Federal organization

Autonomous units hold most power, and a small center holds only what the units cannot do for themselves.

What it is

A federal organization is a set of autonomous units, such as businesses, local affiliates, congregations, colleges, or abbeys, under a small center that holds only what the units cannot do for themselves. Authority runs the other way from a divisional firm, in what Charles Handy calls reverse delegation: the outlying groups give the center its powers, so it coordinates and advises more than it directs or controls.

Three levels of its profile on this explorer's dimensions rest on theory. Grouping spans product or purpose and place: autonomous businesses in Handy's (1992) companies, local affiliates by place in nonprofit federations (Oster 1996, a survey). Lateral mechanisms sit at task forces and teams, read as standing representative bodies, from the Cistercian general chapter (Knowles 1966) to American federations' representative governance (Skocpol, Ganz, and Munson 2000, a historical study). Centralization is decentralized on Handy's subsidiarity, and that level is contested: the second view, from Young's (1989) argued drift to headquarters control and Tapper and Palfreyman's (2011) Oxford, places it at centralized to mixed.

The others are our judgment: specialization and formalization medium; layers flat; decision rights at limited vertical decentralization, the nearest of Mintzberg's (1980) five types, none of which describes formal power held by the parts and delegated up; two coordinating mechanisms, standardization of outputs and of norms through a shared identity (Young 2001, two case studies); moderate differentiation; a mode of exchange spanning bureaucracy and clan; and selective boundaries.

Where it came from

Charles Handy named it in The Age of Unreason (1989), and in "Balancing Corporate Power: A New Federalist Paper" (1992), a Harvard Business Review essay: a practitioner's argument, not a test. "Federalism is not a classy word for decentralization," he wrote, and he found, as yet, few federal corporations in a pure form.

It answered the problem of how a large organization can be big in some things and small in others, keeping its units' independence while sharing what must be shared. The idea comes from political federalism, borrowed as an analogy: Handy offers Switzerland as an example and credits subsidiarity to Pope Leo XIII.

Drucker's "federal decentralization" (1954) uses the word for divisionalization and is taught under the M-form.

Where it fits

Of its cells, three rest on theory, nine on our judgment, and none is contested; no cell rests on a study of the form.

• Size. Theory: strain small, partial medium, fits large, on Handy's (1989, 1992) federalism for large, complex organizations; our reading is that a small one has nothing to federate.
• Age. Theory at the old level, our judgment at the others: partial young, fits established, partial old. National centers tend to draw control toward themselves (Young 1989, conceptual); Dattée and colleagues (2022), one longitudinal case study, found autonomy renegotiated continually, though it can persist in a stable range. Our judgment is that federations are usually formed by units that already exist, so a young one is uncommon.
• Environmental uncertainty. Our judgment: fits stable and shifting, partial unpredictable, since a center with limited powers is slow to coordinate a common response (premises: Handy 1992; Grossman and Rangan 2001; Galbraith 1973). Schoonhoven (1981), a quantitative study of hospital operating room suites, found the traditional hypotheses drawn from Galbraith unsupported and more precise ones better supported; she tested work units, not the environment, and named no form, so she limits the premise without testing this cell.
• Environmental complexity. Theory: partial simple and moderate, fits complex. Federalism is argued as the way to govern complex organizations (Handy 1992), though his complexity is the organization's as much as the environment's; Burton and Obel (2004), the most developed scholarly fit model, point the same way with a bounded-rationality rule. Pennings (1975), a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model naming no form, found that environment and structure fit did not explain effectiveness, a limit here and on uncertainty.
• Munificence and hostility. Our judgment: partial throughout; a small center cannot easily mount a unified effort under threat, though the units can each cut and adapt on their own. Burton and Obel (2004) lower centralization under high hostility and raise it under extreme.
• Diversity. Our judgment: partial single business, fits related and unrelated (Handy 1992).
• Strategy. Our judgment: strain defender, partial analyzer and prospector; Burton and Obel name low centralization a misfit for a defender, and beyond that, strategy belongs to each unit (premise: Handy 1992).
• Technology. Our judgment: partial throughout, since each unit organizes its own work; Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey (1969), a multi-organization comparative survey, found operations technology bearing only on the structure the workflow touches, which limits every technology cell.
• Interdependence. Our judgment: fits pooled, partial sequential, strain reciprocal, since reciprocal work across autonomous units has no center strong enough to settle it (premise: Thompson 1967).
• Knowledge intensity. Our judgment: partial throughout; the form is found among congregations, universities, and nonprofits alike.
• Global integration and local responsiveness. Our judgment (premise: Handy 1992): fits moderate integration pressure, partial low and high; fits moderate and high local responsiveness, partial low.

