A parent owns legally separate businesses and governs them mainly through financial controls, leaving strategy and operations to each.
What it is
A holding company is a parent that owns legally separate businesses, often in unrelated industries, and governs them mainly through financial controls: capital goes in, returns come out, and strategy and operations are left to each business. Each subsidiary keeps its own full set of functions; the parent holds few specialists. Layers are thin, though intermediate holdings can add more.
The holding company owns separate businesses and watches their returns
Select a unit or the letter to read it; the dashed band is the layer of ownership that only some groups add. The words on one line from the parent hold for every subsidiary, including those owned through an intermediate holding.
Reports toOStandardization of outputs
Select a unit or a letter to read it. O, standardization of outputs: The results of the work are specified, such as targets or product dimensions, and the method is left to the unit.Parent company. Layer: Parent. Reports to no one. Owns the businesses and governs them mainly through financial controls, leaving strategy and operations to each; it holds few specialists of its own.Intermediate holding. Layer: Intermediate holding. Reports to Parent company. A holding between the parent and some of its subsidiaries, which adds a layer of ownership (Belenzon, Hashai, and Patacconi 2019).Subsidiary. Layer: Subsidiaries. Reports to Parent company. By business. A legally separate company, a business of its own, with its own full set of functions.Subsidiary. Layer: Subsidiaries. Reports to Parent company. By business. Often in a business unrelated to the others (Williamson 1975; Rumelt 1974); work and information rarely cross between the subsidiaries (our judgment).Subsidiary. Layer: Subsidiaries. Reports to Intermediate holding. By business. Owned through the intermediate holding. Belenzon, Hashai, and Patacconi (2019) argue, and report evidence consistent with it, that subsidiaries farther from headquarters in such pyramids get less attention and more autonomy.Subsidiary. Layer: Subsidiaries. Reports to Intermediate holding. By business. Bought and sold whole, as a business of its own (our judgment).O, standardization of outputs. The results of the work are specified, such as targets or product dimensions, and the method is left to the unit.
The structure in words
- Parent
- Parent company, reports to no one. Owns the businesses and governs them mainly through financial controls, leaving strategy and operations to each; it holds few specialists of its own.
- Intermediate holding (Only in some groups)
- Intermediate holding, reports to Parent company. A holding between the parent and some of its subsidiaries, which adds a layer of ownership (Belenzon, Hashai, and Patacconi 2019).
- Subsidiaries
- Subsidiary, reports to Parent company, grouped by business. A legally separate company, a business of its own, with its own full set of functions.
- Subsidiary, reports to Parent company, grouped by business. Often in a business unrelated to the others (Williamson 1975; Rumelt 1974); work and information rarely cross between the subsidiaries (our judgment).
- Subsidiary, reports to Intermediate holding, grouped by business. Owned through the intermediate holding. Belenzon, Hashai, and Patacconi (2019) argue, and report evidence consistent with it, that subsidiaries farther from headquarters in such pyramids get less attention and more autonomy.
- Subsidiary, reports to Intermediate holding, grouped by business. Bought and sold whole, as a business of its own (our judgment).
A parent owns legally separate subsidiaries, each with its own full set of functions, and governs them mainly through financial controls: capital goes in and returns come out. Strategy and operations are left to each business, and nothing ties the subsidiaries to each other.
Source: Williamson 1975; Rumelt 1974, a multi-firm study of large corporations; Belenzon and colleagues 2019, a large multi-group quantitative study.
Four of the form's levels rest on Williamson's (1975) theory: grouping by product or purpose (also Rumelt 1974); centralization decentralized; standardization of outputs, at its thinnest, as the prime coordinating mechanism; and a mode of exchange spanning market and bureaucracy. The rest are our judgment: specialization and formalization medium; layers and span from flat to moderate; decision rights at limited vertical decentralization, the nearest of Mintzberg's (1980) types; lateral mechanisms at hierarchy, rules, and goals only; boundaries closed; and differentiation against integration at its first level, low differentiation and light integration, a label the profile says falls short, since businesses that differ sharply share too little work for the difference to be managed.
Where the holding company (H-form) sits on the eleven dimensions
The filled segments are the form's levels; select a row for its reason and sources.
Select a dimension to read why the form sits there, and on what basis.Basis of grouping: Product or purpose. Basis: Theory. Legally separate subsidiaries, often in unrelated businesses, each a business of its own. Sources: Williamson 1975; Rumelt 1974.Specialization: Medium. Basis: Judgment. Each subsidiary keeps its own full set of functions, while the parent holds few specialists; judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975.Standardization and formalization: Medium. Basis: Judgment. The parent asks for financial reporting and little else; the subsidiaries' own procedures vary; judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975.Centralization: Decentralized. Basis: Theory. A loose arrangement of largely autonomous subsidiaries without a strong general office, leaving strategy and operations to each. Sources: Williamson 1975.Layers and span of control: Flat to moderate. Basis: Judgment. A thin parent over its subsidiaries; intermediate holdings add layers of ownership, and subsidiaries farther from headquarters in such pyramids received less attention and held more autonomy; the band sits lower than the business group's because the form is a single parent rather than a pyramid of many affiliates, which is judgment. Sources: Belenzon and colleagues 2019; Williamson 1975.Decision rights and the locus of authority: Limited vertical decentralization. Basis: Judgment. Of Mintzberg's types, Type C, much formal power delegated in parallel to the heads of market-based units, is the nearest; the parent keeps only ownership decisions; judgment for the type. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Williamson 1975.Prime coordinating mechanism: Standardization of outputs. Basis: Theory. Financial controls: capital in, returns out, which is standardization of outputs at its thinnest. Sources: Williamson 1975.Lateral mechanisms: Hierarchy, rules, and goals only. Basis: Judgment. The theory expects the holding company to lack the internal control apparatus, and nothing ties the subsidiaries to each other; judgment for the lateral reading. Sources: Williamson 1975.Differentiation against integration: Low differentiation, light integration. Basis: Judgment. Integration is light, only financial; the businesses may differ sharply, but they share little work, so the differentiation is left unmanaged, which the scale's first label does not capture; judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a.Mode of exchange and control: Market and bureaucracy. Basis: Theory. The tie is ownership with returns watched, nearer the market than the M-form's internal controls, though still inside one owner. Sources: Williamson 1975.Boundary permeability: Closed. Basis: Judgment. Businesses are bought and sold whole, but work and information rarely cross between them; judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975; Ashkenas and colleagues 1995.
Grouping by product or purpose, decentralized authority, standardization of outputs, and a mode of exchange spanning market and bureaucracy rest on Williamson's theory. The other seven levels rest on judgment, none on evidence, and no row is contested.
Source: Williamson 1975; Rumelt 1974, a multi-firm study of large corporations; Belenzon and colleagues 2019, a large multi-group quantitative study; Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a, a multi-firm comparative field study; Ashkenas and colleagues 1995.
Where it came from
Alfred Chandler's Strategy and Structure (1962) describes the holding company as the multidivisional structure's predecessor: before the 1920s the nearest approach to that structure was the large holding company, which stayed administratively a federation.
The schools of organization design and the forms' origins, 1900 to now
Each row is a school's era; each square under them is a form at its first year. Select a row or a square to read it; on a form's page, its own square and span are marked, with the schools that treat it.
The forms by first year
Schools that treat this form: Transaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis; Strategy and structure; Organizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities; Resource dependence; and the business-groups literature.
