Teams, not individual jobs, are the basic building block, and the organization is designed as a system of work, management, and improvement teams.
What it is
A team-based organization makes the team, not the individual job, its basic building block, and designs the whole organization as a system of teams: work teams that do the work, management teams that run units of teams, and improvement teams that change how the work is done. Managers stay, but many decisions move into the teams.
The team-based organization builds every level, management included, out of teams
Select a team or the letter to read it; the dashed band rule marks the layer the drawing reads, by judgment, as the moderate end's alone.
Reports toAdjust to each other directlyMMutual adjustment
Select a unit or a letter to read it. M, mutual adjustment: People coordinate their own work by informal communication with each other.Top management team. Layer: Top management. Reports to no one. Management here is itself a team: the form designs the whole organization, its management included, as a system of teams (Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman 1995).Unit management team. Layer: Units of teams. Reports to Top management team. Business units of teams. A management team that runs a business unit of teams, the unit built around the work it delivers; the product or purpose basis is our judgment.Unit management team. Layer: Units of teams. Reports to Top management team. Business units of teams. Runs the other business unit of teams. The profile spans flat to moderate, our judgment; which layer the flat end lacks is not in the records, and the drawing reads this layer of units as the moderate end's.Work team. Layer: Teams. Reports to Unit management team. A team that does the work, the basic building block in place of the individual job; its members cover a broader range of tasks than individual jobs do and adjust to each other inside the team.Work team. Layer: Teams. Reports to Unit management team. Many decisions move from managers into teams like this one.Integrating team. Layer: Teams. Reports to Top management team. Joins work teams across the units, as integrating and management teams do in this form. Whom it answers to is not in the records; it is drawn under the team the two units share.Work team. Layer: Teams. Reports to Unit management team. A work team in the second unit.Improvement team. Layer: Teams. Reports to Unit management team. A team that changes how the work is done, the third kind of team the form names beside work and management teams. Where it sits is not in the records; it is drawn in a unit, since management teams run units of teams.M, mutual adjustment. People coordinate their own work by informal communication with each other.
The structure in words
- Top management
- Top management team, reports to no one. Management here is itself a team: the form designs the whole organization, its management included, as a system of teams (Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman 1995).
- Units of teams (Moderate end)
- Unit management team, reports to Top management team, grouped business units of teams. A management team that runs a business unit of teams, the unit built around the work it delivers; the product or purpose basis is our judgment.
- Unit management team, reports to Top management team, grouped business units of teams. Runs the other business unit of teams. The profile spans flat to moderate, our judgment; which layer the flat end lacks is not in the records, and the drawing reads this layer of units as the moderate end's.
- Teams
- Work team, reports to Unit management team, coordinated by mutual adjustment. A team that does the work, the basic building block in place of the individual job; its members cover a broader range of tasks than individual jobs do and adjust to each other inside the team.
- Work team, reports to Unit management team. Many decisions move from managers into teams like this one.
- Integrating team, reports to Top management team. Joins work teams across the units, as integrating and management teams do in this form. Whom it answers to is not in the records; it is drawn under the team the two units share.
- Work team, reports to Unit management team. A work team in the second unit.
- Improvement team, reports to Unit management team. A team that changes how the work is done, the third kind of team the form names beside work and management teams. Where it sits is not in the records; it is drawn in a unit, since management teams run units of teams.
- Work team and Integrating team: adjust to each other directly.
- Integrating team and Work team: adjust to each other directly.
Work teams do the work, management teams run business units of teams, and improvement teams change how the work is done, so managers stay while many decisions move into the teams. Members adjust to each other inside each team, and an integrating team joins work teams across the units.
Source: Mohrman and colleagues 1995.
Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman (1995) give the dimension profile unless another work is named; it is theory except where marked our judgment:
- Grouping: product or purpose, our judgment.
- Specialization: spans low to medium, our judgment.
- Formalization: medium, our judgment (Hackman 2002).
- Centralization: decentralized.
- Layers and span: spans flat to moderate, our judgment.
- Decision rights: selective vertical and horizontal decentralization, our judgment for the type, Mintzberg's (1980) decentralization to work constellations.
- Coordinating mechanism: mutual adjustment.
- Lateral mechanisms: task forces and teams.
- Differentiation against integration: moderate, with some integrating roles, our judgment on Lawrence and Lorsch's (1967) scale.
- Mode of exchange: spans bureaucracy and clan, from one ethnographic case study of self-managing teams, not of the whole design (Barker 1993).
- Boundary permeability: selective, our judgment, on the scale of Ashkenas and colleagues (1995).
Where the team-based organization sits on the eleven dimensions
The filled segments are the form's levels; select a row for its reason and sources.