What it does well

Handy (1989) argues, as a practitioner, that it lets one organization be big in some things and small in others.

Skocpol, Ganz, and Munson (2000), a historical study of many membership associations, found that at the height of local proliferation most American voluntary groups belonged to federations mirroring U.S. government. That explains its spread, not its performance; institutional theorists hold that legitimacy, not fit, explains much of why forms spread (Meyer and Rowan 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983).

Young, Koenig, Najam, and Fisher (1999), fifteen case studies of global nongovernmental organizations, found that it appears generally effective; only their abstract was read.

Where autonomous units drift apart and where business heads see head office as a cost, the symptom view offers it. The second is contested: Goold, Campbell, and Alexander (1994), several case studies by the same scholars, argue that parents more often destroy value than add it; Collis, Young, and Goold (2007), a survey of more than 600 headquarters, found no support for lean headquarters doing better; Feldman (2020), a large-sample comparison of utilities under two legal regimes, found a parenting advantage.

What it costs

The top must give power away. "Subsidiarity means giving away power," Handy (1989) writes, and no one does that willingly in organizations.

The center leads with lent authority: it must be more than a banker pulling in surplus profits, yet it is slow to move the whole at once against a threat or across linked work (our judgment, in three cells).

Functions repeat, since each unit keeps its own (our reading of the profile).

Grossman and Rangan (2001), field studies of five multisite nonprofits, found tensions between headquarters and local units whatever the structure, though a system can pursue the benefits of affiliation and autonomy at once.

How it fails

The center takes back what the units lent it. Control drifts to the center (our reading: subsystem self-perpetuation). Young (1989), a conceptual article, argued that national associations evolve toward franchise-like systems in which headquarters sanctions and controls the affiliates; Tapper and Palfreyman (2011) judge, with a "perhaps," that Oxford's federalism increasingly exists in name only.

The staff rule what the members formally govern. Authority flows up on paper while power sits with the professionals at the center (our reading: oversight-body failure). Harrison (1959), one case study, found the American Baptist Convention's executives holding much of its power. Chaves (1993), ungraded here and read only in abstract, generalizes Harrison's gap between a denomination's religious authority and agency structures, and dissents from reading it vertically: the power shifts run horizontally, between the two.

The units drift apart and no one keeps the commons. Standards, interfaces, and shared systems fragment (our reading: interface schema or unit mismatch, and commons under-provision). Goold and Campbell (2002), in a practitioner book, argue that common technical standards are unlikely without a mandatory corporate policy, which a center lent too little may not set (our reading). No study shows it.

No one can make the whole move at once. A threat or reciprocal work that needs one response waits on every unit (our reading: veto deadlock). Thompson (1967) and Burton and Obel (2004) supply the premises; no study shows it.

On the subsidiarity view of centralization, two misfit rules fire, both Burton and Obel (2004) propositions, not tested results. Wide authority in a defender, whose advantage is tight control of one stable operation, is contested: Mintzberg's (1980) synthesis, without a new test, places the decentralized professional bureaucracy in complex but stable environments; our reading is that a defender's domain shares that stability. Wide authority in an analyzer, whose stable core loses central control, is undisputed but meets only that view; though it names only the analyzer that does not innovate, it fires for any, since the explorer has one analyzer level.