Select a school's row or a form's square to read it.Select a form's square to read it; open a school below.Bureaucracy and its critics1900s to 1950s, revived from the 1990sWhat it claimsWeber held that rational-legal authority exercised through an office hierarchy, written rules, trained officials, and promotion by qualification is technically superior in precision, speed, and reliability. Critics studied its unintended consequences, Michels's iron law sharpest.What it has shownMerton (1940) argued, with no test, that rules can turn from means into ends; case studies followed. The Aston group concluded that the type's dimensions vary independently, and Wagner's meta-analysis (2021) found that many of their interrelationships have weakened.Who disputes itHuman relations and System 4 sets the costs of impersonal rules to motivation and cooperation against the technical superiority Weber stresses.Bureaucracy and its critics in The Schools of Organization DesignClassical administration1910s to 1940s, and in German to the 1970sWhat it claimsThere are general principles of administration, among them division of work, unity of command, a scalar chain of authority, and a limited span of control, and a structure built to them will be efficient in most settings. Taylor added that planners should set work methods.What it has shownThe school offered reasoning and experience, not tests. Woodward (1965) found that the spans and levels of the more successful firms in her sample differed by production system, and Simon (1946) showed that the principles come in pairs that point in opposite directions.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory found that the structure of successful firms varies with technology and environment, where classical writers treat their principles as general.Classical administration in The Schools of Organization DesignHuman relations and System 41920s to 1960sWhat it claimsOutput depends on the social relations of work, the norms of informal groups, and the style of supervision as much as on formal design. Likert's System 4, overlapping work groups joined by linking-pin managers under participative management, outperforms authoritative systems.What it has shownThe founding evidence is the Hawthorne studies, which later reanalyses dispute (Carey 1967; Levitt and List 2011). Likert's support came largely from his own institute's surveys. Wagner (1994) found participation's effects on performance and satisfaction significant but small.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads human relations as a technique of managerial control rather than a change in the distribution of power.Human relations and System 4 in The Schools of Organization DesignTransaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis1937, then the 1970s to the presentWhat it claimsFirms exist, and are organized as they are, to economize on transaction costs. Hierarchy replaces the market when assets are specific, uncertainty is high, and exchange is frequent, and the multidivisional form should outperform the functional form in large, diversified firms.What it has shownArmour and Teece (1978) found, in United States petroleum firms from 1955 to 1973, a positive relationship between the multidivisional form and profitability while the form was spreading, but not once an equilibrium in organizational form was reached.Who disputes itThe network perspective on organizations: Granovetter argued that the theory undersocializes economic action, which is embedded in networks of personal relations that also produce trust and order.Transaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis in The Schools of Organization DesignThe Carnegie school and the attention-based view1940s to the presentWhat it claimsPeople in organizations are boundedly rational, so structure matters because it sets the premises of their decisions and channels their attention: who sees which problems, which goals they pursue, and which routines they follow. Ocasio makes structure distribute attention.What it has shownMarch and Simon (1958) drew propositions from the existing literature, and Cyert and March (1963) added process models and simulations. Two studies show hierarchy shaping what is sent up as well as what is chosen (Reitzig and Maciejovsky 2015; Keum and See 2017).Who disputes itOrganizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities models a principal and agents with defined objectives; the Carnegie school, firms as coalitions with unresolved goal conflict.The Carnegie school and the attention-based view in The Schools of Organization DesignSocio-technical systems1950s to 1980sWhat it claimsAn organization is a social system and a technical system that must be designed together. The same technology admits more than one way of organizing work, and groups that own a whole task and control its variances at the source perform better and are more satisfied.What it has shownTrist and Bamforth (1951) found that longwall mechanization broke up self-regulating work groups. A review of 134 experiments found them extremely successful overall, and Stewart (2006) linked team autonomy to performance; studies of socialist brigades and Volkswagen qualify it.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory: Kelly argued that labor intensification, not joint optimization, accounts for what socio-technical redesign achieved, and that the part of pay incentives was seriously underestimated.Socio-technical systems in The Schools of Organization DesignThe economics of the labor-managed firm and of enterprise ownership1958 to the presentWhat it claimsA firm run by its workers behaves differently from one run for investors: Ward modeled the Yugoslav-style firm as maximizing income per worker. Hansmann argued that an ownership form's success depends on the balance between the costs of market contracting and of ownership.What it has shownBurdín (2014) found a 29 percent lower hazard of dissolution for Uruguayan worker-managed firms than for conventional ones, and Fakhfakh, Pérotin, and Gago (2012) found French labor-managed firms as productive or more so in every industry studied.Who disputes itOrganizational economics (Jensen and Meckling) contrasts the labor-managed firm, in which tradable residual claims are legally prohibited, with cooperatives and partnerships that arise out of voluntary contracting.The economics of the labor-managed firm and of enterprise ownership in The Schools of Organization DesignModularity and the mirroring hypothesis1960s to the presentWhat it claimsComplex systems are built of nearly decomposable parts, and an organization's structure tends to mirror the architecture of what it makes: modular products allow loosely coupled organizations, and tightly coupled products need tightly coupled teams. Conway's law runs in reverse.What it has shownColfer and Baldwin (2016) review the empirical studies and report both support and principled exceptions. Direct tests point both ways: MacCormack, Baldwin, and Rusnak (2012) found open source products more modular than their commercial pairs; dynamic components break the mirror.Who disputes itNo school in the record disputes it head on; it answers information processing, which meets the coordination load inside the organization; mirroring writers locate it in the product's architecture.Modularity and the mirroring hypothesis in The Schools of Organization DesignStrategy and structure1960s to 1980sWhat it claimsStructure follows strategy: firms that diversify by product or geography outgrow the centralized functional structure and, after a lag and usually a crisis, adopt divisions. Chandler drew this from the histories of DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Sears.What it has shownChandler (1962) is comparative business history of four firms set against a wider survey. Rumelt (1974) related diversification and structure to performance, and Egelhoff (1988), with 34 multinationals, found some of Stopford and Wells's relationships supported and others not.Who disputes itInstitutional theory: in Fligstein's model divisions spread with a product-related or unrelated strategy, presidents from sales or finance, and other firms in the industry changing; strategy was one of three.Strategy and structure in The Schools of Organization DesignStructural contingency theory1960s to the presentWhat it claimsThere is no one best structure. Performance depends on fit between structure and contingencies such as environment, technology, size, and strategy, on an open-system view of the organization. Drazin and Van de Ven separate fit as selection, interaction, and systems.What it has shownBurns and Stalker, Woodward, and the Aston group related structure to context; Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) supported selection and systems fit only. Pennings (1975) found that fit did not explain effectiveness; Schoonhoven (1981) found traditional hypotheses unsupported.Who disputes itStrategic choice: Child argued that contingency theory explains structure by the constraints of context and leaves out the political process by which power-holders choose strategic action, structural forms included.Structural contingency theory in The Schools of Organization DesignThe French bureaucratic school (strategic analysis)1960s to 1980sWhat it claimsA bureaucracy is a system of power relations organized around zones of uncertainty. Impersonal rules and centralization protect members from depending on one another, those who control uncertainties hold power, and, unable to correct its errors, it changes only through crisis.What it has shownLe phénomène bureaucratique (1963; English 1964) rests on two case studies, a clerical agency and a state industrial monopoly. L'acteur et le système (1977; English 1980) is theoretical.Who disputes itSocietal effect and comparative business systems: D'Iribarne argues that national logics of conduct, such as a French logic of honor, explain differences that Crozier attributed to power games.The French bureaucratic school (strategic analysis) in The Schools of Organization DesignThe Japanese-firm literature1960s to the presentWhat it claimsThe large Japanese firm coordinates operating decisions through horizontal information sharing among semi-autonomous shops and uses its ranking hierarchy mainly as an incentive scheme (Aoki). It creates knowledge through middle-up-down management (Nonaka and Takeuchi).What it has shownAoki (1986) is a formal model. Lincoln, Hanada, and McBride (1986) compared 51 Japanese and 55 United States manufacturing plants, and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) rest on case studies, chiefly of Japanese firms. Fruin (1994) found the enterprise system defined at three levels.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads shop-floor delegation as control: Sewell and Wilkinson argue that just-in-time and total quality regimes delegate tactical responsibility while centralizing strategic control.The Japanese-firm literature in The Schools of Organization DesignThe Scandinavian and Dutch socio-technical schools1960s to 2000sWhat it claimsThe Scandinavian program sought democracy at work through field experiments with semi-autonomous groups, then through democratic dialogue. The Dutch school's design theory turns complex organizations with simple jobs into simple organizations with complex jobs.What it has shownEmery and Thorsrud reported field experiments in Norwegian industry; Gustavsen (1992) records that they spread less than hoped, his reason for turning to dialogue. Berggren studied work organization in the Swedish auto industry. The Dutch work rests on design cases and argument.Who disputes itThe Japanese-firm literature: defenders of the Toyota system hold that standardized work with employee participation learns faster; Berggren reports Swedish long-cycle plants matching a line plant on productivity.The Scandinavian and Dutch socio-technical schools in The Schools of Organization DesignConfiguration theory1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructures cluster into a small number of internally coherent configurations whose elements reinforce one another, so organizations move between a few types in large jumps, not small steps. Mintzberg's five configurations each rest on one coordinating mechanism.What it has shownDoty, Glick, and Huber (1993) found that fit to Miles and Snow's ideal types predicted effectiveness while fit to Mintzberg's did not. A meta-analysis of 40 tests (Ketchen and colleagues 1997) found that configuration partly explains performance, more so with broad definitions.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Donaldson counters that most organizations sit at intermediate points on a continuum of fits, not in a few configurations, and that studies over time find mostly incremental change.Configuration theory in The Schools of Organization DesignInformation processing1970s to the presentWhat it claimsThe more uncertain the task, the more information must be processed during its execution. An organization either reduces that need, through slack resources or self-contained tasks, or raises its capacity, through vertical information systems or lateral relations up to the matrix.What it has shownGalbraith (1973, 1974) built the framework from cases and from Simon's theory of bounded rationality, and Tushman and Nadler (1978) set it out as an integrating concept for design. Daft and Lengel (1986) argued that structure must reduce equivocality as well as supply data.Who disputes itThe Carnegie school and the attention-based view: Ocasio holds that firm behavior results from how the firm channels and distributes attention, so structure governs where attention goes, not only how much is processed.Information processing in The Schools of Organization DesignLabor process and critical theory1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructure is above all a system of control over labor. Braverman argued that management deskills work by separating conception from execution; Edwards traced a sequence from simple control by the boss to technical control through machines to bureaucratic control through rules.What it has shownHistorical and theoretical (Braverman 1974; Edwards 1979). Delbridge (1995), observing a Japanese-owned plant in England, found that just-in-time and total quality regimes combined the control of labor with management's economic goals more completely than piece rates had.Who disputes itBureaucracy and its critics: Adler argues that labor process theory ignores the progressive socialization of the labor process, which drives long-term skill upgrading, and disputes deskilling as the trend.Labor process and critical theory in The Schools of Organization DesignStrategic choice1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructure is the outcome of choices by those with power in the organization, who decide on strategic action, including the structural form, the manipulation of environmental features, and the performance standards to be met. Context constrains but does not determine structure.What it has shownLargely conceptual: Child (1972) built the argument from gaps in contingency findings, and the empirical case rests mostly on the modest share of structural variance contingencies explain. A 2026 review of 42 studies finds upper echelons theory their main theoretical anchor.