Select a dimension to read why the form sits there, and on what basis.Basis of grouping: Product or purpose. Basis: Judgment. Teams are grouped into business units of teams, each built around the work it delivers; judgment for the basis. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995.Specialization: Low to medium. Basis: Judgment. Team members cover a broader range of tasks than individual jobs do; judgment for the band. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Hackman 2002.Standardization and formalization: Medium. Basis: Judgment. Teams need an enabling structure, and in one study more structure in self-managed teams with stable tasks promoted learning; judgment for the band. Sources: Hackman 2002; Bunderson and Boumgarden 2010.Centralization: Decentralized. Basis: Theory. Designs that empower teams in knowledge work, with decisions moved to the teams. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995.Layers and span of control: Flat to moderate. Basis: Judgment. The form keeps managers and management teams above the work teams; judgment for the band. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995.Decision rights and the locus of authority: Selective vertical and horizontal decentralization. Basis: Judgment. Decisions go to teams at various levels, work, management, and improvement teams, which is Mintzberg's selective decentralization to work constellations; judgment for the type. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Mintzberg 1980.Prime coordinating mechanism: Mutual adjustment. Basis: Theory. Mutual adjustment inside teams. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Hackman 2002.Lateral mechanisms: Task forces and teams. Basis: Theory. Integrating teams and management teams join the work teams across the organization. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995.Differentiation against integration: Moderate differentiation, some integrating roles. Basis: Judgment. Teams differ by task and are joined by integrating teams; judgment. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a.Mode of exchange and control: Bureaucracy and clan. Basis: Evidence. In one organization that replaced bureaucratic control with self-managing teams, workers' value-based rules controlled them more tightly than the bureaucracy they replaced: concertive control that began in value consensus, the clan's coercive side, and grew into increasingly rationalized rules. Sources: Barker 1993.Boundary permeability: Selective. Basis: Judgment. The horizontal boundaries between functions are opened inside teams while the firm's edge holds; judgment. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Ashkenas and colleagues 1995.
Three levels rest on theory, drawing on Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman (1995): decentralized authority, mutual adjustment as the prime mechanism, and task forces and teams as the lateral links. Mode of exchange rests on one ethnographic case study (Barker 1993), the other seven are judgment, and no row is contested.
Source: Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Hackman 2002; Bunderson and Boumgarden 2010, a field study of many teams in one firm; Mintzberg 1980, a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a, a multi-firm comparative field study; Barker 1993, one ethnographic case study; Ashkenas and colleagues 1995.
Where it came from
Susan Albers Mohrman, Susan G. Cohen, and Allan M. Mohrman Jr. set the form out in Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work (1995), from four years of research and from consulting. They asked how to design a whole organization, not just its front line, around teams doing knowledge work, and answered that teams need more than a supportive context: the organization around them must be redesigned.
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: Human relations and System 4; Socio-technical systems; the Japanese-firm literature; the Scandinavian and Dutch socio-technical schools; and Information processing.
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.
Before it, the socio-technical school, from Trist and Bamforth (1951) on, held that groups owning a whole task do better than workers in fragmented jobs, a claim two studies qualify: Héthy (1986), a comparative review of official reports and published surveys from several socialist countries, found brigade autonomy far smaller than the regulations allowed and average productivity gains of 1 to 2 percent; Fuhrich (2019), one case study at Volkswagen, found groups given control of their work rationalizing against themselves under cost pressure. Likert (1961) had drawn the organization as overlapping groups joined by their leaders, and Galbraith (1973) had put teams on a ladder of lateral relations.
Where it fits
Four cells are theory and eight our judgment (two are contested); no study found tests the whole design against any factor.
The team-based organization against the twelve contingency factors
Each factor at its three levels, Fits, Partial, or Strain, or Contested where a contested cell's views disagree; select a row for its reason, sources, and grade.