On Young's view four fire: one undisputed, on central decisions in a turbulent environment, through only that view's centralized end, and three contested. Disputed or partly met, all six flag; none sinks the form. Large size: in the same synthesis the centralized machine bureaucracy tends to be found in older, larger organizations, so central decisions alone need not be a misfit; Doty, Glick, and Huber (1993), a quantitative test across a sample of organizations, found no gain in effectiveness from resembling his types, which bears on the defender view too. Prospector strategy: Burton and Obel also recommend a simple, centralized configuration, with the ad hoc and the matrix. Nonroutine work: Hickson gives the workflow limit above; Child and Mansfield (1972), a multi-firm comparative study, found size related to structure far more than technology; and Mohr (1971), a quantitative field study of technology and structure, found no support for matching the two, a failure Donaldson (2001) traces, with Pennings's, to method, reporting later support.

Three studies limit the rules: Burton, Lauridsen, and Obel (2002), a quantitative study of 224 Danish small and medium-sized firms, none of them large, tested an earlier version of the rules only as a set; Volberda and colleagues (2012), a survey of 3,259 respondents in 1,904 companies, found contingency and institutional fit interdependent; and Drazin and Van de Ven (1985), a quantitative study of 629 work units in two states' employment security agencies, found the interaction form of fit, which each rule is, unsupported, and the selection and systems forms supported; the explorer uses selection.

What the research found

Oster (1996), a survey of nonprofit organizations, found the choice between the franchise form and the branch office form consistent with agency theory, and Young, Bania, and Bailey (1996), a study of many national nonprofit associations, found structure an avenue of self-regulation.

No major-journal study since 2010 uses Handy's term. Barkey and Godart (2013), a multi-firm quantitative study in one industry, found "federated arrangements," a business-group regime, performing best creatively among 293 fashion houses; they use the word, not Handy's concept. Wong (2012), a comparative study of seven international NGOs, found that those centralizing agenda-setting and decentralizing implementation gained more traction; reading that as the federal move is ours. The most recent, Dattée and colleagues (2022), one longitudinal case study of Automobili Lamborghini under Audi, found autonomy oscillating within a stable range.

For the form, no replication failure is recorded. One failed test, Doty, Glick, and Huber's (1993) of Mintzberg's types, bears on two views under how it fails, though Ketchen and colleagues (1997), a meta-analysis of 40 tests, found configuration partly explains performance, and Krabberød (2015) argues it has not been shown exhaustive. The disagreement is where power ends up: Handy's subsidiarity against Young's drift and Harrison's executives, with Chaves's (1993) horizontal reading.

Two schools include the form. For resource dependence (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), structure follows the management of critical outside dependencies; it explains boundaries by power where transaction cost economics explains them by efficiency (Santos and Eisenhardt 2005, a conceptual review), and treats the environment as something to manage, not only fit. For Scandinavian institutionalism, organizations whose members are organizations differ from those of individuals (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008, conceptual); reading a federation as one is ours. Its dissent (Czarniawska and Joerges 1995, a discussion paper): ideas are translated as they spread, which questions isomorphism's determinism, though seen translocally the same processes read as isomorphism.

The evidence ledger holds 12 studies filed under this form.

In practice: one published case

The American Baptist Convention, of the congregational polity variant, is one case study. The source is Paul Harrison's Authority and Power in the Free Church Tradition (1959), a sociological case study of one denomination.

Formally, authority in the Convention flowed up from the local churches, whose autonomy Baptists insist on, through the district associations, and no higher body held authority over a lower one. In Harrison's words, "the Association has no authority over the local church; the State Convention has no authority over the Association." On this page's reading, that is the federal move in a religious body.

The denomination's professional executives came, in practice, to hold much of its power. Harrison writes that "rational-pragmatic authority was assumed by the leadership of the bureaucracy," a basis of authority he sets beside Weber's types.

Harrison concludes that the existence of autocratic associations "indicates that congregational polity does not automatically prevent an inordinate concentration of power even at the local level."