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Donaldson replies that organizations mostly adopt the structures their contingencies dictate, to avoid the loss of performance misfit brings, so choice over structure is at most limited.Strategic choice in The Schools of Organization DesignThe German codetermination literature1970s to the presentWhat it claimsWorks councils and employee board seats form a structural layer through which coordination can become negotiation between management and employees. Defenders argue that it supports long-term employment, training, and cooperation; critics, that it weakens shareholder control.What it has shownJäger, Schoefer, and Heining (2021) found board-level codetermination left wages unchanged and, if anything, raised capital formation. Jirjahn (2011) reports studies pointing to positive works council effects; a meta-analysis found codetermination laws tied to lower productivity.Who disputes itOrganizational economics (Gorton and Schmid) found that firms with equal employee and shareholder representation did worse for their shareholders than firms with one-third employee representation.The German codetermination literature in The Schools of Organization DesignOrganizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities1976 to the presentWhat it claimsDesign is the joint choice of who holds which decision rights, how performance is measured, and how it is rewarded. Rights should be placed where the specific knowledge lies, formal authority differs from real authority, and practices are complements that pay off in clusters.What it has shownIchniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi (1997) found, on 36 steel finishing lines, that lines using a set of innovative work practices achieved substantially higher productivity, consistent with complementarities. Bloom and colleagues found more decentralization where trust was higher.Who disputes itGhoshal argued that management research has shaped managers' worldview with ideologically inspired amoral theories, built on a scientific model that excludes human intentionality and so denies moral considerations.Organizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities in The Schools of Organization DesignInstitutional theory1977 to the presentWhat it claimsFormal structures are often adopted because they are legitimate in the organization's field, as rationalized myths, and then decoupled from the work done. Organizations in a field grow alike through coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism, whether or not it is efficient.What it has shownTolbert and Zucker (1983) found that city characteristics predicted early but not later adoption of civil service reform, which they read as institutionalization. Palmer, Jennings, and Zhou (1993) found support for institutional and economic accounts of late M-form adoption.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Kraatz and Zajac found little support for neoinstitutional predictions in 631 liberal arts colleges, which grew less alike; the change they studied was curricular, not structural.Institutional theory in The Schools of Organization DesignPopulation ecology1977 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations face strong structural inertia, because selection favors the reliability and accountability of stable structures. Change in a population's forms comes mainly from founding and failure, not adaptation, and changing core features resets the liability of newness.What it has shownAmburgey, Kelly, and Barnett (1993) found that the effects of change on the hazard of failure vary by type of change and over time, and that rates of change depend on how often and how recently an organization has changed. Carroll and Hannan (2000) set out the program's methods.Who disputes itFor structural contingency theory, Donaldson argues that ecology understates managers' capacity to adapt structure.Population ecology in The Schools of Organization DesignResource dependence1978 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations depend on outside parties for critical resources, and structure follows the management of that dependence: units that cope with critical dependencies gain power, and boundaries are redrawn through cooptation, joint ventures, and mergers to absorb constraint.What it has shownPfeffer and Salancik (1978) assembled studies of boards, mergers, and joint ventures. A meta-analysis of 157 tests (Drees and Heugens 2013) corroborated the main prediction: organizations meet resource dependencies with interorganizational arrangements that raise their autonomy.Who disputes itTransaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis explains boundaries by efficiency; resource dependence, by power and constraint.Resource dependence in The Schools of Organization DesignThe business-groups literature1978 to the presentWhat it claimsGroups of legally independent firms bound by ownership and social ties are a durable form of their own, neither one firm nor a market. Where institutions function poorly, groups can benefit member firms and can destroy value; they are sometimes paragons, sometimes parasites.What it has shownKhanna and Palepu (2000) found that affiliates of the most diversified Indian groups outperformed unaffiliated firms. A meta-analysis of 141 studies (Carney and colleagues 2011) found that affiliation lowers performance in general, less so where institutions are underdeveloped.Who disputes itOrganizational economics: agency writers read pyramids and cross-holdings as devices that separate control from ownership; Almeida and Wolfenzon offer a financing rationale for pyramids instead.The business-groups literature in The Schools of Organization DesignScandinavian institutionalism1980s to the presentWhat it claimsIdeas of organizing do not diffuse unchanged; they travel and are translated as they are adopted, so a form taken up in one place is not the same form elsewhere. Organizations can also be built of organizations (meta-organizations), which behave differently.What it has shownA discussion paper by Czarniawska and Joerges (1995) contrasts the diffusion of ideas with their translation, drawing on examples such as Swedish municipal reform; the work on meta-organizations (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008) is conceptual.Who disputes itInstitutional theory can read the same processes, seen from a translocal view, as institutional isomorphism, though translation holds that each adopter modifies an idea, so an institution re-created elsewhere is new.Scandinavian institutionalism in The Schools of Organization DesignSocietal effect and comparative business systems1980s to the presentWhat it claimsFirms matched on size, technology, and industry differ systematically by country, because how a society educates, trains, recruits, and promotes its workforce, and its industrial relations, shape how work is divided and supervised, so structure is partly a national product.What it has shownMaurice, Sorge, and Warner (1980) compared closely matched manufacturing units in France, West Germany, and Great Britain and found more pervasive differences in their organization than usually recognized. Whitley (1999) set out a comparative account of business systems.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory stresses culture-free elements of structure; matched comparisons find nationally different shapes of organization.Societal effect and comparative business systems in The Schools of Organization DesignThe network perspective on organizations1985 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations and their members are nodes joined by ties, and the pattern of ties shapes what they can do. Economic action is embedded in networks of personal relations (Granovetter 1985), and network forms are a distinct form, not a hybrid of market and hierarchy (Powell 1990).What it has shownPodolny and Page (1998) review the research and find that network forms foster learning, confer status and legitimacy, bring economic benefits, help manage resource dependencies, and give employees considerable autonomy, and they ask for attention to networks' dysfunctions.Who disputes itTransaction cost economics: Williamson treats the hybrid as a third generic form between market and hierarchy; for Powell, network forms are a distinct form, not a mix of the two.The network perspective on organizations in The Schools of Organization DesignComputational organization design and search1990s to the presentWhat it claimsDesign choices interact, so design space is a rugged landscape with many local peaks, and structure affects how well an organization searches it. Decentralizing interdependent decisions can trap units on poor peaks; temporary decentralization, then reintegration, can help.What it has shownMostly simulation, with one field test: Csaszar (2012), with more than 150,000 stock-picking decisions by 609 mutual funds, found that decision-making structure affects the number of initiatives pursued and the omission and commission errors made.Who disputes itNo school in the record disputes it head on; it disputes structural contingency theory, whose bivariate fit, its simulations show, cannot capture how the best design depends on interactions among choices.Computational organization design and search in The Schools of Organization DesignThe new-forms debate1990s to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations must solve four universal problems (dividing tasks, allocating them, providing rewards, and providing information), and a form is new when it solves them in new ways. Self-managing organizations radically decentralize authority; skeptics hold hierarchy reappears.What it has shownFoss (2003) traced the rise and partial reversal of Oticon's spaghetti organization to the problem of selective intervention. A meta-analysis of 54 studies of 13,914 teams (Greer and colleagues 2018) found that hierarchy within teams on net slightly lowers team performance.Who disputes itBureaucracy and its critics: removing formal structure leaves informal elites whose power is unaccountable (Freeman), and democratic and network organizations are much less hierarchy-free than their labels suggest.The new-forms debate in The Schools of Organization DesignThe algorithmic-management literature2015 to the presentWhat it claimsSoftware does much of the directing, evaluating, and disciplining that managers and rules once did. Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin (2020) call algorithmic control a new contested terrain; Puranam (2021) treats dividing decisions between people and machines as a design problem.What it has shownMostly qualitative field studies of gig work. Wood and colleagues (2019), with 107 interviews in six countries and 679 survey respondents, found that algorithmic management tends to give remote gig workers flexibility and autonomy, but also low pay, isolation, and overwork.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads control at work as contested terrain; Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin take up that view but argue that algorithmic control is distinct from earlier forms.The algorithmic-management literature in The Schools of Organization DesignFunctional structureOrigin: 1911 to 1937.Family: Classical hierarchies.Line and staffOrigin: 1916 to 1943.Family: Classical hierarchies.Multidivisional (M-form) by productOrigin: 1920s practice; named and analyzed 1962 to 1975.Family: Divisionalized forms.Machine bureaucracyOrigin: 1922 (Weber); 1979 (Mintzberg).Family: Classical hierarchies.Divisional by customer or market segmentOrigin: 1937; 2005.Family: Divisionalized forms.Matrix organizationOrigin: 1950s to 1960s practice; analyzed 1971 to 1977.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Co-determined organizationOrigin: 1951 to 1976 (the laws); 1984 to 2022 (the main studies).Family: Forms from other traditions.Socio-technical autonomous work groupsOrigin: 1951 to 1965.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.Stratified hierarchy (requisite organization)Origin: 1951 to 1989.Family: Classical hierarchies.Cooperative organizationOrigin: 1958 to 1999.Family: Forms from other traditions.Linking-pin organization (System 4)Origin: 1961 to 1967.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.Divisional by regionOrigin: 1962 to 1972.Family: Divisionalized forms.Adhocracy (innovative organization)Origin: 1968 to 1979.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.J-form (the Japanese firm)Origin: 1968 to 1990.Family: Forms from other traditions.Professional bureaucracyOrigin: 1968 to 1979.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.Holding company (H-form)Origin: 1972 to 1975; 1987.Family: Divisionalized forms.Ambidextrous organizationOrigin: 1976 to 2004.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.Simple structureOrigin: 1979.Family: Classical hierarchies.Hybrid structureOrigin: 1980 to the present.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Missionary (ideological) organizationOrigin: 1980 to 1989.Family: Ideological forms.Network, modular, and virtual organizationOrigin: 1986 to 1990.Family: Network and market-like forms.Transnational and multidimensional organizationOrigin: 1987 to 1989.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Business group (keiretsu, chaebol, family house)Origin: 1988 to 2007.Family: Forms from other traditions.Shamrock organizationOrigin: 1988 to 1989.Family: Network and market-like forms.Federal organizationOrigin: 1989 to 1992.Family: Network and market-like forms.Self-managing organization (less-hierarchical forms)Origin: 1989 to 2017.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.Boundaryless organizationOrigin: 1990 to 1995.Family: Network and market-like forms.Front-back organizationOrigin: 1990s to 2007.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Professional partnership (P2 form)Origin: 1990.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.The corporate center and shared servicesOrigin: 1991 to 2000.Family: Divisionalized forms.Internal market organizationOrigin: 1993 to 1994.Family: Network and market-like forms.Process (horizontal) organizationOrigin: 1993 to 1999.Family: Lateral and multidimensional forms.Cellular organizationOrigin: 1994 to 1997.Family: Network and market-like forms.Hypertext organizationOrigin: 1994 to 1995.Family: Forms from other traditions.Team-based organizationOrigin: 1995.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.Project-based organizationOrigin: 2000 to 2006.Family: Professional, project, and knowledge forms.Agile at scaleOrigin: 2001 to 2016.Family: Contemporary and emerging forms.Distributed (all-remote) organizationOrigin: 2002 to 2021.Family: Contemporary and emerging forms.Open-source and community-based organizationOrigin: 2002 to 2007.Family: Contemporary and emerging forms.Algorithmically managed organizationOrigin: 2015 to 2020.Family: Contemporary and emerging forms.Team of teamsOrigin: 2015.Family: Team-based and self-managing forms.
The schools by first year
- Bureaucracy and its critics1900s to 1950s, revived from the 1990sWhat it claimsWeber held that rational-legal authority exercised through an office hierarchy, written rules, trained officials, and promotion by qualification is technically superior in precision, speed, and reliability. Critics studied its unintended consequences, Michels's iron law sharpest.What it has shownMerton (1940) argued, with no test, that rules can turn from means into ends; case studies followed. The Aston group concluded that the type's dimensions vary independently, and Wagner's meta-analysis (2021) found that many of their interrelationships have weakened.Who disputes itHuman relations and System 4 sets the costs of impersonal rules to motivation and cooperation against the technical superiority Weber stresses.
- Classical administration1910s to 1940s, and in German to the 1970sWhat it claimsThere are general principles of administration, among them division of work, unity of command, a scalar chain of authority, and a limited span of control, and a structure built to them will be efficient in most settings. Taylor added that planners should set work methods.What it has shownThe school offered reasoning and experience, not tests. Woodward (1965) found that the spans and levels of the more successful firms in her sample differed by production system, and Simon (1946) showed that the principles come in pairs that point in opposite directions.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory found that the structure of successful firms varies with technology and environment, where classical writers treat their principles as general.