Select a factor to read its reason, sources, basis, and grade.Size. Teams are found more often in organizations with more departments, divisions, sales, and employees, and designing a whole system of teams matters most where there are many to join. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Devine and colleagues 1999; Mohrman and colleagues 1995.Age. Old organizations with entrenched job-based systems find it harder to rebuild around teams. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Hannan and Freeman 1984; Mohrman and colleagues 1995.Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism). Teams add lateral capacity to process information, which pays as change rises; in stable work, individual jobs with clear standards can do as well. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Galbraith 1973; Burns and Stalker 1961; Burton and Obel 2004; Bunderson and Boumgarden 2010; Greer and colleagues 2018; Pennings 1975. View 1: Stable partial, Shifting fits, Unpredictable fits. Teams add lateral capacity to process information, which pays as change rises, and organic systems suit fast change. Sources: Galbraith 1973; Burns and Stalker 1961; Burton and Obel 2004. View 2: Stable partial, Shifting fits, Unpredictable partial. Across 54 team studies, hierarchy lowered team effectiveness on net, but task ambiguity strengthened its positive effects, so the least predictable work is where some hierarchy helps teams. Sources: Greer and colleagues 2018.Environmental complexity. Teams that hold several specialties at once can weigh many dissimilar factors together, which a complex environment demands. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Burton and Obel 2004; Pennings 1975.Munificence and hostility. Works disagree: the fit model's rules leave team-based designs unsettled under threat, while a survey of small firms found organic structures doing best in hostile environments. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Burton and Obel 2004; Covin and Slevin 1989. View 1: Hostile partial, Neutral partial, Munificent partial. Teams can react fast, but the pull to centralize under threat works against their discretion; the fit model's rules do not settle which wins. Sources: Burton and Obel 2004. View 2: Hostile fits, Neutral partial, Munificent strain. Among 161 small manufacturers, organic structures, low in formalization and letting the expert have the most say, did best in hostile environments and mechanistic ones in benign environments; placing team-based designs at the organic end is this cell's reading. Sources: Covin and Slevin 1989.Diversity of products and markets. A system of work, management, and improvement teams is designed within a business; across several businesses each needs its own. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995.Strategy type. Establishments that adopted team practices more often pursued variety, service, and quality over low cost, and Burton and Obel give a prospector low centralization and formalization and name low centralization a misfit for a defender. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Osterman 1994; Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Burton and Obel 2004.Technology and routineness. The form is designed for knowledge work, and establishments whose technology required high skill more often adopted a bundle of practices that includes teams; routine work gains less from a whole system of teams. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Osterman 1994; Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Stewart 2006; Burns and Wholey 1993; Hickson and colleagues 1969; Mohr 1971.Interdependence. Teams group reciprocally interdependent people in one unit, and integrating teams link them only where work crosses teams; where units only share resources the teams work side by side with little to integrate, though shared resources can draw them into more complex interdependence. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Thompson 1967; Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Mahringer and Danner-Schröder 2025.Knowledge intensity and professionalization. Team-based designs are argued for knowledge work, and manufacturing establishments using teams were more often those whose technology required high skill and that trained heavily. Basis: Theory. Grade: conceptual only, no empirical test. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Osterman 1994.Global integration pressure. No work read ties the team-based design to integration pressure across countries, so this factor gives no reason for or against. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995.Local responsiveness pressure. No work read ties the team-based design to local responsiveness across countries, so this factor gives no reason for or against. Basis: Judgment. Sources: Mohrman and colleagues 1995.
Counting the two contested cells, environmental uncertainty and munificence, by their first views, the 36 settings read Fits at 14, Partial at 21, and Strain at 1, the one strain a defender strategy. Eight of the twelve cells rest on judgment and four on theory.
Source: Devine and colleagues 1999, a survey of many organizations; Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Hannan and Freeman 1984; Galbraith 1973; Burns and Stalker 1961, a field study of twenty firms; Burton and Obel 2004; Bunderson and Boumgarden 2010, a field study of many teams in one firm; Greer and colleagues 2018, a meta-analysis of 54 studies; Pennings 1975, a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model; Covin and Slevin 1989, a survey of 161 small manufacturers; Osterman 1994, a survey of several hundred establishments; Stewart 2006, a meta-analysis of 93 studies; Burns and Wholey 1993, a quantitative study of matrix adoption and abandonment in a group of hospitals; Hickson and colleagues 1969, a multi-organization comparative survey; Mohr 1971, a quantitative field study of technology and structure; Thompson 1967; Mahringer and Danner-Schröder 2025, one ethnographic case study.
Your own situation against the team-based organization
Set any factor to outline its cell in the strip above; the lines under the switches give the counts, the form's place among the 41, and the misfit rules that fire.
Size
Age
Environmental uncertainty (unpredictability, dynamism)
Environmental complexity
Munificence and hostility
Diversity of products and markets
Strategy type
Technology and routineness
Interdependence
Knowledge intensity and professionalization
Global integration pressure
Local responsiveness pressure
Set: 0 of 12 factors. Fits on 0, Partial on 0, Strain on 0, Contested on 0.
Its place in the explorer's rankingEvery factor is on Any: all 41 forms tie, and the explorer lists them alphabetically.1st of 411st of 41, tied with one other1st of 41, tied with 0 othersSunk by a misfit rule: 1st of 41Sunk by a misfit rule: 1st of 41, tied with one otherSunk by a misfit rule: 1st of 41, tied with 0 others
- Flagged (its sources disagree): A defender with authority spread wide. Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- Sinks the form: An analyzer with authority spread wide. Source: Burton and Obel 2004.
Ranking rule: by count of Fits on the factors the reader has set, then fewest Strains, then alphabetical; a fired misfit rule that no source disputes sinks the form to the bottom when every level of the form's profile meets it, a disputed one, or one that meets the form only through one end of a spanned level, one view of a contested profile cell, or one part of a two-part form, is flagged on the row (with both views where it is disputed), and a misfit between two of the reader's own settings is shown once above the list; a contested cell counts only where its views agree at the reader's level, and otherwise shows as Contested; factors on "Any" count for nothing; with every factor on "Any" the list is alphabetical and says so.
Open these settings in the explorer
The misfit rules that can fire for this form
- A defender with authority spread wide fires when Strategy type at Defender (exploitation): flagged (its sources disagree). Disputed: Burton and Obel 2004; against it, Mintzberg 1980.
