Trained professionals do the operating work with wide autonomy, coordinated by skills and norms they learned before they arrived.
What it is
A professional bureaucracy puts trained professionals in a large operating core and gives each one wide autonomy. In Mintzberg's (1980) account they work relatively free of the hierarchy and of their own colleagues, and much coordination comes by design, through standard skills learned in long training outside the organization, before the job begins.
The professional bureaucracy puts its power in a large core of trained professionals
Select a unit or a letter to read it; the key above the drawing names the lines and letters used. The two departments show one arrangement: each groups professionals by a specialty that also sorts the clients it serves.
Reports toSStandardization of skillsLayers contested: Blau (1968) found narrower first-line spans and more levels in agencies needing higher qualifications.
Select a unit or a letter to read it. S, standardization of skills: The training a worker needs is specified, usually by bodies outside the organization, so trained workers coordinate by knowing what to expect of each other.Strategic apex. Layer: Apex and support staff. Reports to no one. Power flows down the line from here and out to the professionals of the operating core, Mintzberg's Type E (1980).Support staff. Layer: Apex and support staff. Reports to Strategic apex. Highly elaborated in this form (Mintzberg 1980); with the administration it runs as a bureaucracy, on our judgment.Administration. Layer: Middle line. Reports to Strategic apex. Narrow above a large operating core; its work needs mutual adjustment through standing committees and task forces, and the professionals keep collective control of it (Mintzberg 1980).Specialty department. Layer: Operating core. Reports to Administration. By expertise. Highly trained professionals grouped by the expertise they hold, each working relatively free of the hierarchy and of colleagues (Mintzberg 1980).Cardiac department. Layer: Operating core. Reports to Administration. By client type. Clients are sorted and served by functional specialty, as cardiac patients by the cardiac department, so the two bases run at once (Mintzberg 1980).S, standardization of skills. The training a worker needs is specified, usually by bodies outside the organization, so trained workers coordinate by knowing what to expect of each other.S, standardization of skills. The training a worker needs is specified, usually by bodies outside the organization, so trained workers coordinate by knowing what to expect of each other.
The structure in words
- Apex and support staff
- Strategic apex, reports to no one. Power flows down the line from here and out to the professionals of the operating core, Mintzberg's Type E (1980).
- Support staff, reports to Strategic apex. Highly elaborated in this form (Mintzberg 1980); with the administration it runs as a bureaucracy, on our judgment.
- Middle line (Moderate end only)
- Administration, reports to Strategic apex. Narrow above a large operating core; its work needs mutual adjustment through standing committees and task forces, and the professionals keep collective control of it (Mintzberg 1980).
- Operating core
- Specialty department, reports to Administration, grouped by expertise, coordinated by standardization of skills. Highly trained professionals grouped by the expertise they hold, each working relatively free of the hierarchy and of colleagues (Mintzberg 1980).
- Cardiac department, reports to Administration, grouped by client type, coordinated by standardization of skills. Clients are sorted and served by functional specialty, as cardiac patients by the cardiac department, so the two bases run at once (Mintzberg 1980).
- Layers contested: Blau (1968) found narrower first-line spans and more levels in agencies needing higher qualifications.
Professionals in a large operating core work with wide autonomy, grouped by their expertise and by the clients each specialty serves. Skills learned in long training outside the organization do the coordinating, and power flows down the line and out to them.
Source: Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Blau 1968, a comparison of 250 government agencies, replicating an earlier study of 150.
The dimension profile, mostly from Mintzberg (1980), is theory:
- Grouping: two bases at once, clients served by functional specialty, as cardiac patients by the cardiac department.
- Specialization: high horizontally, low vertically.
- Formalization: low.
- Centralization: decentralized.
- Layers and span: spans flat and moderate, our judgment, and is contested. Mintzberg gives large operating units, narrow elsewhere, and an elaborated support staff; Blau (1968) found narrower first-line spans and more levels, moderate to tall.
- Decision rights: vertical and horizontal decentralization, Mintzberg's Type E; the professionals also keep collective control of the administration.
- Coordinating mechanism: standardization of skills.
- Lateral mechanisms: task forces and teams, in the administration's standing committees.
- Differentiation against integration: moderate, joined by committees; our judgment.
- Mode of exchange: spans bureaucracy and clan, our judgment: professional socialization controls much, near Ouchi's (1980) clan, while the administration is a bureaucracy.
- Boundary permeability: selective, our judgment: standards set outside open one boundary by design.
Where the professional bureaucracy 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: Two or more at once. Basis: Theory. It uses the functional and market bases concurrently in its operating core: clients are sorted and served by functional specialty, as cardiac patients by the cardiac department. Sources: Mintzberg 1980.Specialization: High. Basis: Theory. Horizontal job specialization is high (and vertical low): highly trained specialists fill the operating core. Sources: Mintzberg 1980.Standardization and formalization: Low. Basis: Theory. Mintzberg: formalization of behavior is low, because the work is standardized through skills learned before the professional arrives; Hall found professionalization and bureaucratization generally inversely related, but with considerable variation, and the organizations professionals work in differ in how bureaucratized they are. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Hall 1968.Centralization: Decentralized. Basis: Theory. Mintzberg: power flows down the line and out to the professionals of the operating core; in 250 government agencies, those requiring higher qualifications of their personnel were more decentralized, though with taller hierarchies. Sources: Blau 1968; Mintzberg 1980.Layers and span of control: Flat to moderate. Basis: Judgment. Autonomy in the operating core makes the operating units very large, but Mintzberg's Table 1 gives the form the same unit size as the machine bureaucracy, large at the bottom and narrow elsewhere, with a highly elaborated support staff; reading that as flat to moderate is judgment. Sources: Mintzberg 1980. View 2: Moderate to tall. In 250 government agencies, those requiring higher qualifications had narrower first-line spans and more managerial levels, becoming tall hierarchies with decentralized authority. Sources: Blau 1968.Decision rights and the locus of authority: Vertical and horizontal decentralization. Basis: Theory. Mintzberg's Type E: power flows down the line and out to the professionals of the operating core, who also keep collective control of the administration. Sources: Mintzberg 1980.Prime coordinating mechanism: Standardization of skills. Basis: Theory. Standardization of skills, set by bodies outside the organization. Sources: Mintzberg 1980.Lateral mechanisms: Task forces and teams. Basis: Theory. The operating professionals work largely alone, but the administrative work needs mutual adjustment through standing committees, task forces, and other liaison devices. Sources: Mintzberg 1980.Differentiation against integration: Moderate differentiation, some integrating roles. Basis: Judgment. Professional units work on their own and are joined mainly in administration through committees; judgment. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a.Mode of exchange and control: Bureaucracy and clan. Basis: Judgment. Skills and norms instilled by professional socialization do much of the controlling, near Ouchi's clan, while the administration and the support staff run as a bureaucracy; judgment. Sources: Ouchi 1980; Mintzberg 1980.Boundary permeability: Selective. Basis: Judgment. Its standards are set outside, by professional bodies, so one boundary is open by design while the organization's own edge holds; judgment. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Ashkenas and colleagues 1995.
Seven of the eleven levels rest on theory, none on evidence, and four on judgment. One row is contested: Layers and span of control.
