (2001) blames methodological limitations.
• Munificence and hostility. The evidence cell: partial hostile and neutral, fits munificent. Lee, Sridhar, Henderson, and Palmatier (2015), a multi-firm panel study, found the benefit shrank in less profitable industries, the nearest measure to munificence.
• Diversity. Partial single business, fits related, strain unrelated. Reading related diversification as the case with shared customers to organize around is our judgment; the premises are Galbraith's (2005) degree of customer-centricity set by strategy and Lee and colleagues' (2015) finding that the structure pays only in specific competitive environments.
• Strategy. Contested, our judgment, from Burton and Obel's rules for divisional configurations in general: the 2004 book gives them to the analyzer (strain, fits, partial), their 2015 book with Håkonsson to the prospector (strain, partial, fits); both give the defender a functional configuration. Galbraith's (2005) degree of customer-centricity, which this scale lacks, also matters.
• Technology. Partial throughout, our judgment: routineness shapes how a division organizes its work, not the customer cut; Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey (1969), a multi-organization comparative survey, found technology unrelated to the wider administrative structure of larger organizations.
• Interdependence. Contested, both theory. Burton and Obel (2004): fits pooled, partial sequential, strain reciprocal, since segments that must share products duplicate work or break down. Zhou (2013), an archival study of many United States manufacturers, with Thompson (1967): fits pooled and sequential, partial reciprocal, since divisionalization rose with interdependence and fell only as tasks became less decomposable, and Thompson has one division sell its output to the next.
• Knowledge intensity. Fits low and moderate, partial high, as theory: Mintzberg (1980) argues performance standards push divisions toward machine bureaucracy, which suits professional work poorly. Doty, Glick, and Huber (1993), a quantitative test across a sample of organizations, did not support his configurations' effectiveness claim; Ketchen and colleagues (1997), a meta-analysis of 40 tests, found configuration partly explains performance, though it pools strategy types with structures, and tests of pure structural types are mixed. Krabberød (2015) argues the Doty test was not shown to be exhaustive.
• Global integration pressure. Partial throughout, our judgment: we read global account units, which serve one customer across countries, as an overlay, not value-chain divisions.
• Local responsiveness pressure. Partial throughout, our judgment: the form cuts by customer, not country; Gebauer and Kowalkowski (2012) is the nearest premise.

What it does well

It gives one manager the whole relationship with a customer group: every product the firm sells that group, the work behind it, and the results. The symptom view lists it where no one owns the customer's experience end to end, though its works argue for the process and front-back forms (Hammer and Champy 1993, a practitioner book; Galbraith 2002).

Closeness to the customer shows in satisfaction: Lee and colleagues (2015) found that aligning each business unit with a distinct customer group raised it.

What it costs

Every customer division carries its own products and functions, so the firm pays for them more than once. Cisco's three customer-type units each had a complete product line, and after the 2001 downturn the duplicated activities were judged costly (Gulati 2009, one case study).

It also carries coordinating costs; Lee and colleagues (2015) conclude it pays only in specific competitive environments.

How it fails

Each customer division rebuilds the same products. Cisco's duplicated activities are the same work owned twice (jurisdictional gap or overlap).

Segments whose work is linked overload the top. When divisions' work feeds back and forth, the executive above fills with coordinating detail, as Burton, Obel, and Håkonsson's 2015 book has it; Burton and Obel's 2004 rules call a technology that cannot be divided a misfit with divisions (regulator overload). Disputed: Hill, Hitt, and Hoskisson (1992), a survey of many firms, found related diversifiers did better with arrangements stressing cooperation between units, and Siggelkow and Levinthal (2003), a computer simulation, found temporary decentralization then reintegration best where activities interact.

No one owns the product across segments. A product that several customer divisions sell has an owner only at the top (diffused responsibility), in our reading.

What one segment learns stays there. Each division is open toward its customers and closed elsewhere, so knowledge moves between segments only through the center (siloed knowledge); our judgment from the profile.

Coordinating costs outrun the gain. Lee and colleagues (2015) found added coordinating costs beside the gain (coordination overhead overrun, in our reading).

The one misfit rule that fires undisputed on the form is self-contained divisions for a defender, which needs intense information sharing among units (the 2015 book). The rest are disputed.