- An analyzer with authority spread wide fires when Strategy type at Analyzer (exploitation and exploration): sinks the form. Source: Burton and Obel 2004.
Two of the 39 contingency misfit rules can fire for this form, both against authority spread wide. In an analyzer the rule is undisputed and sinks it; in a defender it is disputed and only flags it.
Source: Burton and Obel 2004; Burton and colleagues 2020a.
- Size. Our judgment: fits medium and large organizations, partial small. Premise: Devine and colleagues (1999), a survey of many organizations, found teams more prevalent with more departments, divisions, sales, and employees: prevalence, not performance, and of any team use, not this form.
- Age. Our judgment: fits young and established, partial old, on Hannan and Freeman's (1984) inertia: entrenched job-based systems are harder to rebuild around teams.
- Environmental uncertainty. Theory, contested. One view: partial stable, fits shifting and unpredictable, since teams add lateral capacity to process information, which pays as change rises (Galbraith 1973; Burton and Obel 2004, the most developed scholarly fit model), and organic systems suit fast change (Burns and Stalker 1961, a field study of twenty firms). The other: Greer and colleagues (2018), a meta-analysis of 54 studies, found task ambiguity strengthening hierarchy's positive effects in teams, so unpredictable is partial; their hierarchy is within teams, and ambiguity is not environmental unpredictability. Two schools dispute the first view's premise: Ocasio (1997) holds that structure governs where attention goes, not only how much information is processed; Nonaka (1994), that information processing cannot sufficiently explain knowledge creation.
- Environmental complexity. Our judgment: partial simple and moderate, fits complex, premised on teams holding several specialties at once and Burton and Obel's bounded-rationality rule. A limit here and on uncertainty: Pennings (1975), a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model, found environment and structure fit did not explain effectiveness.
- Munificence and hostility. Our judgment, contested. One view, partial throughout: Burton and Obel's (2004) rules lower centralization under high hostility and raise it under extreme hostility; they address hostility only, so partial elsewhere is a neutral default. The other: Covin and Slevin (1989), a survey of 161 small manufacturers, found organic structures best under hostility: fits hostile, partial neutral, strain munificent, placing team-based designs at the organic end in our reading.
- Diversity. Our judgment: fits a single business, partial related and unrelated; each business needs its own system of teams.
- Strategy. Our judgment: strain defender, partial analyzer, fits prospector. Osterman (1994), a survey of several hundred establishments, found adoption of a bundle of practices that includes teams going with a strategy stressing variety, service, and quality over low cost (adoption, not results, and not the Miles and Snow scale); Burton and Obel give a prospector low centralization and formalization (this form meets the first only; its formalization is medium) and name low centralization a misfit for a defender.
- Technology. Theory: partial routine, fits mixed and nonroutine, since the form is for knowledge work; Osterman tied adoption of the bundle to high-skill technology, a skill measure, not routineness, and adoption may follow imitation, as Burns and Wholey (1993), a quantitative study of matrix adoption and abandonment in a group of hospitals, found. Stewart (2006), a meta-analysis of 93 studies, found autonomy's effect varying with task type. A limit: Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey (1969), a multi-organization comparative survey, found technology bearing weakly on structure, and Mohr (1971), a quantitative field study of technology and structure, found no support for effectiveness depending on their match. Donaldson (2001) lays Pennings's and Mohr's failures to method and reports later positive tests on Mohr's job unpredictability.
- Interdependence. Theory: partial pooled and sequential, fits reciprocal; Thompson (1967) groups reciprocal work into one unit first, and integrating teams, his links for reciprocal work no team contains, come only where work crosses teams. Mahringer and Danner-Schröder (2025), one ethnographic case study in agile software development, found that pooled interdependence from shared resources could escalate into more complex types.
- Knowledge intensity. Theory: partial low, fits moderate and high, on the design argument for knowledge work; Osterman's manufacturing adopters, trained inside the firm, sit nearer the middle. The low level is our reading.
- Global integration and local responsiveness. Our judgment: partial throughout; no work read ties the form to either.
What it does well
It puts people who must adjust to each other in one unit (Thompson 1967). The explorer names it a relief, on theory, when work stalls at handoffs between departments and, in our judgment, when coordination meetings fill calendars (Galbraith 1974).
What it costs
Thompson (1967) ranks mutual adjustment the costliest mode, so where standards would do, the form pays for talk.
Thompson's three kinds of interdependence
Choose a type to see how three units depend on one another, what the type includes, and the coordination it needs.
What it meansUnits contribute separately to a common whole and draw on shared resources, but do not depend on each other's work directly.What it includesNothing below it; it is the base type.The coordination it needsCoordination by standardization.Its place in Thompson's orderFirst of three, the least costly.What it meansOne unit's output is the next unit's input, in a fixed order.What it includesPooled interdependence as well.The coordination it needsCoordination by plan.Its place in Thompson's orderSecond of three.What it meansUnits' outputs feed each other back and forth, so each must adjust to the others as the work proceeds.What it includesPooled and sequential interdependence as well.The coordination it needsCoordination by mutual adjustment.Its place in Thompson's orderThird of three, the most costly.