Source: Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Hall 1968, a study of professionals across several occupations and their organizations; Blau 1968, a comparison of 250 government agencies, replicating an earlier study of 150; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a, a multi-firm comparative field study; Ouchi 1980, a conceptual article; Ashkenas and colleagues 1995.
Where it came from
In 1979 Henry Mintzberg named the configuration, restating it in 1980; it answered the inverse relation Richard Hall (1968) found between professionalization and bureaucratization.
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: Bureaucracy and its critics; Structural contingency theory; and Configuration theory.
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.
The question was how an organization whose core work is complex but stable can be bureaucratic and decentralized at once, and Mintzberg's answer was to standardize skills, not work. Its sectors of origin are hospitals, universities, and public professional services.
Four of Mintzberg's configurations, sorted by how complex and how uncertain their environment is
Environmental complexity across and environmental uncertainty up, each at the factors' own three levels; Duncan (1972) found the two dimensions, simple to complex and static to dynamic. Select a form, then the box it belongs in, or show the sort: each form sits in the corner where its fit cells on both factors read Fits. The pairings are Mintzberg's (1980) synthesis of earlier research, not a new test; a later test found that resembling his types did not predict effectiveness (Doty, Glick, and Huber 1993), and an earlier one found that the fit of environment and structure did not explain it (Pennings 1975). Four of the eight cells are contested, three of them on uncertainty (Sine and colleagues 2006, among others), and the sort uses each cell's first view. The divisionalized form is not sorted, because Mintzberg places it in environments neither very complex nor very dynamic while Burton and Obel's (2004) rules place it in a complex one. The cut points between levels are the series' bands.
Items (select one, then a box)
- Not placedPlacedSimple and stableSimple and dynamicComplex and stableComplex and dynamicBetween the corners
- Not placedPlacedSimple and stableSimple and dynamicComplex and stableComplex and dynamicBetween the corners
- Not placedPlacedSimple and stableSimple and dynamicComplex and stableComplex and dynamicBetween the corners
- Not placedPlacedSimple and stableSimple and dynamicComplex and stableComplex and dynamicBetween the corners
Environmental uncertainty
UnpredictableShiftingStable
Simple and dynamic
Between the corners
Complex and dynamic
Simple and stable
Complex and stable
SimpleModerateComplex
Environmental complexity
Simple and stable: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, and they change little and predictably. Rules written by analysts can cover the work, and standardization pays.Simple and dynamic: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, but they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. One person at the top can still read the environment and, through centralized, informal control, react quickly.Complex and stable: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, so no one person can grasp them all, but they change little and predictably. Trained professionals with wide autonomy, coordinated by standardized skills, handle the work.Complex and dynamic: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, and they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. Mutual adjustment among experts suits work no rulebook can cover.Between the corners: Complexity is moderate, uncertainty is shifting, or both. Mintzberg (1980) pairs these four configurations with simple or complex and stable or dynamic environments, and here none of them reads Fits on both factors except the simple structure where the environment is simple and shifting.Select a form, then the box it belongs in.Simple structure.Not placed yet.Simple structure.Simple and stable: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, and they change little and predictably. Rules written by analysts can cover the work, and standardization pays.Simple structure.Simple and dynamic: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, but they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. One person at the top can still read the environment and, through centralized, informal control, react quickly.Its fit cells read Fits at Simple, since one person at the top can read a simple environment, and at Unpredictable, since centralized, informal control lets one leader react quickly where the environment moves. Its uncertainty cell also reads Fits at Shifting, so the fit cells set Mintzberg's "dynamic" across both upper rows, and the sort takes the one corner where both cells read Fits.Simple structure.Complex and stable: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, so no one person can grasp them all, but they change little and predictably. Trained professionals with wide autonomy, coordinated by standardized skills, handle the work.Simple structure.Complex and dynamic: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, and they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. Mutual adjustment among experts suits work no rulebook can cover.Simple structure.Between the corners: Complexity is moderate, uncertainty is shifting, or both. Mintzberg (1980) pairs these four configurations with simple or complex and stable or dynamic environments, and here none of them reads Fits on both factors except the simple structure where the environment is simple and shifting.Machine bureaucracy.Not placed yet.Machine bureaucracy.Simple and stable: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, and they change little and predictably. Rules written by analysts can cover the work, and standardization pays.Its fit cells read Fits at Simple and at Stable: rules written by analysts work when few, similar factors bear on decisions, and standardized work and central rules are efficient while conditions are predictable.Machine bureaucracy.Simple and dynamic: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, but they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. One person at the top can still read the environment and, through centralized, informal control, react quickly.Machine bureaucracy.Complex and stable: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, so no one person can grasp them all, but they change little and predictably. Trained professionals with wide autonomy, coordinated by standardized skills, handle the work.Machine bureaucracy.Complex and dynamic: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, and they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. Mutual adjustment among experts suits work no rulebook can cover.Machine bureaucracy.Between the corners: Complexity is moderate, uncertainty is shifting, or both. Mintzberg (1980) pairs these four configurations with simple or complex and stable or dynamic environments, and here none of them reads Fits on both factors except the simple structure where the environment is simple and shifting.Professional bureaucracy.Not placed yet.Professional bureaucracy.Simple and stable: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, and they change little and predictably. Rules written by analysts can cover the work, and standardization pays.Professional bureaucracy.Simple and dynamic: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, but they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. One person at the top can still read the environment and, through centralized, informal control, react quickly.Professional bureaucracy.Complex and stable: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, so no one person can grasp them all, but they change little and predictably. Trained professionals with wide autonomy, coordinated by standardized skills, handle the work.Trained professionals with wide autonomy are the answer to complex but stable work, and standardized professional skills handle complex work that changes slowly, so its fit cells read Fits at Complex and at Stable.Professional bureaucracy.Complex and dynamic: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, and they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. Mutual adjustment among experts suits work no rulebook can cover.Professional bureaucracy.Between the corners: Complexity is moderate, uncertainty is shifting, or both. Mintzberg (1980) pairs these four configurations with simple or complex and stable or dynamic environments, and here none of them reads Fits on both factors except the simple structure where the environment is simple and shifting.Adhocracy.Not placed yet.Adhocracy.Simple and stable: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, and they change little and predictably. Rules written by analysts can cover the work, and standardization pays.Adhocracy.Simple and dynamic: Few, similar factors bear on decisions, but they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. One person at the top can still read the environment and, through centralized, informal control, react quickly.Adhocracy.Complex and stable: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, so no one person can grasp them all, but they change little and predictably. Trained professionals with wide autonomy, coordinated by standardized skills, handle the work.Adhocracy.Complex and dynamic: Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, and they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. Mutual adjustment among experts suits work no rulebook can cover.Its fit cells read Fits at Complex and at Unpredictable: mutual adjustment among experts suits complex, changing work no rulebook can cover, and temporary expert teams are built for novel work in a changing environment.Adhocracy.Between the corners: Complexity is moderate, uncertainty is shifting, or both. Mintzberg (1980) pairs these four configurations with simple or complex and stable or dynamic environments, and here none of them reads Fits on both factors except the simple structure where the environment is simple and shifting.
Your sort matched 0 of 4.Your sort matched 1 of 4.Your sort matched 2 of 4.Your sort matched 3 of 4.Your sort matched 4 of 4.
- Simple and stable
- Few, similar factors bear on decisions, and they change little and predictably. Rules written by analysts can cover the work, and standardization pays.