Divisions for an analyzer are a misfit in the 2015 book and recommended in the 2004 one; divisions with reciprocal work are above. Burton and Obel's (2004) rules on size, strategy, routineness, and uncertainty fire where formalization is high. Against them stand Sine, Mitsuhashi, and Kirsch (2006), a quantitative study of new ventures in one sector (size, strategy, uncertainty); Adler and Borys (1996), a conceptual argument separating enabling from coercive formalization (all but size); Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine (1999), one case study of a single plant, where a highly bureaucratic plant handled nonroutine tasks (routineness); and Bigley and Roberts (2001), one inductive case study, where a bureaucratic incident command system proved flexible for volatile tasks (uncertainty). On routineness, Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey (1969) also answer, as under technology; Mohr (1971), a quantitative field study of technology and structure, found no support for matching them. He measured participation in decisions, not formalization, so he limits the rule without answering it. Donaldson (2001) reports later studies found support. A defender's rule-bound structure kept after the environment turned unpredictable is a misfit in our judgment, after Miles and Snow's 1978 third route to the reactor; its rule-bound half meets the uncertainty answers.

None of these rules is a tested result: Burton, Lauridsen, and Obel (2002), a quantitative study of 224 Danish small and medium-sized firms, tested an earlier version only as a set, finding lower return on assets with any misfit. Each single pairing is the interaction form of fit, which Drazin and Van de Ven (1985), a quantitative study of 629 work units, found unsupported; Volberda and colleagues (2012), a survey of 3,259 respondents in 1,904 companies, found firms with perfect institutional fit lose slightly by striving for contingency fit.

What the research found

Lee and colleagues (2015), a multi-firm panel study of Fortune 500 firms from 1998 to 2010 that allowed for firms choosing their own structure, is the one study located that compares firms with this structure against firms structured internally. Satisfaction rose, coordinating costs rose with it, and the benefit shrank when competitors had already adopted such structures, in fragmented markets, and in less profitable industries. It codes structure at the corporate level, in large United States firms.

Homburg, Workman, and Jensen (2000), an interview study of 50 managers in the United States and Germany, found a general shift toward customer-focused structures; they studied marketing organization, not whole-firm structure.

In the most recent study, a nine-year panel of 91 firms from 2011 to 2019, Park and Griffith (2025) found that aligning a customer-centric strategy with a customer-centric structure raised firm performance, an effect carried by the innovativeness of the new product portfolio. Only its abstract was read; it does not say how structure was measured, and it tests alignment, not the structure alone.

Byrne and colleagues (2004), a survey of every medical center in one national health system joined to administrative data, give one test with a negative result, of the grouping logic and not the form: clinical service lines, which regroup a hospital's work by patient group, had no positive and several negative effects on utilization, and new service lines improved less than facilities with none. It covers one public system over two years and utilization, not clinical outcomes, and does not rule out self-selection; reading it as bearing on the customer cut is ours.

The evidence ledger holds 7 studies filed under this form.

In practice: one published case

Thomson Financial is the subject of one case study, a Kellogg School of Management case by Mohanbir Sawhney and Robert Wolcott (2006), Thomson Financial: Building a Customer-Centric Firm.

In December 1999 Thomson Financial was an operating company of forty-one separate product silos, each competing in its own niche. That month it began a transformation toward a more integrated firm organized around customer segments.

In 2000 it reorganized into strategic customer units. The change needed coordinated business, organizational, and technology work, sustained through the 2001 technology market crash and the September 11 attacks.

By mid-2002, where the case ends, the transition was by no means complete. Most people had yet to adjust their perspective from thinking in terms of individual products. The case leaves the next steps to students.

The Kellogg page reports that by 2005 Thomson was one of the top three financial information firms worldwide, with Bloomberg and Reuters, a standing this entry does not attribute to the reorganization.

The descriptions read do not say whether each strategic customer unit kept its own product and technology functions, so it does not show divisions that own their whole value chain. These facts come from the Kellogg page and a library record of the case, not its text.

Source: Sawhney and Wolcott 2006. Thomson Financial: Building a Customer-Centric Firm, Kellogg School of Management case 5-405-753 (KEL237).