One denomination in the 1950s, studied by one sociologist, shows what happened there and what Harrison concluded, not what happens in every federation. Its executives' power sits beside Young's argued drift toward headquarters control, though Harrison's conclusion reaches the local level too.

Source: Harrison 1959. Authority and Power in the Free Church Tradition: A Social Case Study of the American Baptist Convention, Princeton University Press, Princeton (248 pages); one case study by a scholar.

Variants and near relatives

The nonprofit federation is a national office with chartered local affiliates. Skocpol, Ganz, and Munson (2000), a historical study, show it was the American norm before the drift to franchise-like control Young (1989) describes.

Congregational polity is a convention of autonomous congregations in which no higher body holds authority over a lower one (Harrison 1959, the case). Takayama and Cannon (1979), a comparative study of 26 denominations, treat congregational, presbyterian, and episcopal polity as the range of local authority; the abstract does not say which concentrates power. Chaves's (1993) denominational dual structure is taught under missionary.

The collegiate university is a federation of self-governing colleges. It is not the corporate center's multicampus university, one governing board and system executive over several campuses.

The Cistercian constitution kept every abbey autonomous, none subordinate to another, and held the order together by yearly visitation to a uniform code and a yearly general chapter: on our reading, the federal move with standardization by inspection (Knowles 1966). Its mother and daughter houses are not the mother-daughter structure taught under divisional-by-region.

In its nearest neighbor, the Multidivisional (M-form) by product, the general office delegates power down to divisions, allocates their capital, and sets strategy; here power flows up, and the center holds only what the units lend it and acts on their behalf. The holding company's center owns and watches returns, the banker's role Handy says a federal center must go beyond; the federated three-tier cooperative is taught under cooperative. Where its units are legally independent, it borders meta-organizations and franchising, named under network.

Moving into or out of it

Federations are usually formed by units that already exist (our judgment, the age cell's premise): American associations converged toward the federation as they spread (Skocpol, Ganz, and Munson 2000, a historical study), and Oxford and Cambridge moved from universities containing self-governing colleges to a federal model (Tapper and Palfreyman 2011).

No record counts how federations end, and the balance need not collapse: Dattée and colleagues (2022), one longitudinal case study, found a unit's autonomy oscillating over 21 years with neither amalgamation nor separation.

Hannan and Freeman (1984) argued that selection favors inert structures, that inertia rises with age, and that attempts at reorganization raise death rates; Amburgey, Kelly, and Barnett (1993), a quantitative study of organizational change and failure rates, found the effects of change on failure vary by type of change and over time. No study read measures what it costs to move into or out of this form. Change & Transformation covers running a reorganization.

The thinking behind it

Charles Handy (1989, 1992): federalism, a practitioner's case for it as the way to govern complex organizations. Dennis Young (1989): federated movements, the argued drift to the center; (2001): identity in umbrella associations, structure tied to a shared self-concept. Sharon Oster (1996): franchise and branch forms, when a federated structure is chosen. Allen Grossman, with V. Kasturi Rangan (2001): autonomy and affiliation, the federal tension. Theda Skocpol, with Marshall Ganz and Ziad Munson (2000): the representatively governed federation, its American history.

Paul Harrison (1959): rational-pragmatic authority, power gathering where the design spreads it. K. Peter Takayama, with Lynn Weber Cannon (1979): formal polity and power distribution, data suggesting a constitution bears on where power sits. Ted Tapper and David Palfreyman (2011): the collegiate university as a federation, and its drift. David Knowles (1966): the religious orders' constitutions as written, not how the orders performed.

Henry Mintzberg (1980), a synthesis without a new test: configurations of structure, whose mechanisms and decentralization types the profile uses. James Thompson (1967): interdependence, the premise of that cell's judgment. Richard Burton and Børge Obel (2004): multi-contingency fit and misfit, the rules that fire on the form. Göran Ahrne and Nils Brunsson (2008): meta-organization, organizations of organizations.