- Simple and dynamic
- Few, similar factors bear on decisions, but they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. One person at the top can still read the environment and, through centralized, informal control, react quickly.
- Complex and stable
- Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, so no one person can grasp them all, but they change little and predictably. Trained professionals with wide autonomy, coordinated by standardized skills, handle the work.
- Complex and dynamic
- Many dissimilar factors bear on decisions, and they change often and in ways that cannot be foreseen. Mutual adjustment among experts suits work no rulebook can cover.
- Between the corners
- Complexity is moderate, uncertainty is shifting, or both. Mintzberg (1980) pairs these four configurations with simple or complex and stable or dynamic environments, and here none of them reads Fits on both factors except the simple structure where the environment is simple and shifting.
The sort
- Simple structure: Simple and dynamic. Its fit cells read Fits at Simple, since one person at the top can read a simple environment, and at Unpredictable, since centralized, informal control lets one leader react quickly where the environment moves. Its uncertainty cell also reads Fits at Shifting, so the fit cells set Mintzberg's "dynamic" across both upper rows, and the sort takes the one corner where both cells read Fits.
- Machine bureaucracy: Simple and stable. Its fit cells read Fits at Simple and at Stable: rules written by analysts work when few, similar factors bear on decisions, and standardized work and central rules are efficient while conditions are predictable.
- Professional bureaucracy: Complex and stable. Trained professionals with wide autonomy are the answer to complex but stable work, and standardized professional skills handle complex work that changes slowly, so its fit cells read Fits at Complex and at Stable.
- Adhocracy: Complex and dynamic. Its fit cells read Fits at Complex and at Unpredictable: mutual adjustment among experts suits complex, changing work no rulebook can cover, and temporary expert teams are built for novel work in a changing environment.
In Mintzberg's (1980) synthesis a complex environment goes with decentralization, and Burns and Stalker (1961) found mechanistic management in stable conditions and organic management in changing ones. So the left column keeps decisions at the top (the machine bureaucracy's centralization is contested) and the right column pushes them down, while the bottom row coordinates by standards (of work processes, then of skills) and the top row by direct supervision or mutual adjustment. The professional bureaucracy is the corner that must be standardized and decentralized at once, and it manages both by standardizing skills.
Source: Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Duncan 1972; Burns and Stalker 1961, a field study of twenty firms; Doty and colleagues 1993, a quantitative test across a sample of organizations; Pennings 1975, a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model; Sine and colleagues 2006, a quantitative study of new ventures in one sector; Burton and Obel 2004.
Where it fits
No work read tests this form factor by factor; the cells rest mostly on Mintzberg (1980) and Burton and Obel's (2004) model, the most developed scholarly fit model. One limit bears on them all: resembling Mintzberg's ideal types did not predict effectiveness (Doty, Glick, and Huber 1993, a quantitative test across a sample of organizations). The uncertainty and complexity cells carry another: the fit of environment and structure did not explain effectiveness (Pennings 1975, a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model). Donaldson (2001) traces that null and Mohr's (1971, under technology) to methodological limitations, and reports later studies of Mohr's job unpredictability supporting contingency theory. On contingency theory generally, not on any cell here, Schoonhoven (1981), a quantitative study of hospital operating room suites, found its traditional hypotheses unsupported and more precise ones better supported.
The professional bureaucracy 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. The professionals bring their standard skills with them, so the form needs no scale of operations and works at any size; large hospitals moving to a care-focused design caution against reading large as a fit. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Lega and De Pietro 2005.Age. The professionals bring the skills that coordinate the work from their training outside, so the form uses the same standard skills however young or old the organization is. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Mintzberg 1980.Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism). Standardized professional skills handle complex work that changes slowly; when demands shift fast, the collegial, decentralized core is slow to respond unless a steering core and a developmental periphery are added. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Clark 1998; Burton and Obel 2004; Pennings 1975; Doty and colleagues 1993.Environmental complexity. Trained professionals with wide autonomy are the answer to complex but stable work; where the environment is simple, the same work can be standardized by rules instead. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Pennings 1975.Munificence and hostility. Under extreme hostility Burton and Obel call for central control, which professionals who keep control of their own work make hard to impose; under high hostility they lower centralization, which the form already has, so the works read point both ways. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Burton and Obel 2004; Currie and colleagues 2012.Diversity of products and markets. Professionals standardized by their training serve one field of practice; a mix of unrelated businesses has no common professional standard to coordinate it. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Byrne and colleagues 2004.Strategy type. Burton and Obel say a prospector should not use a professional bureaucracy, and its decentralized, little-formalized core differs from the centralized, formalized design they give a defender, though Mintzberg places the form in stable environments. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Burton and Obel 2004; Mintzberg 1980. View 1: Defender (exploitation) strain, Analyzer (exploitation and exploration) partial, Prospector (exploration) strain. Burton and Obel give a defender high formalization and centralization and a functional design, and say a prospector should not use a professional bureaucracy; the form's little-formalized, decentralized core meets neither. Sources: Burton and Obel 2004. View 2: Defender (exploitation) partial, Analyzer (exploitation and exploration) partial, Prospector (exploration) strain. Mintzberg places the professional bureaucracy in complex but stable environments, which a defender's narrow, stable domain shares, so the form is not ruled out for a defender; Burton and Obel's exclusion for a prospector stands. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Burton and Obel 2004.Technology and routineness. Trained professionals apply learned programs to many varied cases, which suits work with many exceptions that known methods handle; routine work does not need them, and work with no known method sits less well with standard programs. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Van de Ven and colleagues 2013; Perrow 1967; Burton and Obel 2004; Doty and colleagues 1993; Hickson and colleagues 1969; Mohr 1971.Interdependence. Standardized skills let professionals serve their own clients side by side, the pooled case standardization is for; cases that need several professionals to adjust to each other strain a structure built on individual autonomy. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Thompson 1967; Mintzberg 1980.Knowledge intensity and professionalization. Coordination by skills formed in long outside training is this form's mechanism; agencies requiring higher qualifications were more decentralized, and the general inverse tie between professionalization and bureaucratization is the tension this form resolves by standardizing skills rather than work. Without trained professionals there are no skills to coordinate by. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Mintzberg 1980; Hall 1968; Blau 1968; Hage and Aiken 1967.Global integration pressure. No work read ties the professional bureaucracy to integration pressure across countries, so this factor gives no reason for or against. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Mintzberg 1980.Local responsiveness pressure. The professional bureaucracy belongs to complex, stable settings; if many countries' differing demands make the setting complex, as the machine-bureaucracy and simple-structure cells read them, strong responsiveness pressure suits this form, with professionals formed by each country's training and licensing. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Mintzberg 1980.
With the one contested cell counted by its first view, the 36 settings show Fits at 7, Partial at 22, and Strain at 7. Judgment is the basis of four of the twelve cells.
Source: Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Lega and De Pietro 2005, a review of the literature and of hospital practice, without a new systematic test; Clark 1998, five case studies by one scholar; Burton and Obel 2004; Pennings 1975, a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model; Doty and colleagues 1993, a quantitative test across a sample of organizations; Currie and colleagues 2012, several case studies by scholars (11 sites); Byrne and colleagues 2004, a survey of every medical center in one national health system, joined to administrative data; Van de Ven and colleagues 2013; Perrow 1967; Hickson and colleagues 1969, a multi-organization comparative survey; Mohr 1971, a quantitative field study of technology and structure; Thompson 1967; Hall 1968, a study of professionals across several occupations and their organizations; Blau 1968, a comparison of 250 government agencies, replicating an earlier study of 150; Hage and Aiken 1967.