Variants and near relatives

Global account management is a unit or team that coordinates the activities involved in serving one multinational customer in several countries. Birkinshaw, Toulan, and Arnold (2001), a quantitative study of accounts in many firms, found that structures raising information-processing capacity worked better when the firm depended heavily on the customer. In our reading it is an overlay on another structure, not a division that owns its value chain.

Market-segment divisions are defined by industry group or customer segment, not by named customers. Galbraith (2005) describes units built on industry groups and on customer segment profit centers.

At lighter degrees (Galbraith 2005), key account managers and customer segment task forces, the integrating functions on Day's (2006, a practitioner article) continuum, carry the customer view without regrouping the firm. Clinical service lines are a variant of the professional bureaucracy (see What the research found). Mintzberg's incomplete divisionalization, which trims the duplication, leans toward the Hybrid structure: units on different bases side by side.

The Front-back organization is the nearest neighbor: it shares one product back end among several customer fronts, where each customer division here runs, in the full form, its own products and the work behind them. Among the divisional forms, the Multidivisional (M-form) by product gives each head one product for every customer, and Divisional by region every product in one place.

Moving into or out of it

Firms come in from structures cut by product, as Thomson Financial's product silos were, or by place. Gebauer and Kowalkowski (2012), case studies of 36 European capital goods manufacturers with no replication found, find moves from product-focused to service-focused and from geographically focused to customer-focused structures. Day's (2006) continuum from product silos ends short of this form, at segment managers or customer-based front-end units reinforcing the customer side of a matrix, and makes how far to go the central choice. Hannan and Freeman (1984) argue that inertia rises with age and that attempts at reorganization raise death rates, though Amburgey, Kelly, and Barnett (1993), a quantitative study of organizational change and failure rates, found the effects of change vary by type of change and over time.

After the 2001 downturn Cisco left its customer units for a centralized, functional structure to avoid product and resource redundancies, though this put research and development and marketing further from customers; a Customer Focus Initiative followed (Gulati 2009, one case study). Gulati and Puranam (2009), one case study with a formal model, read it as compensatory fit: a strong informal organization sustaining what the new structure no longer stressed, which their model says works only where it already exists and the gains are large; its breakdown can bring performance declines and further reorganizations.

Raveendran (2020), a multi-firm panel study of reorganizations in one industry, found that more product- or market-based top units made the next reorganization likelier, and later, to move back toward function-like units; it does not split markets into customers and regions. The rest of the evidence comes from product divisions: Hoskisson and Galbraith (1985), a time-series study of six firms, found quantum moves to the M-form better than incremental ones, and Girod and Whittington (2016), a multi-firm panel study, found sweeping restructuring helped in general and hurt in dynamic environments. Change & Transformation covers running a reorganization.

The thinking behind it

Luther Gulick, "Notes on the theory of organization" (1937): work grouped by purpose, process, clientele, or place, which names this form's basis. Simon (1946) argued that the bases conflict and give no guidance on which to choose.

Jay Galbraith, Designing the Customer-Centric Organization (2005): degrees of customer-centricity set by strategy; and his information processing view (1974, built from cases and theory): task uncertainty drives the information-processing load, the premise of the uncertainty cell's first view.

Henry Mintzberg, "Structure in 5's" (1980): five configurations of structure, which place customer divisions among the divisionalized forms; a synthesis, not a test.

Richard Burton and Børge Obel, Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design (2004): the multi-contingency model with explicit fit and misfit rules, a source in three of this form's cells and every misfit rule firing on it, its rules synthesized from the literature.

Ju-Yeon Lee (2015), Christian Homburg (2000), George Day (2006, a practitioner article), Heiko Gebauer (2012), and Julian Birkinshaw (2001), with colleagues: the payoff of customer-centric structure, the movement toward it, the continuum of market alignment, the paths into it, and global account management.

James Thompson (1967) and Yue Maggie Zhou (2013): interdependence and its coordination, and divisionalization against decomposability, together the second view of the interdependence cell. Michael Hannan and John Freeman (1984): structural inertia, behind the age cell's second view.

Also called

Customer structure, market structure, clientele organization, and customer-centric organization. Homburg, Workman, and Jensen (2000) write of a customer-focused organizational structure; Thomson Financial called its units strategic customer units.