- Human relations and System 41920s to 1960sWhat it claimsOutput depends on the social relations of work, the norms of informal groups, and the style of supervision as much as on formal design. Likert's System 4, overlapping work groups joined by linking-pin managers under participative management, outperforms authoritative systems.What it has shownThe founding evidence is the Hawthorne studies, which later reanalyses dispute (Carey 1967; Levitt and List 2011). Likert's support came largely from his own institute's surveys. Wagner (1994) found participation's effects on performance and satisfaction significant but small.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads human relations as a technique of managerial control rather than a change in the distribution of power.
- Transaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis1937, then the 1970s to the presentWhat it claimsFirms exist, and are organized as they are, to economize on transaction costs. Hierarchy replaces the market when assets are specific, uncertainty is high, and exchange is frequent, and the multidivisional form should outperform the functional form in large, diversified firms.What it has shownArmour and Teece (1978) found, in United States petroleum firms from 1955 to 1973, a positive relationship between the multidivisional form and profitability while the form was spreading, but not once an equilibrium in organizational form was reached.Who disputes itThe network perspective on organizations: Granovetter argued that the theory undersocializes economic action, which is embedded in networks of personal relations that also produce trust and order.
- The Carnegie school and the attention-based view1940s to the presentWhat it claimsPeople in organizations are boundedly rational, so structure matters because it sets the premises of their decisions and channels their attention: who sees which problems, which goals they pursue, and which routines they follow. Ocasio makes structure distribute attention.What it has shownMarch and Simon (1958) drew propositions from the existing literature, and Cyert and March (1963) added process models and simulations. Two studies show hierarchy shaping what is sent up as well as what is chosen (Reitzig and Maciejovsky 2015; Keum and See 2017).Who disputes itOrganizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities models a principal and agents with defined objectives; the Carnegie school, firms as coalitions with unresolved goal conflict.
- Socio-technical systems1950s to 1980sWhat it claimsAn organization is a social system and a technical system that must be designed together. The same technology admits more than one way of organizing work, and groups that own a whole task and control its variances at the source perform better and are more satisfied.What it has shownTrist and Bamforth (1951) found that longwall mechanization broke up self-regulating work groups. A review of 134 experiments found them extremely successful overall, and Stewart (2006) linked team autonomy to performance; studies of socialist brigades and Volkswagen qualify it.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory: Kelly argued that labor intensification, not joint optimization, accounts for what socio-technical redesign achieved, and that the part of pay incentives was seriously underestimated.
- The economics of the labor-managed firm and of enterprise ownership1958 to the presentWhat it claimsA firm run by its workers behaves differently from one run for investors: Ward modeled the Yugoslav-style firm as maximizing income per worker. Hansmann argued that an ownership form's success depends on the balance between the costs of market contracting and of ownership.What it has shownBurdín (2014) found a 29 percent lower hazard of dissolution for Uruguayan worker-managed firms than for conventional ones, and Fakhfakh, Pérotin, and Gago (2012) found French labor-managed firms as productive or more so in every industry studied.Who disputes itOrganizational economics (Jensen and Meckling) contrasts the labor-managed firm, in which tradable residual claims are legally prohibited, with cooperatives and partnerships that arise out of voluntary contracting.
- Modularity and the mirroring hypothesis1960s to the presentWhat it claimsComplex systems are built of nearly decomposable parts, and an organization's structure tends to mirror the architecture of what it makes: modular products allow loosely coupled organizations, and tightly coupled products need tightly coupled teams. Conway's law runs in reverse.What it has shownColfer and Baldwin (2016) review the empirical studies and report both support and principled exceptions. Direct tests point both ways: MacCormack, Baldwin, and Rusnak (2012) found open source products more modular than their commercial pairs; dynamic components break the mirror.Who disputes itNo school in the record disputes it head on; it answers information processing, which meets the coordination load inside the organization; mirroring writers locate it in the product's architecture.
- Strategy and structure1960s to 1980sWhat it claimsStructure follows strategy: firms that diversify by product or geography outgrow the centralized functional structure and, after a lag and usually a crisis, adopt divisions. Chandler drew this from the histories of DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Sears.What it has shownChandler (1962) is comparative business history of four firms set against a wider survey. Rumelt (1974) related diversification and structure to performance, and Egelhoff (1988), with 34 multinationals, found some of Stopford and Wells's relationships supported and others not.Who disputes itInstitutional theory: in Fligstein's model divisions spread with a product-related or unrelated strategy, presidents from sales or finance, and other firms in the industry changing; strategy was one of three.
- Structural contingency theory1960s to the presentWhat it claimsThere is no one best structure. Performance depends on fit between structure and contingencies such as environment, technology, size, and strategy, on an open-system view of the organization. Drazin and Van de Ven separate fit as selection, interaction, and systems.What it has shownBurns and Stalker, Woodward, and the Aston group related structure to context; Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) supported selection and systems fit only. Pennings (1975) found that fit did not explain effectiveness; Schoonhoven (1981) found traditional hypotheses unsupported.Who disputes itStrategic choice: Child argued that contingency theory explains structure by the constraints of context and leaves out the political process by which power-holders choose strategic action, structural forms included.
- The French bureaucratic school (strategic analysis)1960s to 1980sWhat it claimsA bureaucracy is a system of power relations organized around zones of uncertainty. Impersonal rules and centralization protect members from depending on one another, those who control uncertainties hold power, and, unable to correct its errors, it changes only through crisis.What it has shownLe phénomène bureaucratique (1963; English 1964) rests on two case studies, a clerical agency and a state industrial monopoly. L'acteur et le système (1977; English 1980) is theoretical.Who disputes itSocietal effect and comparative business systems: D'Iribarne argues that national logics of conduct, such as a French logic of honor, explain differences that Crozier attributed to power games.
- The Japanese-firm literature1960s to the presentWhat it claimsThe large Japanese firm coordinates operating decisions through horizontal information sharing among semi-autonomous shops and uses its ranking hierarchy mainly as an incentive scheme (Aoki). It creates knowledge through middle-up-down management (Nonaka and Takeuchi).What it has shownAoki (1986) is a formal model. Lincoln, Hanada, and McBride (1986) compared 51 Japanese and 55 United States manufacturing plants, and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) rest on case studies, chiefly of Japanese firms. Fruin (1994) found the enterprise system defined at three levels.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads shop-floor delegation as control: Sewell and Wilkinson argue that just-in-time and total quality regimes delegate tactical responsibility while centralizing strategic control.
- The Scandinavian and Dutch socio-technical schools1960s to 2000sWhat it claimsThe Scandinavian program sought democracy at work through field experiments with semi-autonomous groups, then through democratic dialogue. The Dutch school's design theory turns complex organizations with simple jobs into simple organizations with complex jobs.What it has shownEmery and Thorsrud reported field experiments in Norwegian industry; Gustavsen (1992) records that they spread less than hoped, his reason for turning to dialogue. Berggren studied work organization in the Swedish auto industry. The Dutch work rests on design cases and argument.Who disputes itThe Japanese-firm literature: defenders of the Toyota system hold that standardized work with employee participation learns faster; Berggren reports Swedish long-cycle plants matching a line plant on productivity.
- Configuration theory1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructures cluster into a small number of internally coherent configurations whose elements reinforce one another, so organizations move between a few types in large jumps, not small steps. Mintzberg's five configurations each rest on one coordinating mechanism.What it has shownDoty, Glick, and Huber (1993) found that fit to Miles and Snow's ideal types predicted effectiveness while fit to Mintzberg's did not. A meta-analysis of 40 tests (Ketchen and colleagues 1997) found that configuration partly explains performance, more so with broad definitions.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Donaldson counters that most organizations sit at intermediate points on a continuum of fits, not in a few configurations, and that studies over time find mostly incremental change.
- Information processing1970s to the presentWhat it claimsThe more uncertain the task, the more information must be processed during its execution. An organization either reduces that need, through slack resources or self-contained tasks, or raises its capacity, through vertical information systems or lateral relations up to the matrix.What it has shownGalbraith (1973, 1974) built the framework from cases and from Simon's theory of bounded rationality, and Tushman and Nadler (1978) set it out as an integrating concept for design. Daft and Lengel (1986) argued that structure must reduce equivocality as well as supply data.Who disputes itThe Carnegie school and the attention-based view: Ocasio holds that firm behavior results from how the firm channels and distributes attention, so structure governs where attention goes, not only how much is processed.
- Labor process and critical theory1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructure is above all a system of control over labor. Braverman argued that management deskills work by separating conception from execution; Edwards traced a sequence from simple control by the boss to technical control through machines to bureaucratic control through rules.What it has shownHistorical and theoretical (Braverman 1974; Edwards 1979). Delbridge (1995), observing a Japanese-owned plant in England, found that just-in-time and total quality regimes combined the control of labor with management's economic goals more completely than piece rates had.Who disputes itBureaucracy and its critics: Adler argues that labor process theory ignores the progressive socialization of the labor process, which drives long-term skill upgrading, and disputes deskilling as the trend.
- Strategic choice1970s to the presentWhat it claimsStructure is the outcome of choices by those with power in the organization, who decide on strategic action, including the structural form, the manipulation of environmental features, and the performance standards to be met. Context constrains but does not determine structure.What it has shownLargely conceptual: Child (1972) built the argument from gaps in contingency findings, and the empirical case rests mostly on the modest share of structural variance contingencies explain. A 2026 review of 42 studies finds upper echelons theory their main theoretical anchor.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Donaldson replies that organizations mostly adopt the structures their contingencies dictate, to avoid the loss of performance misfit brings, so choice over structure is at most limited.
- The German codetermination literature1970s to the presentWhat it claimsWorks councils and employee board seats form a structural layer through which coordination can become negotiation between management and employees. Defenders argue that it supports long-term employment, training, and cooperation; critics, that it weakens shareholder control.What it has shownJäger, Schoefer, and Heining (2021) found board-level codetermination left wages unchanged and, if anything, raised capital formation. Jirjahn (2011) reports studies pointing to positive works council effects; a meta-analysis found codetermination laws tied to lower productivity.Who disputes itOrganizational economics (Gorton and Schmid) found that firms with equal employee and shareholder representation did worse for their shareholders than firms with one-third employee representation.