Your own situation against the professional bureaucracy
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 without written standards. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- Flagged (its sources disagree): A defender with authority spread wide. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- Flagged (its sources disagree): An analyzer whose stable core has no standards. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Burton and Obel 2004; Mintzberg 1980.
- Sinks the form: An analyzer with authority spread wide. Source: Burton and Obel 2004.
- Flagged (its sources disagree): A large organization with few written rules. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- Flagged (its sources disagree): Routine work without written standards. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Trist and colleagues 1963; Pasmore and colleagues 1982; Beekun 1989; against it, Hickson and colleagues 1969; against it, Child and Mansfield 1972.
- Flagged (its sources disagree): Few written rules in a stable environment. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- Flagged (its sources disagree): Reactor: a defender's strategy on a loose structure. Disputed: Miles and Snow 1978; Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Burton and colleagues 2015b; Snow and Hrebiniak 1980.
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 without written standards fires when Strategy type at Defender (exploitation): flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- 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 whose stable core has no standards fires when Strategy type at Analyzer (exploitation and exploration): flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Burton and Obel 2004; 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.
- A large organization with few written rules fires when Size at Large: flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- Routine work without written standards fires when Technology and routineness at Routine: flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Trist and colleagues 1963; Pasmore and colleagues 1982; Beekun 1989; against it, Hickson and colleagues 1969; against it, Child and Mansfield 1972.
- Few written rules in a stable environment fires when Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism) at Stable: flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- Reactor: a defender's strategy on a loose structure fires when Strategy type at Defender (exploitation): flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Miles and Snow 1978; Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Burton and colleagues 2015b; Snow and Hrebiniak 1980.
Of the 39 contingency misfit rules, eight can fire for this form: one would sink it and seven would only flag it.
Source: Burton and Obel 2004; Burton and colleagues 2020a.
- Size. Partial at every level: Mintzberg (1980) says size and age are not important to this configuration, since professionals bring their skills with them. Lega and De Pietro (2005), a review, see large hospitals moving beyond it.
- Age. Partial at every level, on the same statement.
- Environmental uncertainty. Fits stable, partial shifting, strain unpredictable (Mintzberg 1980; Burton and Obel 2004). Clark (1998), five case studies by one scholar, supports only the clause that fast change needs a strengthened steering core.
- Environmental complexity. Strain simple and partial moderate, fits complex (Mintzberg 1980).
- Munificence and hostility. Our judgment rates it partial throughout. Burton and Obel's (2004) rules speak only to hostility and point two ways: for high hostility they lower centralization and keep formalization low, as this form does; for extreme hostility, central control.
- Diversity. Our judgment, premised on coordination by skills (Mintzberg 1980): fits a single business, partial related, strain unrelated, which lacks a common standard.
- Strategy. Contested. Burton and Obel (2004) say a prospector should not use this form and give a defender high formalization and centralization: strain defender (our placement of the profile on their rule), partial analyzer, strain prospector. On the cell's other reading, Mintzberg's (1980) complex, stable environments share a defender's stability: partial defender.
- Technology. Fits mixed (Mintzberg 1980; Van de Ven, Ganco, and Hinings 2013): learned programs suit varied cases. Routine work does not need them, and work with no known method sits less well with them: partial at both, our reading. Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey (1969), a multi-organization comparative survey, found the technological imperative generally not supported, and Mohr (1971), a quantitative field study of technology and structure, found no support for effectiveness depending on the consonance of technology and subordinates' participation in decisions.
- Interdependence. Fits pooled, partial sequential, strain reciprocal (Thompson 1967; Mintzberg 1980).
- Knowledge intensity. Strain low, partial moderate, fits high (Mintzberg 1980; Hall 1968; Blau 1968, as premises).
- Global integration pressure. Our judgment: partial throughout, neutral; no work read ties the form to it.
- Local responsiveness pressure. Our judgment: partial low and moderate, fits high, reading many countries' demands as complexity (Mintzberg 1980).
What it does well
It handles complex work without writing that work down. Professionals apply programs learned in training to varied cases, so the organization is standardized and decentralized at once (Mintzberg 1980, theory).
Kutney-Lee and colleagues (2016), a survey of nurses across many hospitals, found that where nurses' reported engagement in shared governance was higher, nurses reported fewer unfavorable job outcomes and patients rated care higher; the design is cross-sectional, and it measured engagement, not the council structure.
What it costs
The organization does not control its own standards: they are learned in training outside it (Mintzberg 1980), so it cannot redesign them as a machine bureaucracy redesigns a procedure.
It pays for two structures: an elaborated support staff beside the professional core (Mintzberg 1980), and an administration coordinated by mutual adjustment in committees.
In Mintzberg's (1980) theory power sits in the operating core, so managers must change practice through the professionals.
How it fails
How the professional bureaucracy 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: Administrative controls for routine work bind the professionalsCases that need several professionals fall between themReform is absorbed and practice stays the sameSilent exitDiffused responsibilitySiloed knowledgeSubsystem self-perpetuation
Select a failure to read its place in the network.Administrative controls for routine work bind the professionals. Degree 1Cases that need several professionals fall between them. Degree 2Reform is absorbed and practice stays the same. Degree 1Silent exit. Degree 1Diffused responsibility. Degree 1Siloed knowledge. Degree 1Subsystem self-perpetuation. Degree 1
| Failure | Degree |
|---|---|
| Administrative controls for routine work bind the professionals | 1 |
| Cases that need several professionals fall between them | 2 |
| Reform is absorbed and practice stays the same | 1 |
| Silent exit | 1 |
| Diffused responsibility | 1 |
| Siloed knowledge | 1 |
| Subsystem self-perpetuation | 1 |
Three failure modes name four patterns, and no pattern is named by more than one.
Source: Scott 1982; Hall 1968, a study of professionals across several occupations and their organizations; Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Thompson 1967; Currie and colleagues 2012, several case studies by scholars (11 sites); Kitchener 2002, a qualitative field study of academic health center mergers; Finn and colleagues 2010, two comparative case studies by scholars; Kirkpatrick and Ackroyd 2003.
Administrative controls written for routine work bind the professionals. Scott (1982), in a conceptual article, expected drift toward his heteronomous model; Kitchener (2000), a scholar's study of several UK hospitals (the abstract gives neither the method nor the number of hospitals), found little support for de-professionalization. The symptom list ties it to silent exit, as theory on Hall's (1968) inverse relation.
Cases that need several professionals fall between them. Each professional serves a client alone, and cases needing several to adjust to each other strain that autonomy (Thompson 1967; Mintzberg 1980, theory); that no one owns the whole case, and its ties to diffused responsibility and siloed knowledge, are our judgment.
Reform is absorbed and practice stays the same. Currie and colleagues (2012), several case studies by scholars at 11 sites, found specialist doctors turning a threat of substitution into delegation of routine tasks while keeping control. Kitchener (2002), a qualitative field study of academic health center mergers, found merger adopted widely and uncritically, and its intended outcomes rarely emerging where it was sedimented on the structures of professionalism; Kirkpatrick and Ackroyd (2003) question the archetype frame that sedimentation idea rests on. The link to subsystem self-perpetuation is our judgment. Finn and colleagues (2010), two comparative case studies, show it is not inevitable: one teamwork initiative reproduced the professional institution at one site and transformed it at the other.