Thompson's rule: pooled, sequential, and reciprocal interdependence rise in that order, each includes the ones below it, and they pair with coordination by standardization, by plan, and by mutual adjustment, in rising order of cost.
| Type | What it means | Includes | Coordination | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pooled | Units contribute separately to a common whole and draw on shared resources, but do not depend on each other's work directly. | Nothing below it; it is the base type. | By standardization | First of three, the least costly |
| Sequential | One unit's output is the next unit's input, in a fixed order. | Pooled interdependence as well. | By plan | Second of three |
| Reciprocal | Units' outputs feed each other back and forth, so each must adjust to the others as the work proceeds. | Pooled and sequential interdependence as well. | By mutual adjustment | Third of three, the most costly |
Each type includes the ones below it, and the ways to coordinate them rise in cost: standardization for pooled work, plans for sequential work, and mutual adjustment for reciprocal work. The pairing and the order of cost are Thompson's; the field evidence is Van de Ven and colleagues', whose study in one agency largely supported their hypotheses relating task uncertainty, interdependence, and unit size to the mix of impersonal, personal, and group coordination modes.
Source: Thompson 1967; Van de Ven and colleagues 1976, a quantitative study of 197 work units in one agency.
It costs supervisors: Batt (2004), a regression study of about 1,200 employees in one company, found self-managed teams going with higher perceived discretion, security, and satisfaction for workers and the opposite for supervisors.
On Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman's design argument, theory, everything around the teams needs redesign: feedback and pay as well as structure.
Gains can thin as it spreads: Hamilton, Nickerson, and Owan (2003), a quantitative study of workers in one plant, found the gain greatest for the earliest teams.
How it fails
Each link to a Coordination Failures pattern, in parentheses, is our judgment.
How the team-based organization 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: Autonomous teams collide at the seams between themControl tightens, from the team's own norms or from aboveConflict and trust unsettle self-managing teamsTeams are installed but the organization is not redesignedDropped commitmentLocal optimization against the global constraintAuthority-gradient suppressionCollective sensemaking lock-inDiffused responsibilitySilent monitor failureGoal displacement and metric gaming
Select a failure to read its place in the network.Autonomous teams collide at the seams between them. Degree 2Control tightens, from the team's own norms or from above. Degree 2Conflict and trust unsettle self-managing teams. Degree 2Teams are installed but the organization is not redesigned. Degree 1Dropped commitment. Degree 1Local optimization against the global constraint. Degree 1Authority-gradient suppression. Degree 1Collective sensemaking lock-in. Degree 1Diffused responsibility. Degree 1Silent monitor failure. Degree 1Goal displacement and metric gaming. Degree 1
| Failure | Degree |
|---|---|
| Autonomous teams collide at the seams between them | 2 |
| Control tightens, from the team's own norms or from above | 2 |
| Conflict and trust unsettle self-managing teams | 2 |
| Teams are installed but the organization is not redesigned | 1 |
| Dropped commitment | 1 |
| Local optimization against the global constraint | 1 |
| Authority-gradient suppression | 1 |
| Collective sensemaking lock-in | 1 |
| Diffused responsibility | 1 |
| Silent monitor failure | 1 |
| Goal displacement and metric gaming | 1 |
Four failure modes name seven patterns, none named twice. Three modes name two patterns each, and the last, teams installed without redesigning the organization, names only goal displacement and metric gaming.
Source: Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen 2012, one case study; Mahringer and Danner-Schröder 2025, one ethnographic case study; Barker 1993, one ethnographic case study; Annosi and colleagues 2017, several case studies in one company; Langfred 2007, a longitudinal study of 35 teams; Langfred 2004, a quantitative study of 71 student self-managing teams; Devine and colleagues 1999, a survey of many organizations; Mohrman and colleagues 1995.
Autonomous teams collide at the seams between them (dropped commitment; local optimization against the global constraint). Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen (2012), one case study, found coordination between groups a major challenge when groups enjoy high autonomy. Mahringer and Danner-Schröder (2025), in agile software development, found teams sharing resources creating interdependencies that challenged their planned autonomy.
Control tightens, from the team's own norms or from above (authority-gradient suppression; collective sensemaking lock-in). Barker (1993) found peer-made rules controlling workers more completely than the bureaucracy before. Annosi and colleagues (2017), several case studies in one company, argue that managerial and stakeholder interventions and coordinating roles shaped teams' identity until it matched the organization's.
Conflict and trust unsettle self-managing teams (diffused responsibility; silent monitor failure). Langfred (2007), a longitudinal study of 35 teams, found conflict going with lower trust, which in turn may reduce individual autonomy and loosen task interdependence, so self-managing teams may restructure themselves inefficiently; Langfred (2004), a quantitative study of 71 student self-managing teams, found high trust going with lower performance when individual autonomy was high.