- Organizational economics: decision rights, authority, and complementarities1976 to the presentWhat it claimsDesign is the joint choice of who holds which decision rights, how performance is measured, and how it is rewarded. Rights should be placed where the specific knowledge lies, formal authority differs from real authority, and practices are complements that pay off in clusters.What it has shownIchniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi (1997) found, on 36 steel finishing lines, that lines using a set of innovative work practices achieved substantially higher productivity, consistent with complementarities. Bloom and colleagues found more decentralization where trust was higher.Who disputes itGhoshal argued that management research has shaped managers' worldview with ideologically inspired amoral theories, built on a scientific model that excludes human intentionality and so denies moral considerations.
- Institutional theory1977 to the presentWhat it claimsFormal structures are often adopted because they are legitimate in the organization's field, as rationalized myths, and then decoupled from the work done. Organizations in a field grow alike through coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism, whether or not it is efficient.What it has shownTolbert and Zucker (1983) found that city characteristics predicted early but not later adoption of civil service reform, which they read as institutionalization. Palmer, Jennings, and Zhou (1993) found support for institutional and economic accounts of late M-form adoption.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory: Kraatz and Zajac found little support for neoinstitutional predictions in 631 liberal arts colleges, which grew less alike; the change they studied was curricular, not structural.
- Population ecology1977 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations face strong structural inertia, because selection favors the reliability and accountability of stable structures. Change in a population's forms comes mainly from founding and failure, not adaptation, and changing core features resets the liability of newness.What it has shownAmburgey, Kelly, and Barnett (1993) found that the effects of change on the hazard of failure vary by type of change and over time, and that rates of change depend on how often and how recently an organization has changed. Carroll and Hannan (2000) set out the program's methods.Who disputes itFor structural contingency theory, Donaldson argues that ecology understates managers' capacity to adapt structure.
- Resource dependence1978 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations depend on outside parties for critical resources, and structure follows the management of that dependence: units that cope with critical dependencies gain power, and boundaries are redrawn through cooptation, joint ventures, and mergers to absorb constraint.What it has shownPfeffer and Salancik (1978) assembled studies of boards, mergers, and joint ventures. A meta-analysis of 157 tests (Drees and Heugens 2013) corroborated the main prediction: organizations meet resource dependencies with interorganizational arrangements that raise their autonomy.Who disputes itTransaction cost economics and the M-form hypothesis explains boundaries by efficiency; resource dependence, by power and constraint.
- The business-groups literature1978 to the presentWhat it claimsGroups of legally independent firms bound by ownership and social ties are a durable form of their own, neither one firm nor a market. Where institutions function poorly, groups can benefit member firms and can destroy value; they are sometimes paragons, sometimes parasites.What it has shownKhanna and Palepu (2000) found that affiliates of the most diversified Indian groups outperformed unaffiliated firms. A meta-analysis of 141 studies (Carney and colleagues 2011) found that affiliation lowers performance in general, less so where institutions are underdeveloped.Who disputes itOrganizational economics: agency writers read pyramids and cross-holdings as devices that separate control from ownership; Almeida and Wolfenzon offer a financing rationale for pyramids instead.
- Scandinavian institutionalism1980s to the present
- Societal effect and comparative business systems1980s to the presentWhat it claimsFirms matched on size, technology, and industry differ systematically by country, because how a society educates, trains, recruits, and promotes its workforce, and its industrial relations, shape how work is divided and supervised, so structure is partly a national product.What it has shownMaurice, Sorge, and Warner (1980) compared closely matched manufacturing units in France, West Germany, and Great Britain and found more pervasive differences in their organization than usually recognized. Whitley (1999) set out a comparative account of business systems.Who disputes itStructural contingency theory stresses culture-free elements of structure; matched comparisons find nationally different shapes of organization.
- The network perspective on organizations1985 to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations and their members are nodes joined by ties, and the pattern of ties shapes what they can do. Economic action is embedded in networks of personal relations (Granovetter 1985), and network forms are a distinct form, not a hybrid of market and hierarchy (Powell 1990).What it has shownPodolny and Page (1998) review the research and find that network forms foster learning, confer status and legitimacy, bring economic benefits, help manage resource dependencies, and give employees considerable autonomy, and they ask for attention to networks' dysfunctions.Who disputes itTransaction cost economics: Williamson treats the hybrid as a third generic form between market and hierarchy; for Powell, network forms are a distinct form, not a mix of the two.
- Computational organization design and search1990s to the presentWhat it claimsDesign choices interact, so design space is a rugged landscape with many local peaks, and structure affects how well an organization searches it. Decentralizing interdependent decisions can trap units on poor peaks; temporary decentralization, then reintegration, can help.What it has shownMostly simulation, with one field test: Csaszar (2012), with more than 150,000 stock-picking decisions by 609 mutual funds, found that decision-making structure affects the number of initiatives pursued and the omission and commission errors made.Who disputes itNo school in the record disputes it head on; it disputes structural contingency theory, whose bivariate fit, its simulations show, cannot capture how the best design depends on interactions among choices.
- The new-forms debate1990s to the presentWhat it claimsOrganizations must solve four universal problems (dividing tasks, allocating them, providing rewards, and providing information), and a form is new when it solves them in new ways. Self-managing organizations radically decentralize authority; skeptics hold hierarchy reappears.What it has shownFoss (2003) traced the rise and partial reversal of Oticon's spaghetti organization to the problem of selective intervention. A meta-analysis of 54 studies of 13,914 teams (Greer and colleagues 2018) found that hierarchy within teams on net slightly lowers team performance.Who disputes itBureaucracy and its critics: removing formal structure leaves informal elites whose power is unaccountable (Freeman), and democratic and network organizations are much less hierarchy-free than their labels suggest.
- The algorithmic-management literature2015 to the presentWhat it claimsSoftware does much of the directing, evaluating, and disciplining that managers and rules once did. Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin (2020) call algorithmic control a new contested terrain; Puranam (2021) treats dividing decisions between people and machines as a design problem.What it has shownMostly qualitative field studies of gig work. Wood and colleagues (2019), with 107 interviews in six countries and 679 survey respondents, found that algorithmic management tends to give remote gig workers flexibility and autonomy, but also low pay, isolation, and overwork.Who disputes itLabor process and critical theory reads control at work as contested terrain; Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin take up that view but argue that algorithmic control is distinct from earlier forms.
The forms by first year
- Functional structure: 1911 to 1937
- Line and staff: 1916 to 1943
- Multidivisional (M-form) by product: 1920s practice; named and analyzed 1962 to 1975
- Machine bureaucracy: 1922 (Weber); 1979 (Mintzberg)
- Divisional by customer or market segment: 1937; 2005
- Matrix organization: 1950s to 1960s practice; analyzed 1971 to 1977
- Co-determined organization: 1951 to 1976 (the laws); 1984 to 2022 (the main studies)
- Socio-technical autonomous work groups: 1951 to 1965
- Stratified hierarchy (requisite organization): 1951 to 1989
- Cooperative organization: 1958 to 1999
- Linking-pin organization (System 4): 1961 to 1967
- Divisional by region: 1962 to 1972
- Adhocracy (innovative organization): 1968 to 1979
- J-form (the Japanese firm): 1968 to 1990
- Professional bureaucracy: 1968 to 1979
- Holding company (H-form): 1972 to 1975; 1987
- Ambidextrous organization: 1976 to 2004
- Simple structure: 1979
- Hybrid structure: 1980 to the present
- Missionary (ideological) organization: 1980 to 1989
- Network, modular, and virtual organization: 1986 to 1990
- Transnational and multidimensional organization: 1987 to 1989
- Business group (keiretsu, chaebol, family house): 1988 to 2007
- Shamrock organization: 1988 to 1989
- Federal organization: 1989 to 1992
- Self-managing organization (less-hierarchical forms): 1989 to 2017
- Boundaryless organization: 1990 to 1995
- Front-back organization: 1990s to 2007
- Professional partnership (P2 form): 1990
- The corporate center and shared services: 1991 to 2000
- Internal market organization: 1993 to 1994
- Process (horizontal) organization: 1993 to 1999
- Cellular organization: 1994 to 1997
- Hypertext organization: 1994 to 1995
- Team-based organization: 1995
- Project-based organization: 2000 to 2006
- Agile at scale: 2001 to 2016
- Distributed (all-remote) organization: 2002 to 2021
- Open-source and community-based organization: 2002 to 2007
- Algorithmically managed organization: 2015 to 2020
- Team of teams: 2015
Twenty-three of the 29 schools run to the present, and 16 of those began in the 1970s or later. The forms arrive in waves: 14 of the 41 first appear between 1985 and 1994.
Source: Fayol 1949; Weber 1978; Mayo 1933; Trist and Bamforth 1951, an interview-based field study in one industry; Burns and Stalker 1961, a field study of twenty firms; Mintzberg 1979; Child 1972a; Coase 1937; Meyer and Rowan 1977; Hannan and Freeman 1977; Galbraith 1973; Jensen and Meckling 1976; Crozier 1963; Emery and Thorsrud 1969; Yoshino 1968; Streeck 1984a; Kellogg and colleagues 2020, a review of earlier research through one theoretical lens, with no new data; Puranam and colleagues 2014, a conceptual argument; Chandler 1962, several independent case histories by a historian; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978; Simon 1946; Maurice and colleagues 1980, a comparison of matched factories in three countries; Levinthal 1997; Simon 1962; Braverman 1974; Hamilton and Biggart 1988, a comparison of three economies by scholars; Ward 1958; Czarniawska and Joerges 1995; Granovetter 1985.
Oliver Williamson and Narottam Bhargava's classification scheme (1972) already names the H-form, the divisionalized enterprise without the requisite internal control apparatus; Williamson's Markets and Hierarchies (1975) sets it among six forms.
Williamson's six forms, with the holding company among the divisionalized ones
Select a form's box to read its definition from Williamson's works and the entry where this series teaches it.