Burton and Obel's (2004) misfit rules are propositions, not tested results. Tested as a set, rules from their 1998 model went with lower return on assets, one misfit perhaps enough (Burton, Lauridsen, and Obel 2002, a quantitative study of 224 Danish small and medium-sized firms); but the interaction form of fit, the one-factor, one-structure pairing each rule makes, was unsupported where the selection and systems forms held (Drazin and Van de Ven 1985, a quantitative study of 629 work units in two states' employment security agencies). One fires undisputed: authority spread wide is a misfit for the analyzer that does not innovate. Seven are disputed. A defender without written standards or with authority spread wide: Mintzberg (1980) places this form in complex but stable environments, which on the strategy cell's other reading admit a defender. An analyzer whose stable core has no standards: Burton and Obel allow the innovating analyzer a simple, little-formalized configuration when small, and our medium strategy level merges the two analyzers. A large organization with few written rules: Mintzberg (1980) holds that trained skills coordinate this form's large units. Routine work without written standards: disputed by work on self-regulating groups (Pasmore and colleagues 1982, a review of 134 reported experiments, successes as reported; Beekun 1989, a meta-analysis of 17 studies), whose work we read as largely routine, though Kelly (1978), a critical reanalysis of several published case studies, found their autonomy limited and the role of pay seriously underestimated, as Beekun's pay finding supports; by the Aston reappraisal (Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey 1969), in which technology bore only on the structure closest to the workflow; and by Child and Mansfield (1972), a multi-firm comparative study of 82 organizations, in which size related to structure much more than technology did. Few written rules in a stable environment: Mintzberg places this form there, and one of Burton and Obel's own rules points the other way, though only where equivocality is high and complexity and uncertainty low. A defender on a loose structure as a reactor, our construction from Burton and Obel and Miles and Snow (1978): Burton, Obel, and Håkonsson (2015) say a reactor strategy fits a calm environment, and Snow and Hrebiniak (1980), a study of top managers' perceptions in four industries, found defenders, prospectors, and analyzers outperformed perceived reactors in competitive industries but not in a highly regulated one, on data they call only suggestive; reading that industry as calm is ours.
Institutional fit bears on every rule. Volberda and colleagues (2012), a survey of 3,259 respondents in 1,904 companies, found contingency and institutional fit complementary and interdependent explanations of performance: firms in quasi fit gain from improving either, firms with high contingency fit are less vulnerable to deviation from institutional fit, and firms with perfect institutional fit slightly lose performance when they strive for contingency fit. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) name professionalism as a source of sameness across a field that need not raise efficiency. Kraatz and Zajac (1996), a longitudinal study of 631 private liberal arts colleges, found little support for neoinstitutional predictions: many colleges changed their curricula against institutional demands and grew less alike, without harm to enrollment or survival; the change was curricular, not structural.
What the research found
Hall (1968), a study of professionals across several occupations and their organizations, found professionalization and bureaucratization generally inversely related, with considerable variation. Blau (1968), a comparison of 250 government agencies, found agencies requiring higher qualifications more decentralized, with more levels, not fewer.
Mintzberg (1980) is a synthesis, not a test. Doty, Glick, and Huber (1993) found that resembling his ideal types did not predict effectiveness. The null is disputed: Krabberød (2015), a review of the 218 articles citing the test, argues it has not been shown to be exhaustive, and Ketchen and colleagues (1997), a meta-analysis of 40 tests, found configurations partly explain performance, though they pooled definitions that were often strategy types. Donaldson (2001) replies that fits form a continuum, with most organizations at intermediate points, not in a few configurations, and Mintzberg later qualified the pure types: some forms, he expects (1991), are most common in hybrids, and a 1992 book version of a similar text finds no truly effective organization in pure form.
Health care studies disagree over whether the form is giving way. Lega and De Pietro (2005), a review without a new systematic test, see large hospitals converging beyond it. Kitchener (2000), Finn and colleagues (2010), and Currie and colleagues (2012) find professional control persisting or mediated by local conditions; Martin and colleagues (2016, four comparative case studies of English National Health Service genetics services) find three logics, professional among them, mediated at the level of the organization. Kellogg (2018), a comparative ethnography of two hospitals, found managers in one changed practice.
Huising (2015), a comparative ethnography of two compliance groups in university laboratories, found professionals with formal authority struggling to enact it; the group that kept menial scut work built relational authority, which the author reads as challenging the relevance of expertise and professional identity in generating it.
Koljonen and Chan (2024), the most recent, is one case study of a Finnish school, where specializing tasks within the teaching community balanced teachers' autonomy with managers' goals for technology. None of the recent studies tests Mintzberg's configuration as such.
The evidence ledger holds 20 studies filed under this form.
In practice: one published case
Denis, Langley, and Cazale (1996) is one case study, a longitudinal study of leadership and strategic change in a large public hospital that the source's abstract does not name.
In a period of radical change, the general hospital acquired a university affiliation while it moved toward a more integrated form of management, and the authors trace how the leadership roles evolved through that period.
As for what happened, the study follows the tactics members of the leadership group used to stimulate change, and their effect both on the progress of change and on the leadership roles themselves.
In their conclusions the authors suggest that strategic change in organizations where goals are unclear and authority is fluid requires collaborative leadership by a constellation of actors in distinct but tightly knit roles. Such leadership, they suggest, is fragile, and can disintegrate through internal conflict or through the discrediting that follows more unpopular, though potentially effective, tactics. Under ambiguity, radical transformation may tend to come in a cyclical, nonlinear pattern, with periods of substantive change alternating with periods of political realignment. They end with five propositions on the collaborative, cyclical, interpretative, and entropic nature of leadership and change, offered for testing, not tested.
Source: Denis and colleagues 1996. Leadership and strategic change under ambiguity, Organization Studies 17(4), 673 to 699; one case study.
Variants and near relatives
Autonomous, heteronomous, and conjoint professional organizations (Scott 1965, 1982). In the autonomous model officials delegate standard-setting to the professionals; in the heteronomous, professionals are subordinate to an administrative framework; in the conjoint, a possible but not existing arrangement, power is spread more equally and more is exercised.
Clinical directorate (Kitchener 2000). Physicians take managerial roles and keep occupational closure and clinical autonomy.
Clinical service lines (Parker, Charns, and Young 2001, a descriptive study; Byrne and colleagues 2004). The hospital regroups by patient group across departments; run beside the departments, it is a matrix, and its grouping is divisional by customer. Byrne and colleagues' survey of every medical center in one national health system found the lines' mere presence had no positive and several negative effects on utilization measures, not clinical outcomes; facilities chose whether to adopt.
Entrepreneurial university (Clark 1998). A strengthened steering core and a developmental periphery around a stimulated academic heartland, pointed to ambidextrous.
Chair and department organization (Clark 1983). Authority in the basic academic unit sits with one chair holder or with a department of senior peers, toward which he sees an evolution. It differs from the academic matrix, discipline crossed with enterprise; from the professional partnership's collegium of owners; and from Birnbaum's whole-college models, in the schools essay.