Teams are installed but the organization is not redesigned (goal displacement and metric gaming). The mode is Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman's (1995) design argument, theory; Devine and colleagues (1999) found the gap common, teams generally lacking team-level feedback or pay, but measured no outcome of it.
Its profile fires two misfit rules. None in the full set names this form. Authority spread wide is a misfit for the analyzer that does not innovate, undisputed, so it sinks the form. For a defender the rule is contested, so it flags and does not sink: Mintzberg (1980), a synthesis without a new test, places the professional bureaucracy's extensive decentralization in complex but stable environments; that this extends to a defender's stable domain is our reading, not his. Doty, Glick, and Huber (1993), a quantitative test across a sample of organizations, found no support for his ideal types' effectiveness claim. Both rules are Burton and Obel's (2004) propositions, not tested singly; Burton, Lauridsen, and Obel (2002), a quantitative study of 224 Danish small and medium-sized firms, tested an earlier version as a set and found lower return on assets where misfits stood. Limits: Drazin and Van de Ven (1985), a quantitative study of 629 work units in two states' employment security agencies, found the interaction form of fit unsupported, and Volberda and colleagues (2012), a survey of 3,259 respondents in 1,904 companies, found firms in perfect institutional fit slightly losing performance when they strive for contingency fit.
What the research found
On teams the evidence is rich and on the form thin: a search of the major journals from 2010 found no test of the form as a whole. Mahringer and Danner-Schröder (2025), one ethnographic case study of the reorganization of agile software development, is the latest filed under this form.
At the team level the evidence is mostly favorable. Delarue and colleagues (2008), a review of several independent quantitative survey studies, found teamworking going with better attitudinal, behavioral, operational, and financial performance; the surveys are mostly cross-sectional, so causation is open. Cohen and Ledford (1994), a quasi-experiment in one company, found self-managing teams, on the balance of evidence, more effective than comparable traditionally managed groups. Kirkman and Rosen (1999), a field study of 111 teams in four organizations, and Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011), a meta-analysis of empowerment studies, tie empowered teams to performance; the first is correlational, its abstract silent on where outcome measures came from, and the second measures a perceived state, not a structure. Hamilton, Nickerson, and Owan (2003), a quantitative study of workers in one plant, found teams raising productivity 14 percent on average, though the change came bundled with group piece rates. Wagner (1994), a meta-analytic reanalysis that compares eleven reviews, found participation's effects significant but small.
Other heads cite, graded in words where they appear, Stewart (2006), Batt (2004), Manz and Sims (1987), Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen (2012), Devine and colleagues (1999), Osterman (1994), Burns and Wholey (1993), Burns and Stalker (1961), Covin and Slevin (1989), Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey (1969), Mohr (1971), Pennings (1975), Mintzberg (1980), Doty, Glick, and Huber (1993), Burton, Lauridsen, and Obel (2002), Drazin and Van de Ven (1985), Volberda and colleagues (2012), Héthy (1986), and Fuhrich (2019).
The critical reading of team control (How it fails) stands against those results: Barker (1993), one ethnographic case study; Sewell and Wilkinson (1992), a theoretical argument drawing on one plant, who read peer scrutiny in cells as control; and Annosi and colleagues (2017), several case studies in one company, who extend it to identity. Mortensen and Haas (2018), a conceptual argument, question the bounded team the studies assume: fluidity, overlap, and dispersion often blur who is a member, which can undermine team effectiveness.
No team-based study records a replication failure, but two longitudinal field tests of autonomous work groups qualify the favorable results. Wall and colleagues (1986), a long-term quasi-experiment in one company, found no effect on motivation or performance, though intrinsic satisfaction rose lastingly; productivity improved by eliminating supervisory positions, and turnover rose. Cordery, Mueller, and Smith (1991), a longitudinal study at two plants, found more favorable attitudes but higher absenteeism and turnover. Bunderson and Boumgarden (2010), a field study of many teams in one firm, and Langfred (2004, a quantitative study of 71 student self-managing teams; 2007, a longitudinal study of 35 teams) qualify the empowerment result: structure aided learning in stable tasks, and high autonomy with low monitoring could hurt. Greer and colleagues (2018), a meta-analysis of 54 studies, found hierarchy within teams slightly lowering effectiveness on net. Setting it beside Foss and Klein's (2022) book-length case for managers in the firm is our reading.
Against the socio-technical school, Kelly (1978), a critical reanalysis of several published case studies, argued that intensified labor, not joint optimization, explains what redesign achieved. Banerjee (2026), one historical case reread from archives, finds the Ahmedabad experiment's success achieved by erasing the lowest-caste workers' needs and voices and silencing the labor union. Berggren (1992), six case studies in the Swedish auto industry by one scholar, favors the Swedish long-cycle groups on productivity and quality of work; Adler and Cole (1993), an ungraded article by two management scholars, held NUMMI's standardized work better for organizational learning than Uddevalla's autonomous groups, which they granted were more promising for individual learning.