Select a box to read its definition.Williamson's classification scheme. Williamson and Bhargava proposed the scheme in 1972 to classify the internal structure and control apparatus of the modern corporation, and Williamson's Markets and Hierarchies (1975) sets out its six forms. This tree joins the divisionalized forms under one heading.Unitary (U-form). The traditional, functionally departmentalized enterprise, run by a central office that holds both strategic and operating decisions. This series teaches it under the functional form.Divisionalized enterprise. A heading for the five forms whose firms are divided into divisions (the H-form, the M-form and its two departures, and the X-form), not one of the six forms. The word is Williamson and Bhargava's, from their definition of the holding company.Holding company (H-form). The divisionalized enterprise without the requisite internal control apparatus, which Williamson calls loosely divisionalized; Williamson and Bhargava give The Signal Companies Inc. as an example. This series teaches it as this form, the holding company.Multidivisional form (M-form). Quasi-autonomous operating divisions under a general office that works as a miniature capital market; Williamson's M-form hypothesis holds that the form favors goal pursuit and least-cost behavior. This series teaches it as the multidivisional form.Transitional M-form (M'-form). An M-form enterprise in the process of adjustment, where organizational learning may be involved. This series teaches it under the multidivisional form, as one of the M-form's two departures.Corrupted M-form. An M-form that has the control apparatus but whose general management has become extensively involved in operating affairs, so it loses the M-form's claimed advantages. This series teaches it under the multidivisional form, as the M-form's other departure.Mixed (X-form). A divisionalized enterprise in which some divisions are essentially of the holding-company variety, others are M-form, and still others are under the close supervision of the general management. Williamson doubts that such a mix can reliably be expected to last, though he calls the judgment that it lacks rationality properties probably too strong. This series teaches it under the hybrid form.
Of the six forms in Williamson's scheme, only the unitary form is not divisionalized. Among the divisionalized ones, the holding company lacks the requisite internal control apparatus, while the corrupted M-form has the apparatus but its general management is extensively involved in operating affairs, so it loses the M-form's claimed advantages.
Source: Williamson and Bhargava 1972; Williamson 1975.
Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell's Strategies and Styles (1987), on 16 British companies, defined eight styles of the center by planning and control influence, two of which, the passive Holding Company style and Financial Control, describe this form's center.
The form addressed how one owner can hold many unrelated businesses at low overhead, and what such a center can add. No one sector gave rise to it.
Where it fits
The twelve ratings rest on no study of the form itself: three are theory and nine our judgment, and four, two of each, are contested. Several draw on Burton and Obel's (2004) model, the most developed scholarly fit model.
The holding company (H-form) against the twelve contingency factors
Each factor at its three levels, Fits, Partial, or Strain; select a row for its reason, sources, and grade.
Select a factor to read its reason, sources, basis, and grade.Size. A parent that governs separate businesses by financial controls needs little overhead, so the form works from a modest portfolio upward. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975; Berger and Ofek 1995; Villalonga 2004; Goold and colleagues 1994b.Age. A holding structure usually gathers businesses that already exist, by acquisition or by spinning units off. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Ito 1995; Williamson 1975.Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism). Legally separate businesses absorb change on their own and keep the center out of the way, an arrangement argued to be flexible and suited to survival in a changing environment. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Ito 1995; Galbraith 1973; Burton and Obel 2004; Mintzberg 1988; Miller and Friesen 1984. View 1: Stable fits, Shifting fits, Unpredictable fits. Legally separate businesses absorb change on their own and keep the center out of the way, an arrangement argued to be flexible and suited to survival in a changing environment. Sources: Ito 1995; Galbraith 1973; Burton and Obel 2004. View 2: Stable fits, Shifting partial, Unpredictable strain. Mintzberg makes the conglomerate the pure divisionalized form and places that form in environments neither very complex nor very dynamic. Sources: Mintzberg 1988; Miller and Friesen 1984.Environmental complexity. Works disagree: on the bounded-rationality premise a complex environment favors leaving each business to itself, while Mintzberg places the divisionalized form, of which the conglomerate is the pure case, in environments neither very complex nor very dynamic. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Burton and Obel 2004; Williamson 1975; Mintzberg 1988; Miller and Friesen 1984; Pennings 1975. View 1: Simple partial, Moderate partial, Complex fits. Leaving each business to read its own environment suits complex conditions no center could grasp; complexity is rarely the reason to choose the form. Sources: Burton and Obel 2004; Williamson 1975. View 2: Simple fits, Moderate partial, Complex strain. Mintzberg makes the conglomerate the pure divisionalized form and places that form in environments neither very complex nor very dynamic. Sources: Mintzberg 1988; Miller and Friesen 1984.Munificence and hostility. A thin center with financial controls cannot direct the unified effort hostility asks of each business, and nothing read shows it adapting the portfolio faster than other forms. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Burton and Obel 2004; Williamson 1975.Diversity of products and markets. Works disagree: financial control of separate businesses suits an unrelated portfolio on one view, while other studies found unrelated portfolios losing value against focused firms. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Hill and colleagues 1992; Campa and Kedia 2002; Villalonga 2004; Berger and Ofek 1995; Palich and colleagues 2000; Williamson 1975. View 1: Single or dominant business strain, Related diversification strain, Unrelated diversification fits. Unrelated businesses do best under arrangements that stress competition and financial targets, and the diversification discount largely disappears once self-selection and measurement are corrected. Sources: Hill and colleagues 1992; Campa and Kedia 2002; Villalonga 2004. View 2: Single or dominant business strain, Related diversification strain, Unrelated diversification partial. Unrelated portfolios lose value against focused or related firms, and a holding company lacks the controls the M-form brings, so it governs that portfolio only partly well. Sources: Berger and Ofek 1995; Palich and colleagues 2000; Williamson 1975.Strategy type. Burton and Obel name low centralization a misfit for a defender, the strategy that lives by tight control of one stable operation, and the holding company leaves authority with its businesses. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975; Goold and Campbell 1987; Burton and Obel 2004. View 1: Defender (exploitation) strain, Analyzer (exploitation and exploration) partial, Prospector (exploration) partial. Burton and Obel name low centralization a misfit for a defender, the strategy that lives by tight control of one stable operation, and the holding company leaves authority with its businesses. Sources: Burton and Obel 2004. View 2: Defender (exploitation) partial, Analyzer (exploitation and exploration) partial, Prospector (exploration) partial. The center sets no business strategy, so each subsidiary can be a defender, an analyzer, or a prospector with its own structure; the form neither helps nor blocks any type. Sources: Williamson 1975; Goold and Campbell 1987.Technology and routineness. Each legally separate business organizes its own operations, so routineness does not bear on the holding structure itself. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975; Hickson and colleagues 1969.Interdependence. Separate businesses that only draw on a common pool of capital suit the form; sequential trade between them must go through contracts, and reciprocal work across legal entities has no managerial channel. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Thompson 1967; Williamson 1975; Burton and Obel 2004.Knowledge intensity and professionalization. Financial controls judge each business by its returns whatever its workforce, and the work itself is left to each business, so training levels give no reason for or against this form. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975; Mintzberg 1980.Global integration pressure. The parent governs separate businesses by financial controls and leaves any integration across countries to each business, so this factor gives no reason for or against the form itself. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975; Goold and colleagues 1994a.Local responsiveness pressure. The parent leaves strategy and operations to each business, which can then serve local demands, but the holding company's case rests on owning separate businesses, not on countries, so this factor gives no reason for or against. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Williamson 1975; Goold and colleagues 1994a.
With the four contested cells counted by their first view, the 36 settings show Fits at 10, Partial at 22, and Strain at 4. Judgment is the basis of nine of the twelve cells.
Source: Williamson 1975; Berger and Ofek 1995, a multi-firm statistical study; Villalonga 2004, a multi-firm statistical study; Goold and colleagues 1994b, several case studies by the same scholars; Ito 1995, an analysis whose sample the abstract does not state; Galbraith 1973; Burton and Obel 2004; Mintzberg 1988; Miller and Friesen 1984; Pennings 1975, a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model; Hill and colleagues 1992, a survey of many firms; Campa and Kedia 2002, a multi-firm statistical study; Palich and colleagues 2000, a meta-analysis of 55 studies; Goold and Campbell 1987; Hickson and colleagues 1969, a multi-organization comparative survey; Thompson 1967; Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Goold and colleagues 1994a.
Your own situation against the holding company (H-form)
Set any factor to outline its cell in the strip above; the lines under the switches give the counts, the form's place among the 41, and the misfit rules that fire.
Size
Age
Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism)
Environmental complexity
Munificence and hostility
Diversity of products and markets
Strategy type
Technology and routineness
Interdependence
Knowledge intensity and professionalization
Global integration pressure
Local responsiveness pressure
Set: 0 of 12 factors. Fits on 0, Partial on 0, Strain on 0, Contested on 0.
Its place in the explorer's rankingEvery factor is on Any: all 41 forms tie, and the explorer lists them alphabetically.1st of 411st of 41, tied with one other1st of 41, tied with 0 othersSunk by a misfit rule: 1st of 41Sunk by a misfit rule: 1st of 41, tied with one otherSunk by a misfit rule: 1st of 41, tied with 0 others
- Flagged (its sources disagree): A defender with authority spread wide. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- Sinks the form: An analyzer with authority spread wide. Source: Burton and Obel 2004.
Ranking rule: by count of Fits on the factors the reader has set, then fewest Strains, then alphabetical; a fired misfit rule that no source disputes sinks the form to the bottom when every level of the form's profile meets it, a disputed one, or one that meets the form only through one end of a spanned level, one view of a contested profile cell, or one part of a two-part form, is flagged on the row (with both views where it is disputed), and a misfit between two of the reader's own settings is shown once above the list; a contested cell counts only where its views agree at the reader's level, and otherwise shows as Contested; factors on "Any" count for nothing; with every factor on "Any" the list is alphabetical and says so.
Open these settings in the explorer
The misfit rules that can fire for this form
- A defender with authority spread wide fires when Strategy type at Defender (exploitation): flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- An analyzer with authority spread wide fires when Strategy type at Analyzer (exploitation and exploration): sinks the form. Source: Burton and Obel 2004.
Two of the 39 contingency misfit rules can fire for this form, both against authority spread wide: in an analyzer the rule is undisputed and sinks the form, and in a defender it is disputed and only flags it.
Source: Burton and Obel 2004; Burton and colleagues 2020a.
- Size. Our judgment: partial small, fits medium and large, since a parent governing by financial controls needs little overhead (Williamson 1975; Goold, Campbell, and Alexander's 1994 article).
- Age. Our judgment: partial young, fits established and old, since the form gathers businesses that already exist (Williamson 1975; Ito 1995, an analysis whose sample the abstract does not state).
- Environmental uncertainty. Contested; the cell is theory. View one, fits throughout, since separate businesses absorb change on their own: Burton and Obel (2004) tie fit to information-processing capacity in proportion to uncertainty, Galbraith (1973) counts self-contained tasks among the ways to reduce the information to be processed, and Ito (1995), applied by kinship, calls the spinoff a flexible arrangement for a changing environment. View two, fits low, partial medium (our reading of "neither very"), strain high: Mintzberg (1988) makes the conglomerate the pure divisionalized form, and his chapter in Miller and Friesen (1984) places that form where environments are neither very complex nor very dynamic.