Inverted organization (Quinn, Anderson, and Finkelstein 1996, a practitioner article). The line hierarchy supports the professionals who meet the customer and gives them no orders. Besseyre des Horts (2014), one teaching case, reports HCL Technologies making its enabling functions answer to employee tickets, without testing the effect.
Shared governance (Kutney-Lee and colleagues 2016). Front-line nurses share decisions over their own work through councils. School-based management under professional control is its school counterpart; Leithwood and Menzies (1998), a review of 83 empirical studies, found little evidence of positive effects on students from school-based management, so it is not evidence for this form.
Named, not covered: street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky 1980) and Drucker's (1988) information-based organization, a forecast.
Its nearest neighbor is the machine bureaucracy. It standardizes the work process, designed by analysts in its own technostructure, which therefore holds power; the professional bureaucracy standardizes skills formed in training outside, so the operating core holds power. In the professional partnership the professionals own the firm and govern it collegially; here they are employees of an organization owned by others.
The professional bureaucracy beside its nearest neighbor, the machine bureaucracy
Select a number to fill what it marks in both drawings; the list under them gives the dimensions on which the two profiles differ.
It standardizes the worker's skills, set by outside professional bodies, not the work process, so the operating core holds power and the technostructure does not.
Professional bureaucracy
Reports toSStandardization of skillsLayers contested: Blau (1968) found narrower first-line spans and more levels in agencies needing higher qualifications.
- Skills learned in long training outside coordinate the professional bureaucracy's departments, while the machine bureaucracy's analysts, a staff unit beside the line, design the work process its operators carry out.
- The professional bureaucracy groups its departments by expertise and by the clients each specialty serves at once; the machine bureaucracy groups its operators by function alone.
- The professional bureaucracy is flat to moderate on our contested reading of Mintzberg, its narrow administration a middle layer only at the moderate end; the machine bureaucracy is tall, its middle line elaborate.
Differs on 10 of 11 dimensions
- Basis of grouping Two or more at once; Machine bureaucracy: Function or process
- Standardization and formalization Low; Machine bureaucracy: High
- Centralization Decentralized; Machine bureaucracy: Centralized
- Layers and span of control Flat to moderate; Machine bureaucracy: Tall
- Decision rights and the locus of authority Vertical and horizontal decentralization; Machine bureaucracy: Limited horizontal decentralization
- Prime coordinating mechanism Standardization of skills; Machine bureaucracy: Standardization of work processes
- Lateral mechanisms Task forces and teams; Machine bureaucracy: Hierarchy, rules, and goals only
- Differentiation against integration Moderate differentiation, some integrating roles; Machine bureaucracy: Low differentiation, light integration
- Mode of exchange and control Bureaucracy and clan; Machine bureaucracy: Bureaucracy
- Boundary permeability Selective; Machine bureaucracy: Closed
The two are bureaucracies, each with a large operating core under a strategic apex. The machine bureaucracy standardizes the work process through analysts in its own technostructure, and the professional bureaucracy standardizes skills formed in training outside, so its operating core holds the power.
Source: Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Blau 1968, a comparison of 250 government agencies, replicating an earlier study of 150.
Moving into or out of it
Moving in needs trained professionals formed outside; the move is to hire them and loosen rules written for routine work (theory).
Byrne and colleagues (2004) conclude that service lines may bring an initial period of disruption, with little evidence of benefit even for older ones, over two years. Kellogg (2018) found practice changed where managers first empowered semi-professionals, then gave them tools that eased doctors' concerns; Koljonen and Chan (2024), one case study, found it carried by segmentation inside the profession; Denis, Langley, and Cazale (1996), one case study, suggest it comes in cycles.
Whether the move comes in one jump or by steps is disputed: the configuration school expects large jumps, and Donaldson (2001) reports that studies over time find mostly incremental change.
Change & Transformation covers running the reorganization itself.
The thinking behind it
Henry Mintzberg, The Structuring of Organizations (1979) and "Structure in 5's" (1980): the configuration that coordinates by standardizing its operating core's skills.
Richard H. Hall, "Professionalization and bureaucratization" (1968): the inverse relation this form claims to resolve.
W. Richard Scott (1965, 1982): autonomous, heteronomous, and conjoint models of control over professional work.
Peter M. Blau, "The hierarchy of authority in organizations" (1968): qualified staff in tall, decentralized hierarchies.
Burton R. Clark, The Higher Education System (1983) and Creating Entrepreneurial Universities (1998): chair and department, and a steering core over a professional heartland.
James Brian Quinn and colleagues, "Leveraging intellect" (1996): the inverted organization.
Graeme Currie and colleagues (2012) and Katherine C. Kellogg (2018): professional control under reform, and managers changing practice anyway.
James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (1967): pooled and reciprocal interdependence.
Richard Burton and Børge Obel, Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design (2004): multi-contingency fit and misfit rules, synthesized from the literature.
Also called
Professional organization, Scott's (1965, 1982) term. Professional assembly, Mintzberg's later name (2023, 2024; Adinolfi and Rebora 2024).
Works cited
- Adinolfi and Rebora 2024. Capire le organizzazioni, oggi! Capire le organizzazioni... alla buon'ora! 7 forme e 7 forze di Henry Mintzberg (book-review rubric, with responses by several scholars and a reply by Mintzberg), Rubric 'Capire le organizzazioni, oggi!' in the section 'Letture e riletture' of a bimonthly periodical, issue dated 04-2024, pages 64 to 72 (the clipping does not print the masthead; Rebora is named as director of Sviluppo&Organizzazione, the likely venue, which no independent page confirmed).
- 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.
- Beekun 1989. Assessing the effectiveness of sociotechnical interventions: antidote or fad?, Human Relations 42(10), 877 to 897; a meta-analysis of 17 studies.
- Besseyre des Horts 2014. HCL Technologies since the global 2008-09 crisis: creating value through employee empowerment, Teaching case, HEC Paris (18 pages; prepared under the Webhelp-HEC research chair Human Capital and Performance); one teaching case.
- Birnbaum 1988. How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (xx and 253 pages).
- Blau 1968. The hierarchy of authority in organizations, American Journal of Sociology 73(4), 453 to 467; a comparison of 250 government agencies, replicating an earlier study of 150.
- Brandstätter and Graf-Vlachy 2026. Strategic leadership and organizational design: a review and research agenda, Journal of Organization Design 15(3), 165 to 210.
- Braverman 1974. Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth century, Monthly Review Press, New York; the linked publisher's page is the 1998 twenty-fifth anniversary edition.
- Burdín 2014. Are worker-managed firms more likely to fail than conventional enterprises? Evidence from Uruguay, ILR Review 67(1), 202 to 238; a survival study of many firms in one country.
- Burns and Stalker 1961. The Management of Innovation, Tavistock Publications, London (first edition 1961); the DOI is for the Oxford University Press revised edition of 1994; a field study of twenty firms.
- Burton and colleagues 2002. Return on assets loss from situational and contingency misfits, Management Science 48(11), 1461 to 1485; a quantitative study of 224 Danish small and medium-sized firms.
- Burton and colleagues 2015b. Organizational Design: A Step-by-Step Approach, Cambridge University Press (third edition; hardback ISBN 978-1-107-09765-0, paperback ISBN 978-1-107-48361-3).