Also called

Federalism (Handy 1989, 1992); subsidiarity-based organization. Handy also calls federal organizations reverse thrust organizations. Federated movements (Young 1989); the franchise form (Oster 1996), an affiliated alternative to a branch office, not Young's franchise-like drift; umbrella associations (Young 2001); the representatively governed federation (Skocpol, Ganz, and Munson 2000); the federal model of governance (Tapper and Palfreyman 2011); congregational polity (Harrison 1959).

Works cited

• 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.
• Barkey and Godart 2013. Empires, federated arrangements, and kingdoms: using political models of governance to understand firms' creative performance, Organization Studies 34(1), 79 to 104; a multi-firm quantitative study in one industry.
• 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 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.
• Chaves 1993. Denominations as dual structures: an organizational analysis, Sociology of Religion 54(2), 147 to 169.
• 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.
• Dattée and colleagues 2022. The dynamics of organizational autonomy: oscillations at Automobili Lamborghini, Administrative Science Quarterly 67(3), 721 to 768; one longitudinal case study.
• 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.
• Drucker 1954. The Practice of Management, Harper, New York (first edition, 404 pages).
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 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.
• Grossman and Rangan 2001. Managing multisite nonprofits, Nonprofit Management and Leadership 11(3), 321 to 337; field studies of five multisite nonprofits.
• 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.
• Handy 1989. The Age of Unreason, Harvard Business School Press, Boston; Business Books, London.
• Handy 1992. Balancing corporate power: a new federalist paper, Harvard Business Review 70(6), November to December 1992.
• 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.
• Harrison 1959. Authority and Power in the Free Church Tradition: A Social Case Study of the American Baptist Convention, Princeton University Press, Princeton (248 pages); one case study by a scholar.
• 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.
• 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.
• Knowles 1966. From Pachomius to Ignatius: A Study in the Constitutional History of the Religious Orders, Clarendon Press, Oxford (The Sarum Lectures, 1964 to 1965).
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Oster 1996. Nonprofit organizations and their local affiliates: a study in organizational forms, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 30(1), 83 to 95; a survey of nonprofit organizations.
• Ouchi 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans, Administrative Science Quarterly 25(1), 129 to 141; a conceptual article.
• 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.
• Rumelt 1974. Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Division of Research, Harvard Business School, Boston; a multi-firm study of large corporations.
• Santos and Eisenhardt 2005. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization, Organization Science 16(5), 491 to 508; a conceptual review.
• 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).
• Skocpol and colleagues 2000. A nation of organizers: the institutional origins of civic voluntarism in the United States, American Political Science Review 94(3), 527 to 546; a historical study of many membership associations by scholars.
• 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).
• Takayama and Cannon 1979. Formal polity and power distribution in American Protestant denominations, The Sociological Quarterly 20(3), 321 to 332; a comparative study of 26 denominations.
• Tapper and Palfreyman 2011. Oxford, the Collegiate University: Conflict, Consensus and Continuity, Springer, Dordrecht (Higher Education Dynamics series).
• 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).
• Wong 2012. Internal Affairs: How the Structure of NGOs Transforms Human Rights, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 2012 (xiv, 251 pages in the Library of Congress record); a 2014 edition (ISBN 9780801479793) is listed at 272 pages; a comparative study of seven international NGOs by one scholar.
• 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.
• Young 1989. Local autonomy in a franchise age: structural change in national voluntary associations, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 18(2), 101 to 117.
• Young 2001. Organizational identity and the structure of nonprofit umbrella associations, Nonprofit Management and Leadership 11(3), 289 to 304; two case studies by a scholar.
• Young and colleagues 1996. Structure and accountability: a study of national nonprofit associations, Nonprofit Management and Leadership 6(4), 347 to 365; a study of many national nonprofit associations.
• Young and colleagues 1999. Strategy and structure in managing global associations, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 10(4), 323 to 343; fifteen case studies by scholars.

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.