- Environmental complexity. Contested, both judgment. Burton and Obel (2004) and Williamson (1975): partial simple and moderate, fits complex, since each business reads its own environment. Mintzberg (1988; Miller and Friesen 1984), as under uncertainty: fits simple, partial moderate, strain complex. Pennings (1975), a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model, found environment and structure fit did not explain effectiveness; Donaldson (2001) lays such failures to method. Doty, Glick, and Huber (1993), a quantitative test across a sample of organizations, found no effectiveness gain from resembling Mintzberg's types; Ketchen and colleagues (1997), a meta-analysis of 40 tests, found configurations partly explain performance; Krabberød (2015), a review of the 218 articles citing the test, argues it has not been shown exhaustive.
- Munificence and hostility. Our judgment holds it partial throughout. Burton and Obel (2004) would lower centralization under high hostility and raise it under extreme hostility, which calls for a unified effort a thin center cannot direct. This factor's hostile level spans both.
- Diversity. Contested; the cell is theory, since no study measures the structure. Hill, Hitt, and Hoskisson (1992), Campa and Kedia (2002), and Villalonga (2004): strain single and related, fits unrelated, since unrelated businesses do best under competition and financial targets and the discount largely disappears once self-selection (Campa and Kedia) and measurement (Villalonga) are corrected; the two strains are our judgment, on Hill and colleagues' M-form premise (see What it costs). Berger and Ofek (1995), Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000), and Williamson (1975): strain, strain, partial, since unrelated portfolios lose value and the form lacks the M-form's controls.
- Strategy. Contested, both judgment. Burton and Obel (2004): strain defender, partial otherwise, since they name low centralization a misfit for a defender. Williamson (1975) and Goold and Campbell (1987): partial throughout, since the center sets no business strategy (the Holding Company style's center is largely passive).
- Technology. Our judgment: partial throughout, since each business organizes its own operations. The premise is Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey's (1969) finding, in a multi-organization comparative survey, that in larger organizations technology was unrelated to the wider structure.
- Interdependence. Theory: fits pooled, partial sequential, strain reciprocal (Thompson 1967; Williamson 1975; Burton and Obel 2004). Sequential trade goes through contracts; reciprocal work across legal entities has no managerial channel.
- Knowledge intensity, global integration, and local responsiveness. Our judgment: partial throughout, since financial controls judge returns whatever the work (Williamson 1975; Mintzberg 1980; Goold, Campbell, and Alexander's 1994 book).
What it does well
The center stays small, since a parent that owns, finances, and watches returns needs little overhead. Each business stays whole and can be sold or spun off whole.
Where business heads see head office as a cost that second-guesses them, the symptom view offers the form, on Goold, Campbell, and Alexander's argument (a 1994 article, several case studies of four firms chosen as successes) that parents more often destroy than add value. That relief is disputed. Collis, Young, and Goold (2007), a survey of more than 600 headquarters in four regions, found no support for the view that lean headquarters perform better. Feldman (2020), a large-sample comparison of utilities under two legal regimes, found utilities owned by holding companies free to parent outperforming similar ones whose owners were legally limited, a gap that shrank once the limits were lifted. On our reading, that favors active parenting over mere ownership. Hanson's case study ties its fall to its management approach and a worsening climate for conglomerates.
What it costs
The center gives up the means to make its businesses work together; any trade between them becomes a contract between companies. Hill, Hitt, and Hoskisson (1992), a survey of 184 firms measured at one time, found related diversifiers doing better with arrangements that stress cooperation. Their firms were M-form firms; that a holding company's financial controls supply no such arrangements is our reading.
Autonomy is less than the form promises. Organizational economists argue that bosses cannot credibly promise not to intervene; Foss (2003), one case study of a different form, found meddling with delegated rights severely hurt motivation. Sengul and Gimeno (2013), a population study of group subsidiaries in France, found that where subsidiaries met the same rivals in several markets, business decisions were delegated but decision rights and resources narrowed. Autonomy also varies with position: Belenzon, Hashai, and Patacconi (2019), a large multi-group quantitative study in Western Europe, report evidence consistent with their argument that the more intermediate subsidiaries stand between a subsidiary and headquarters, the less attention and the more autonomy it gets.
How it fails
How the holding company (H-form) fails, and the coordination failures behind it
The entry's failure modes at the left, each tied to the Coordination Failures patterns it names at the right; a pattern links its entry there.
How many ties the failure has. Highest: The owner cannot see what it ownsBusinesses that need each other have no channelThe portfolio is run for the numbersModel-world divergenceSiloed knowledgeGoal displacement and metric gaming
Select a failure to read its place in the network.The owner cannot see what it owns. Degree 1Businesses that need each other have no channel. Degree 1The portfolio is run for the numbers. Degree 1Model-world divergence. Degree 1Siloed knowledge. Degree 1Goal displacement and metric gaming. Degree 1
| Failure | Degree |
|---|---|
| The owner cannot see what it owns | 1 |
| Businesses that need each other have no channel | 1 |
| The portfolio is run for the numbers | 1 |
| Model-world divergence | 1 |
| Siloed knowledge | 1 |
| Goal displacement and metric gaming | 1 |
Three failure modes name three patterns, and no pattern is named by more than one.
Source: Chandler 1962, several independent case histories by a historian; Freeland 1996, one historical case study; Shimotani 2012, a business historian's review with one firm's case worked through; Thompson 1967; Williamson 1975; Stonham 1997a, one case study.
The owner cannot see what it owns. Chandler (1962), several independent case histories by a historian, describes General Motors under Durant, whose small top office lacked the information and channels to govern its federation (our reading: model and world divergence). Freeland (1996), one historical case study, disputes the efficiency account of what replaced it: for most of its history General Motors intentionally did not keep strategic and operating decisions apart.
Businesses that need each other have no channel. The pieces of a shared picture stay in separate companies (siloed knowledge). Shimotani (2012), a business historian's review, reports some Japanese firms that converted to pure holding companies and then tried to return, having lost the ability to place their core businesses or finding the businesses under them hard to coordinate. Rawley and colleagues (2018), a multi-firm quantitative study in one industry, cut the other way: a fashion conglomerate subsidiary's creativity rose over time with its sister subsidiaries', evidence of spillovers inside the group; their conglomerates held one industry's subsidiaries, not unrelated businesses, and only summaries were read.
The portfolio is run for the numbers. Stonham (1997), one case study, concludes that Hanson's short-term focus on earnings, its buying and selling of businesses, and financial engineering magnified the damage when the climate for conglomerates worsened (our reading: goal displacement and metric gaming).
Two propositions from Burton and Obel (2004), not tested results, fire on the profile as misfit rules. Authority spread wide in an analyzer (a misfit, they say, for the analyzer that does not innovate; for the one that does they recommend medium centralization) is undisputed, so in the explorer it sinks the form. Authority spread wide in a defender is contested on our reading of Mintzberg (1980), a synthesis of earlier research offering propositions without a new test: he places the widely decentralized professional bureaucracy, another form, in complex but stable environments and does not write of the defender. It flags the form and does not sink it.
What the research found
Most of the evidence measures diversification, not the structure. Rumelt (1974), a multi-firm study of large corporations, found the Related-Constrained and Dominant-Constrained categories the top performers, though the categories rest on his judgment of relatedness and the book notes that part of the differences may be industry effects. Berger and Ofek (1995), a multi-firm statistical study, found diversification implied a value loss of 13 to 15 percent, smaller for related segments; Campa and Kedia (2002) and Villalonga (2004), two later multi-firm statistical studies, dispute it. Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000), a meta-analysis of 55 studies, found performance falling from related toward unrelated diversification, with measurement choices mattering greatly. Whittington, Mayer, and Curto (1999), a multi-country study of large firms over four decades, found conglomerate strategies still spreading in Europe but less stable than related diversification; Kay (2002) commented that their data suggest the conglomerate may be more persistent than generally believed.
Tests of the M-form, against which this form is defined, are mixed. Armour and Teece (1978), a multi-firm statistical study in one industry, found its profitability advantage only while the form was spreading. Habib and Victor (1991), a multi-firm study of multinationals, found strategy and structure fit had no effect on service multinationals' performance and mixed effects in manufacturing.
Shortell and colleagues (2021), the most recent study, ran a cluster analysis of several hundred health systems and found 82 percent of hospital-based systems relatively decentralized, which the authors read as operating largely as holding companies; centralization was measured from where services are provided. No later work read disputes it. Luke (2006) had argued, of the earlier taxonomy, that the same American Hospital Association survey's data do not suit classifying systems at the company level; on our reading that may reach this taxonomy too, though its clusters were checked against a separate 2017 to 2018 national survey.
The schools disagree. Ghoshal and Moran (1996) argued that transaction cost prescriptions are likely to be wrong and dangerous for managers, since organizations follow a logic of their own, not one of failed markets. Hall and Saias (1980) argued that strategy, structure, and environment are closely linked and that structure later constrains strategic choices, and Fligstein (1985), a multi-firm historical statistical study, found divisions spreading with strategy, presidents from sales or finance, and industry peers' changes. Business-group writers treat groups of firms as a form of their own (Granovetter 1995), sometimes paragons and sometimes parasites (Khanna and Yafeh 2007). Resource dependence (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978) explains boundaries by power.
The evidence ledger holds 17 studies filed under this form.
In practice: one published case
Hanson plc, earlier Hanson Trust, is one case study, from Stonham (1997).
Stonham calls Hanson an acquisition-led, diversified industrial holding company. An INSEAD teaching case (Haspeslagh 1992), read in its summary, describes a corporate office that influenced the businesses through control, planning, resource allocation, and incentives, and covers Hanson's approach as an acquirer and seller of businesses and as an industrial manager, and the role of its corporate offices.
After several years of losing favor with investors and analysts, and a sharp fall in its share price, Hanson announced in 1996 that it would split its conglomerate, with about 12 billion pounds of gross turnover, into four separate companies.
Stonham concluded that the climate for conglomerates worsened from the mid-1980s, and that Hanson's management approach magnified the damage and left it less able to adapt than most of its peers. The approach he names has six parts: a short-term focus on earnings, the buying and selling of businesses, little internal investment, high dividends, complex accounting and tax arrangements, and a culture of financial engineering.
The case covers one firm, from a source read in its abstract, so it shows what happened at Hanson and what Stonham concluded, not what happens to holding companies in general.
Source: Stonham 1997a. Demergers and the Hanson experience. Part one: the prelude, European Management Journal 15(3), 266 to 274; one case study.