- Burton and colleagues 2020a. Organizational design: a step-by-step approach (fourth edition), Cambridge University Press.
- Burton and Obel 2004. Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: the dynamics of fit, Kluwer Academic Publishers (third edition).
- Byrne and colleagues 2004. The effects of organization on medical utilization: an analysis of service line organization, Medical Care 42(1), 28 to 37; a survey of every medical center in one national health system, joined to administrative data.
- Carey 1967. The Hawthorne studies: a radical criticism, American Sociological Review 32(3), 403 to 416.
- Carney and colleagues 2011. Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: a meta-analysis, Academy of Management Journal 54(3), 437 to 460; a meta-analysis of 141 studies in 28 countries.
- Carroll and Hannan 2000. The demography of corporations and industries, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
- Chandler 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (xiv and 463 pages); several independent case histories by a historian.
- Child 1972a. Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice, Sociology 6(1), 1 to 22.
- Child and Mansfield 1972. Technology, size, and organization structure, Sociology 6(3), 369 to 393; a multi-firm comparative study.
- Clark 1983. The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective, University of California Press, Berkeley (xiii and 315 pages).
- Clark 1998. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation, Elsevier Science, Issues in Higher Education series (ISBN 0-08-043354-5); five case studies by one scholar.
- Coase 1937. The nature of the firm, Economica 4(16), 386 to 405 (November 1937).
- Colfer and Baldwin 2016. The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions, Industrial and Corporate Change 25(5), 709 to 738; a review of 142 empirical studies.
- Crozier 1963. Le phénomène bureaucratique: essai sur les tendances bureaucratiques des systèmes d'organisation modernes et sur leurs relations en France avec le système social et culturel, Éditions du Seuil, Paris, 414 pages; English translation The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, University of Chicago Press and Tavistock, 1964 (Crozier 1964).
- Crozier 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, University of Chicago Press, Chicago; Tavistock, London; two case studies by a scholar.
- Crozier and Friedberg 1977. L'acteur et le système: les contraintes de l'action collective, Éditions du Seuil, Paris (Sociologie politique series); English translation Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action, University of Chicago Press, 1980 (Crozier and Friedberg 1980).
- Crozier and Friedberg 1980. Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London; translated by Arthur Goldhammer from L'acteur et le système (Seuil, 1977; Crozier and Friedberg 1977).
- Csaszar 2012. Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: evidence from mutual funds, Strategic Management Journal 33(6), 611 to 632; a large-sample quantitative study of 609 mutual funds.
- Currie and colleagues 2012. Institutional work to maintain professional power: recreating the model of medical professionalism, Organization Studies 33(7), 937 to 962; several case studies by scholars (11 sites).
- 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.
- Denis and colleagues 1996. Leadership and strategic change under ambiguity, Organization Studies 17(4), 673 to 699; one case study.
- DiMaggio and Powell 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review 48(2), from p. 147.
- Donaldson 2001. The contingency theory of organizations, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA (Foundations for Organizational Science).
- Doty and colleagues 1993. Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories, Academy of Management Journal 36(6), 1196 to 1250; a quantitative test across a sample of organizations.
- Drazin and Van de Ven 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory, Administrative Science Quarterly 30(4), from p. 514; a quantitative study of 629 work units in two states' employment security agencies.
- Drees and Heugens 2013. Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: a meta-analysis, Journal of Management 39(6), 1666 to 1698; a meta-analysis of 157 tests.
- Drucker 1988. The coming of the new organization, Harvard Business Review, January to February 1988 (reprint 88105); reprinted as chapter 14, 'The Information-Based Organization', of Drucker's The New Realities (Harper and Row, New York, 1989), page 207 onward.
- Duncan 1972. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty, Administrative Science Quarterly 17(3), 313 to 327.
- 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.
- Finn and colleagues 2010. Team work in context: institutional mediation in the public-service professional bureaucracy, Organization Studies 31(8), 1069 to 1097; two comparative case studies by scholars.
- Foss 2003. Selective intervention and internal hybrids: interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon spaghetti organization, Organization Science 14(3), 331 to 349; one case study.
- Fruin 1994. The Japanese Enterprise System: Competitive Strategies and Cooperative Structures, Clarendon Press, Oxford; first published 1992 (ISBN 0198283180, LCCN 91033285); the DOI is the 1994 edition (ISBN 0198288980), in Oxford Scholarship Online from 2003; a historical study of Japan's 200 leading industrial firms by one scholar.
- Galbraith 1973. Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
- Galbraith 1974. Organization design: an information processing view, Interfaces 4(3), 28 to 36.
- Granovetter 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology 91(3), 481 to 510.
- Greer and colleagues 2018. Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: a meta-analytic integration, Journal of Applied Psychology 103(6), 591 to 613; a meta-analysis of 54 studies.
- Gustavsen 1992. Dialogue and Development: Theory of Communication, Action Research and the Restructuring of Working Life, Van Gorcum, Assen; Swedish Center for Working Life, Stockholm (viii and 127 pages).
- Hage and Aiken 1967. Relationship of centralization to other structural properties, Administrative Science Quarterly 12(1), 72 to 92.
- Hall 1968. Professionalization and bureaucratization, American Sociological Review 33(1), 92 to 104; a study of professionals across several occupations and their organizations.
- 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.
- 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.
- Huising 2015. To hive or to hold? Producing professional authority through scut work, Administrative Science Quarterly 60(2), 263 to 299; a comparative ethnography of two groups.
- Ichniowski and colleagues 1997. The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing lines, American Economic Review 87(3), 291 to 313; a quantitative study of 36 steel finishing lines in 17 companies.
- Jäger and colleagues 2021. Labor in the boardroom, Quarterly Journal of Economics 136(2), 669 to 725; a natural experiment across many German firms.
- Jensen and Meckling 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3(4), 305 to 360.
- Jirjahn 2011. Ökonomische Wirkungen der Mitbestimmung in Deutschland: ein Update, Schmollers Jahrbuch 131(1), 3 to 57 (in German); a review of many independent econometric studies.
- Kellogg 2018. Subordinate activation tactics: semi-professionals and micro-level institutional change in professional organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly 64(4), 928 to 975 (online 2018, in print 2019); a comparative ethnography of two hospitals.
- 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.
- Kelly 1978. A reappraisal of sociotechnical systems theory, Human Relations 31(12), 1069 to 1099; a critical reanalysis of several published case studies.
- 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.
- Kirkpatrick and Ackroyd 2003. Archetype theory and the changing professional organization: a critique and alternative, Organization 10(4), 731 to 750.
- Kitchener 2000. The 'bureaucratization' of professional roles: the case of clinical directors in UK hospitals, Organization 7(1), 129 to 154; a scholar's study of several UK hospitals (the abstract gives neither the method nor the number of hospitals).
- Kitchener 2002. Mobilizing the logic of managerialism in professional fields: the case of academic health centre mergers, Organization Studies 23(3), 391 to 420; a qualitative field study of academic health center mergers.
- Koljonen and Chan 2024. Balancing professional autonomy and managerial goals amid broad technology adoption pressures: intraprofessional segmentation at a Finnish school, Academy of Management Journal 67(3), 798 to 828; one case study.
- Kraatz and Zajac 1996. Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: the causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change, American Sociological Review 61(5), 812 to 836; a longitudinal study of 631 private liberal arts colleges.
- 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.