The evidence ledger holds 20 studies filed under this form.
In practice: one published case
Barker (1993), "Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams," in Administrative Science Quarterly, is one ethnographic case study. It follows a company that changed from hierarchical, bureaucratic control to self-managing teams; the source's abstract names neither the company nor its industry.
In making that change, management moved the organization from hierarchical, bureaucratic control to concertive control in the form of self-managing teams, and the team workers developed a system of value-based normative rules.
Over time the rules grew increasingly rationalized, and they came to control the members' actions more powerfully and completely than the former bureaucratic system had.
Its author concluded that concertive control did not free the workers from Weber's iron cage of rational control; as it became manifest in this case, it appeared to draw the cage tighter and to constrain the members more powerfully.
The source does not show how the whole design performs: it describes a move to self-managing teams, not the design of a whole organization as work, management, and improvement teams that defines this form, so it shows how one organization's teams came to control their members.
The grade is one ethnographic case study of one organization, and we read it in its abstract.
Source: Barker 1993. Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams, Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3), 408 to 437; one ethnographic case study.
Variants and near relatives
Cluster organization (Mills 1991): clusters as the basic building blocks, a cluster being a group of people drawn from different disciplines who work together on a semipermanent basis. It is not Galbraith's cluster structure of related divisions (the multidivisional entry).
Team Topologies (Skelton and Pais 2019), a practitioner framework with no study behind it: a technology organization designed from teams outward, with four team types and three interaction modes, treating team cognitive load as a key design factor.
Socio-technical autonomous work groups are the nearest neighbor. Socio-technical design jointly optimizes a production system's social and technical sides and fits the group to the technology's natural breaks. Its Dutch variant, Dutch integral organizational renewal, also takes the whole organization as its object. This form starts from teams as the building blocks, for knowledge work, and builds management itself as teams, where socio-technical design keeps it at the group's boundary.
Relatives: the Self-managing organization removes the manager-subordinate relationship, where this form keeps managers. W. L. Gore's lattice organization, self-management without formally designated teams (Shipper and Manz 1992), is the contrast case, taught there.
Named, not covered: high-involvement management (Lawler 1986) and the high-performance work organization (People & Talent), and single-team design (Hackman 2002; Leadership & Management).
The team-based organization beside its nearest neighbor, socio-technical work groups
Select a number to fill what it marks in both drawings; the list under them gives the dimensions on which the two profiles differ.
For knowledge work, it designs the whole organization, its management included, as a system of work, management, and improvement teams, whereas socio-technical design begins from a production system and fits the work group to it.
Team-based organization
Reports toAdjust to each other directlyMMutual adjustment
Socio-technical autonomous work groups
Reports toAdjust to each other directlyMMutual adjustmentNStandardization of norms
- The team-based form builds its management as teams, a top team and unit management teams; socio-technical design keeps management at the groups' boundary, regulating what crosses it.
- An integrating team joins work teams across the team-based form's units; between socio-technical groups, one case study explored rotating spokespersons and found coordination a major challenge.
- The team-based form groups its teams into business units of teams, each built around the work it delivers, while each socio-technical group owns a whole segment, bounded where the technology breaks.
- Mutual adjustment coordinates inside the team-based form's teams; socio-technical groups add their own norms to it.
Differs on 6 of 11 dimensions
- Specialization Low to medium; Socio-technical autonomous work groups: Low
- Standardization and formalization Medium; Socio-technical autonomous work groups: Low
- Layers and span of control Flat to moderate; Socio-technical autonomous work groups: Flat
- Decision rights and the locus of authority Selective vertical and horizontal decentralization; Socio-technical autonomous work groups: Vertical and horizontal decentralization
- Prime coordinating mechanism Mutual adjustment; Socio-technical autonomous work groups: Mutual adjustment and standardization of norms
- Lateral mechanisms Task forces and teams; Socio-technical autonomous work groups: Direct contact and liaison roles
The team-based form does the work in groups and keeps managers, as socio-technical design does. It also builds management and integration as teams, while socio-technical design keeps management at the groups' boundary.
Source: Mohrman and colleagues 1995; Cummings 1978; Cherns 1976; Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen 2012, one case study.
Moving into or out of it
To move in is, on Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman's (1995) design argument, theory, a redesign of the whole in five steps, not the formation of teams.
In Hamilton, Nickerson, and Owan's plant, high-ability workers joined teams first, often despite a loss in earnings.
Manz and Sims (1987), a study of one plant, suggest a legitimate, redefined role for external leaders, whose key behaviors, correlations generally indicated, help teams observe, evaluate, and reinforce themselves.
Change & Transformation treats the running of the reorganization.
The thinking behind it
Susan Albers Mohrman and Susan G. Cohen, with Allan M. Mohrman Jr. (1995): the organization redesigned around teams for knowledge work.