Variants and near relatives
Jensen (1989), a practitioner article read in its summary and snippets, calls the LBO association the most widespread of his new organizations without public shareholders. Like a conglomerate it has many business units, companies taken private, but large equity interests and contracts governing cash bind their managers, and a small sponsoring partnership monitors them in place of a headquarters; that substitution separates it. The financing belongs to Governance & Risk.
Pure and operating holding companies are the Japanese distinction (Shimotani 2012): the pure holding company only controls other companies, the operating one also runs a business, because Japanese law banned the first and allowed the second from 1947 to 1997.
The management holding (Management-Holding) is the German form in which the parent keeps strategic leadership, not only ownership, over legally separate operating companies; Bühner's book (1992) was read only in its table of contents, and Zeiss (2006), a survey of 15 German groups, in its abstract.
The group holding with sub-holdings is Kieser and Kubicek's (1992) arrangement for very large groups, read only in brief passages: holdings beneath the group holding, each over several divisionalized companies. Its tiers separate it. The same page calls divisions given legal independence a management holding, citing Bühner, whose forms include a multi-tier group; the passages read do not say this group is one.
The Multidivisional (M-form) by product is the nearest neighbor, its general office actively allocating capital among divisions and monitoring them strategically; the holding company's center owns and finances but does not plan or integrate, and its units are separate legal entities. On that line sit four relatives: multidivisional's competitive M-form, a conglomerate run as a miniature capital market, and its in-house company system, divisions dressed as companies in one legal entity; cellular's starburst organization, whose units grow from the parent's competence and become this form once they are pure investments; and hybrid's mixed (X-form) enterprise, with some holding-company divisions.
The business group binds firms by partial ownership, family, bank, and personal ties, where a holding company owns outright or by majority; its state-owned variant holds Italy's IRI (Felsini 2014, one archival case history). Corporate center designs what any center pools (its multihospital health system variant points decentralized hospital systems here); in the holding company the tie is ownership of separate companies. In the federal organization the energy comes mostly from the units, and the center acts on their behalf; here the center owns them and watches returns.
The holding company beside its nearest neighbor, the multidivisional form
Select a number to fill what it marks in both drawings; the list under them gives the dimensions on which the two profiles differ.
The center owns and finances legally separate businesses but neither plans nor integrates them, so it holds each as owner and watches financial returns but does not manage it.
Holding company (H-form)
Reports toOStandardization of outputs
- The parent leaves strategy and operations to each subsidiary; the general office keeps the strategic and capital decisions and leaves only operating decisions to the divisions.
- The parent's control is financial only, capital in and returns out, standardized outputs at their thinnest; the general office imposes performance standards on its divisions and monitors their results.
- The subsidiaries are legally separate companies; the divisions are parts of one firm.
- The holding company is flat to moderate, a thin parent with an intermediate holding only in some groups; the multidivisional form is moderate, a wide span at the top over divisions that each keep their own line below.
Differs on 4 of 11 dimensions
- Standardization and formalization Medium; Multidivisional (M-form) by product: Medium to high
- Centralization Decentralized; Multidivisional (M-form) by product: Mixed
- Layers and span of control Flat to moderate; Multidivisional (M-form) by product: Moderate
- Differentiation against integration Low differentiation, light integration; Multidivisional (M-form) by product: Moderate differentiation, some integrating roles
Both forms set businesses under a center that runs none of them. The holding company's parent owns and finances legally separate companies and leaves strategy and operations to each, while the multidivisional general office makes the strategic and capital decisions for its divisions.
Source: Williamson 1975; Rumelt 1974, a multi-firm study of large corporations; Belenzon and colleagues 2019, a large multi-group quantitative study; Chandler 1962, several independent case histories by a historian; Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test.
Moving into or out of it
It is entered by three routes: a parent buys existing businesses; an operating company spins off its units (Shimotani's internal reorganization type after 1997, Bühner's path from the divisional organization), though the parent then becomes a strategic headquarters, nearer the management holding; or rivals form a joint holding company in place of a merger, Shimotani's industrial type.
On the way out, Shimotani's firms tried to return to division or company systems. Zeiss (2006) asks why a prominent German group returned to the parent-company form.
Girod and Whittington (2016), a multi-firm panel study of large US corporations, come nearest; no study read measures moves into or out of this form. They found sweeping restructuring helped in general but hurt in dynamic environments, where frequent limited reconfiguration helped.
For running a reorganization, see Change & Transformation.
The thinking behind it
Alfred Chandler (1962): the holding company as the M-form's predecessor, a federation its small top offices could not run.
Oliver Williamson (1975): the H-form, which the theory expects to fall short of the M-form's controls.
Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell (1987): the center's management styles, of which the largely passive Holding Company style and financial control describe this form's center.
Richard Rumelt (1974): diversification categories, sorting this form's portfolios by relatedness.
Masahiro Shimotani (2012): Japan's company system, begun by Sony in 1994, a pseudo-holding company in one legal entity that some firms kept after the ban ended in 1997, he says probably for advantages pure holding companies lack.
Also called
H-form, the label in Williamson (1975); conglomerate; financial holding; loosely divisionalized enterprise, Williamson's description. Pure and operating holding company are the Japanese terms (Shimotani 2012), Management-Holding the German one (Bühner 1992), and super-holding the term for IRI (Felsini 2014). Rawley, Godart, and Shipilov (2018) write of the sectoral conglomerate.
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.
- Belenzon and colleagues 2019. The architecture of attention: group structure and subsidiary autonomy, Strategic Management Journal 40(10), 1610 to 1643; a large multi-group quantitative study.
- Berger and Ofek 1995. Diversification's effect on firm value, Journal of Financial Economics 37(1), 39 to 65; a multi-firm statistical study.
- Brandstätter and Graf-Vlachy 2026. Strategic leadership and organizational design: a review and research agenda, Journal of Organization Design 15(3), 165 to 210.
- Braverman 1974. Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth century, Monthly Review Press, New York; the linked publisher's page is the 1998 twenty-fifth anniversary edition.
- Bühner 1992. Management-Holding: Unternehmensstruktur der Zukunft, Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg am Lech (with Hans-Joachim Weinberger; the table of contents read is the second edition's).
- 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 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).
- Campa and Kedia 2002. Explaining the diversification discount, The Journal of Finance 57(4), 1731 to 1762; a multi-firm statistical study.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Felsini 2014. Entre el Estado y el Mercado. El estilo italiano de capitalismo gerencial: IRI, 1933-1970, Revista de Historia Industrial (Industrial History Review) 23(54), 81 to 105; one archival case history.
- Fligstein 1985. The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms, 1919 to 1979, American Sociological Review 50(3), 377 to 391; a multi-firm historical statistical study.
- 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.
- 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.
- Ghoshal and Moran 1996. Bad for practice: a critique of the transaction cost theory, Academy of Management Review 21(1), 13 to 47.
- 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.
- 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 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.
- Granovetter 1995. Coase revisited: business groups in the modern economy, Industrial and Corporate Change 4(1), 93 to 130.
- Greer and colleagues 2018. Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: a meta-analytic integration, Journal of Applied Psychology 103(6), 591 to 613; a meta-analysis of 54 studies.
- Gustavsen 1992. Dialogue and Development: Theory of Communication, Action Research and the Restructuring of Working Life, Van Gorcum, Assen; Swedish Center for Working Life, Stockholm (viii and 127 pages).
- Habib and Victor 1991. Strategy, structure, and performance of U.S. manufacturing and service MNCs: a comparative analysis, Strategic Management Journal 12(8), 589 to 606; a multi-firm study of multinationals.
- Hall and Saias 1980. Strategy follows structure!, Strategic Management Journal 1(2), 149 to 163.
- 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.
- Haspeslagh 1992. Hanson PLC (Companion case to ICI Plc), INSEAD case, reference 210, 28 pages.
- 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.
- Ito 1995. Japanese spinoffs: unexplored survival strategies, Strategic Management Journal 16(6), 431 to 446; an analysis whose sample the abstract does not state.
- 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 1989. Eclipse of the public corporation, Harvard Business Review 67 (September to October 1989).
- 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.
- Kay 2002. Chandlerism in post-war Europe: strategic and structural change in France, Germany and the United Kingdom, 1950 to 1993: a comment, Industrial and Corporate Change 11(1), 189 to 197.
- 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.
- Khanna and Yafeh 2007. Business groups in emerging markets: paragons or parasites?, Journal of Economic Literature 45(2), 331 to 372.
- Kieser and Kubicek 1992. Organisation, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, third edition, fully revised (de Gruyter Lehrbuch).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Mintzberg 1988. The divisionalized form, In James Brian Quinn, Henry Mintzberg, and Robert M. James, The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, and Cases, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988 (xxv and 998 pages), chapter 12, The Diversified Context, from p. 578.
- 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.
- Palich and colleagues 2000. Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research, Strategic Management Journal 21(2), 155 to 174; a meta-analysis of 55 studies.
- 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.
- Rawley and colleagues 2018. How and when do conglomerates influence the creativity of their subsidiaries?, Strategic Management Journal 39(9), 2417 to 2438; a multi-firm quantitative study 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.
- 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.
- Sengul and Gimeno 2013. Constrained delegation, Administrative Science Quarterly 58(3), 420 to 471; a population study of subsidiaries in one country.
- Shimotani 2012. Japanese holding companies: past and present, Japanese Research in Business History 29, 11 to 28; a business historian's review with one firm's case worked through.
- 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).
- 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.
- Stonham 1997a. Demergers and the Hanson experience. Part one: the prelude, European Management Journal 15(3), 266 to 274; one case study.
- 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.
- Villalonga 2004. Diversification discount or premium? New evidence from the business information tracking series, The Journal of Finance 59(2), 479 to 506; a multi-firm statistical study.
- 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.
- Whittington and colleagues 1999a. Chandlerism in post-war Europe: strategic and structural change in France, Germany and the UK, 1950 to 1993, Industrial and Corporate Change 8(3), 519 to 551; a multi-country study of large firms over four decades.
- Williamson 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Free Press, New York (xvii and 286 pages).
- Williamson and Bhargava 1972. Assessing and classifying the internal structure and control apparatus of the modern corporation, In Keith Cowling (ed.), Market Structure and Corporate Behaviour: Theory and Empirical Analysis of the Firm, Gray-Mills, London, 125 to 148.
- 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.
- Zeiss 2006. Das Management-Holding-Konzept, zfo Zeitschrift Führung + Organisation 75(4), from page 198 (the next article starts on page 207), in German.
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.