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.
• 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.
• Birkinshaw and colleagues 2001. Global account management in multinational corporations: theory and evidence, Journal of International Business Studies 32(2), 231 to 248; a quantitative study of accounts in many firms.
• 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 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 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).
• Byrne and colleagues 2004. The effects of organization on medical utilization: an analysis of service line organization, Medical Care 42(1), 28 to 37; a survey of every medical center in one national health system, joined to administrative data.
• 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.
• 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.
• Day 2006. Aligning the organization with the market, MIT Sloan Management Review 48(1), 41 to 49; a practitioner article by a scholar, built on named company examples.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 2002a. Designing Organizations: An Executive Guide to Strategy, Structure, and Process, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (new and revised edition).
• Galbraith 2002b. Organizing to deliver solutions, Organizational Dynamics 31(2), 194 to 207; a design essay with illustrative company examples and no systematic data.
• Galbraith 2005. Designing the Customer-Centric Organization: A Guide to Strategy, Structure, and Process, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
• Gebauer and Kowalkowski 2012. Customer-focused and service-focused orientation in organizational structures, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 27(7), 527 to 537; case studies of 36 manufacturers.
• Girod and Whittington 2016. Reconfiguration, restructuring and firm performance: dynamic capabilities and environmental dynamism, Strategic Management Journal 38(5), 1121 to 1133 (online 2016, in print 2017); a multi-firm panel study.
• 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.
• Gulati 2009. Cisco Systems (2001): Building and Sustaining a Customer-Centric Culture, Harvard Business School case 409-061, 21 pages, January 6, 2009.
• Gulati and Puranam 2009. Renewal through reorganization: the value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization, Organization Science 20(2), 422 to 440; one case study with a formal model.
• Gulick 1937. Notes on the theory of organization, In Luther Gulick and L. Urwick (eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration, Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University, New York (v and 195 pages).
• 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.
• Hammer and Champy 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, HarperBusiness, New York (first edition, vi and 223 pages).
• 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.
• 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.
• Homburg and colleagues 2000. Fundamental changes in marketing organization: the movement toward a customer-focused organizational structure, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(4), 459 to 478; an interview study of 50 managers in the United States and Germany.
• Hoskisson and Galbraith 1985. The effect of quantum versus incremental M-form reorganization on performance: a time-series exploration of intervention dynamics, Journal of Management 11(3), 55 to 70; a time-series study of six firms.
• 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.
• Jimmy and colleagues 2011. Exploring the organizational structure and coordination of multi-national IT outsourcing vendors, ECIS 2011 Proceedings, paper 66 (European Conference on Information Systems); seven interviews in five IT outsourcing vendors, reported as mini-cases in a conference paper.
• 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.
• Krabberød 2015. Standing on the shoulders of giants? Exploring consensus on the validity status of Mintzberg's configuration theory after a negative test, SAGE Open 5(4), article 2158244015611185.
• 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 colleagues 2015a. Effect of customer-centric structure on long-term financial performance, Marketing Science 34(2), 250 to 268; a multi-firm panel study.
• 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.
• March and Simon 1958. Organizations, Wiley, New York (262 pages; with the collaboration of Harold Guetzkow); second edition, Blackwell, 1993.
• 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).
• Miller and Friesen 1984. Organizations: a quantum view, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (xv and 320 pages; in collaboration with Henry Mintzberg).
• 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.
• 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.
• Park and Griffith 2025. The effect of customer-centric strategy and structure alignment on new product portfolio innovativeness and firm performance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 53(5), 1306 to 1334; a nine-year panel of 91 firms.
• 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.
• Raveendran 2020. Seeds of change: how current structure shapes the type and timing of reorganizations, Strategic Management Journal 41(1), 27 to 54; a multi-firm panel study of reorganizations in one industry.
• 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.
• Rumelt 1974. Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Division of Research, Harvard Business School, Boston; a multi-firm study of large corporations.
• Sawhney and Wolcott 2006. Thomson Financial: Building a Customer-Centric Firm, Kellogg School of Management case 5-405-753 (KEL237).
• 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.
• Siggelkow and Levinthal 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation, Organization Science 14(6), 650 to 669; a computer simulation, with no field data.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Yoshino 1968. Japan's Managerial System: Tradition and Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Zhou 2013. Designing for complexity: using divisions and hierarchy to manage complex tasks, Organization Science 24(2), 339 to 355; an archival study of many US manufacturers over 11 years.

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.