- Kutney-Lee and colleagues 2016. Nurse engagement in shared governance and patient and nurse outcomes, Journal of Nursing Administration 46(11), 605 to 612; a survey of nurses across many hospitals.
- 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.
- Lega and De Pietro 2005. Converging patterns in hospital organization: beyond the professional bureaucracy, Health Policy 74(3), 261 to 281; a review of the literature and of hospital practice, without a new systematic test.
- Leithwood and Menzies 1998. Forms and effects of school-based management: a review, Educational Policy 12(3), 325 to 346; a review of 83 empirical studies.
- 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.
- Lipsky 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, Russell Sage Foundation, New York (30th anniversary expanded edition 2010).
- 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.
- Martin and colleagues 2016. Institutional complexity and individual responses: delineating the boundaries of partial autonomy, Organization Studies 38(1), 103 to 127 (online 2016, in print 2017); four comparative case studies by scholars.
- Maurice and colleagues 1980. Societal differences in organizing manufacturing units: a comparison of France, West Germany, and Great Britain, Organization Studies 1(1), 59 to 86; a comparison of matched factories in three countries.
- Mayo 1933. The human problems of an industrial civilization, Macmillan; reissued by Routledge, 2004.
- Merton 1940. Bureaucratic structure and personality, Social Forces 18(4), 560 to 568; a conceptual essay with no test.
- Meyer and Rowan 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology 83(2), 340 to 363.
- Miles and Snow 1978. Organizational strategy, structure, and process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978; reissued by Stanford University Press, 2003 (Stanford Business Classics).
- Mintzberg 1979. The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
- Mintzberg 1980. Structure in 5's: a synthesis of the research on organization design, Management Science 26(3), 322 to 341; a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test.
- Mintzberg 1991. The effective organization: forces and forms, Sloan Management Review (Winter 1991).
- Mintzberg 1992. Beyond configuration: forces and forms in effective organizations, In Henry Mintzberg and James Brian Quinn, The Strategy Process: Concepts and Contexts, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992 (xvi and 480 pages).
- Mintzberg 2023. Understanding Organizations...Finally! Structuring in Sevens, Berrett-Koehler, Oakland, California, 2023 (x and 243 pages).
- Mintzberg 2024. Four forms that fit most organizations, California Management Review 66(2), 30 to 43.
- Mohr 1971. Organizational Technology and Organizational Structure, Administrative Science Quarterly 16(4), 444-459; a quantitative field study of technology and structure.
- Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York; case studies of several Japanese firms by the theory's authors.
- Ouchi 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans, Administrative Science Quarterly 25(1), 129 to 141; a conceptual article.
- Palmer and colleagues 1993. Late adoption of the multidivisional form by large U.S. corporations: institutional, political, and economic accounts, Administrative Science Quarterly 38(1), 100 to 131; a multi-firm statistical study of adoption.
- Parker and colleagues 2001. Clinical service lines in integrated delivery systems: an initial framework and exploration, Journal of Healthcare Management 46(4), 261 to 275; a descriptive study of several health systems in one research consortium.
- Pasmore and colleagues 1982. Sociotechnical systems: a North American reflection on empirical studies of the seventies, Human Relations 35(12), 1179 to 1204; a review of 134 reported experiments.
- 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.
- Perrow 1967. A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations, American Sociological Review 32(2), from p. 194.
- Pfeffer and Salancik 1978. The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective, Harper and Row; reissued by Stanford University Press, 2003.
- Podolny and Page 1998. Network forms of organization, Annual Review of Sociology 24, 57 to 76.
- Powell 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization, Research in Organizational Behavior 12, 295 to 336 (JAI Press).
- Puranam 2021. Human-AI collaborative decision-making as an organization design problem, Journal of Organization Design 10(2), 75 to 80.
- Puranam and colleagues 2014. What's "new" about new forms of organizing?, Academy of Management Review 39(2), 162 to 180; a conceptual argument.
- Quinn and colleagues 1996b. Leveraging intellect, Academy of Management Executive 10(3), 7 to 27 (August 1996).
- 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.
- Scott 1965. Reactions to supervision in a heteronomous professional organization, Administrative Science Quarterly 10(1), 65 to 81.
- Scott 1982. Managing professional work: three models of control for health organizations, Health Services Research 17(3), 213 to 240.
- Simon 1946. The proverbs of administration, Public Administration Review 6(1), from page 53.
- Simon 1962. The architecture of complexity, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106(6), 467 to 482 (12 December 1962).
- Sine and colleagues 2006. Revisiting Burns and Stalker: formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors, Academy of Management Journal 49(1), 121 to 132; a quantitative study of new ventures in one sector.
- Snow and Hrebiniak 1980. Strategy, Distinctive Competence, and Organizational Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly 25(2), from p. 317; a study of top managers' perceptions in four industries.
- Stewart 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance, Journal of Management 32(1), 29 to 55; a meta-analysis of 93 studies.
- Streeck 1984a. Industrial Relations in West Germany: A Case Study of the Car Industry, Heinemann, London; St. Martin's Press, New York (178 pages).
- Thompson 1967. Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory, McGraw-Hill; reissued by Routledge, 2017.
- Tolbert and Zucker 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880 to 1935, Administrative Science Quarterly 28(1), from p. 22.
- Trist and Bamforth 1951. Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting, Human Relations 4(1), 3 to 38; an interview-based field study in one industry.
- Trist and colleagues 1963. Organizational Choice: Capabilities of Groups at the Coal Face under Changing Technologies, Tavistock Publications, London; reissued by Routledge, 2013; several field studies in one industry.
- Tushman and Nadler 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design, Academy of Management Review 3(3), from p. 613.
- Van de Ven and colleagues 2013. Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional designs, Academy of Management Annals 7(1), 393 to 440 (391 to 438 in the original Taylor and Francis printing).
- Volberda and colleagues 2012. Contingency Fit, Institutional Fit, and Firm Performance: A Metafit Approach to Organization-Environment Relationships, Organization Science 23(4), 1040-1054; a survey of 3,259 respondents in 1,904 companies.
- Wagner 1994. Participation's effects on performance and satisfaction: a reconsideration of research evidence, Academy of Management Review 19(2), 312 to 330; a meta-analytic reanalysis that compares eleven reviews.
- Wagner 2021. Dimensional research on organization structure: meta-analysis and conceptual redirection, Journal of Management & Organization 31(4), 1854 to 1871 (published online December 2021; issue of July 2025); a meta-analysis of 346 correlations from 155 published articles.
- Ward 1958. The firm in Illyria: market syndicalism, American Economic Review 48(4) (1958); reprinted in David F. Heathfield (ed.), The Economics of Co-Determination, Palgrave Macmillan, 1977, 1 to 25.
- Weber 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. University of California Press, Berkeley.
- Whitley 1999. Divergent capitalisms: the social structuring and change of business systems, Oxford University Press.
- Wood and colleagues 2019. Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy, Work, Employment and Society 33(1), 56 to 75; interviews in six countries and a survey of 679 workers.
- Woodward 1965. Industrial organization: theory and practice, Oxford University Press, London and New York; a survey of a hundred manufacturing firms with case studies.
- Yoshino 1968. Japan's Managerial System: Tradition and Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
On this page, “read” means read by this series: where a line says a work, or part of one, was not read, the series did not read it.