J. Richard Hackman, Leading Teams (2002): leaders set conditions, among them a real team, a compelling direction, and an enabling structure.
James D. Thompson (1967): reciprocal interdependence met by mutual adjustment, why teams group such work and why it costs most.
Jay R. Galbraith (1974): uncertainty raises the information load, met partly by lateral relations, teams among them.
D. Quinn Mills (1991): the cluster. Matthew Skelton, with Manuel Pais (2019): team types and modes, practitioner lore.
James R. Barker (1993): concertive control. J. Stuart Bunderson and Peter Boumgarden (2010) and Lindred Greer (2018): structure that helps teams learn, hierarchy within teams that on net slightly hurts them. Claus Langfred (2004, 2007): the downside of self-management. Charles Manz (1987): the external leader.
Richard Burton and Børge Obel (2004): the multi-contingency model and its misfit rules. Michael Hannan and John Freeman (1984): inertia rising with age, and attempts at reorganization raising death rates.
Also called
Team organization. Team-based organization, from the title of Mohrman and colleagues (1995).
Works cited
- Adler and Cole 1993. Designed for learning: a tale of two auto plants, Sloan Management Review (Spring 1993), 85 to 94.
- 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.
- Annosi and colleagues 2017. The interaction of control systems and stakeholder networks in shaping the identities of self-managed teams, Organization Studies 38(5), 619 to 645; several case studies in one company.
- 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.
- Banerjee 2026. Revealing violence in the structure of sociotechnical systems theory: the historiography of the Tavistock Institute's 'Ahmedabad Experiment', Organization (online first, article 13505084261454759); one historical case reread from archives.
- Barker 1993. Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams, Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3), 408 to 437; one ethnographic case study.
- Batt 2004. Who benefits from teams? Comparing workers, supervisors, and managers, Industrial Relations 43(1), 183 to 212; a regression study of about 1,200 employees in one company.
- Berggren 1992. Alternatives to Lean Production: Work Organization in the Swedish Auto Industry, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY; six case studies in the Swedish auto industry by one scholar.
- 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.
- Bunderson and Boumgarden 2010. Structure and learning in self-managed teams: why 'bureaucratic' teams can be better learners, Organization Science 21(3), 609 to 624; a field study of many teams in one firm.
- 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.
- Burns and Wholey 1993. Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks, Academy of Management Journal 36(1), 106 to 138; a quantitative study of matrix adoption and abandonment in a group of hospitals.
- Burton and colleagues 2002. Return on assets loss from situational and contingency misfits, Management Science 48(11), 1461 to 1485; a quantitative study of 224 Danish small and medium-sized firms.
- Burton and colleagues 2020a. Organizational design: a step-by-step approach (fourth edition), Cambridge University Press.
- Burton and Obel 2004. Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: the dynamics of fit, Kluwer Academic Publishers (third edition).
- Carey 1967. The Hawthorne studies: a radical criticism, American Sociological Review 32(3), 403 to 416.
- Carney and colleagues 2011. Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: a meta-analysis, Academy of Management Journal 54(3), 437 to 460; a meta-analysis of 141 studies in 28 countries.
- Carroll and Hannan 2000. The demography of corporations and industries, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
- Chandler 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (xiv and 463 pages); several independent case histories by a historian.
- Cherns 1976. The principles of sociotechnical design, Human Relations 29(8), 783 to 792.
- Child 1972a. Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice, Sociology 6(1), 1 to 22.
- Coase 1937. The nature of the firm, Economica 4(16), 386 to 405 (November 1937).
- Cohen and Ledford 1994. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: a quasi-experiment, Human Relations 47(1), 13 to 43; a quasi-experiment in one company.
- 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.
- Cordery and colleagues 1991. Attitudinal and behavioral effects of autonomous group working: a longitudinal field study, Academy of Management Journal 34(2), 464 to 476; a longitudinal study at two plants.
- Covin and Slevin 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments, Strategic Management Journal 10(1), 75 to 87; a survey of 161 small manufacturers.
- 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.
- Cummings 1978. Self-regulating work groups: a socio-technical synthesis, Academy of Management Review 3(3), from page 625.
- 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.
- Delarue and colleagues 2008. Teamworking and organizational performance: a review of survey-based research, International Journal of Management Reviews 10(2), 127 to 148; a review of several independent quantitative survey studies.
- 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.
- Devine and colleagues 1999. Teams in organizations, Small Group Research 30(6), 678 to 711; a survey of many organizations.
- Donaldson 2001. The contingency theory of organizations, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA (Foundations for Organizational Science).
- Doty and colleagues 1993. Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories, Academy of Management Journal 36(6), 1196 to 1250; a quantitative test across a sample of organizations.
- Drazin and Van de Ven 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory, Administrative Science Quarterly 30(4), from p. 514; a quantitative study of 629 work units in two states' employment security agencies.
- Drees and Heugens 2013. Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: a meta-analysis, Journal of Management 39(6), 1666 to 1698; a meta-analysis of 157 tests.
- Edwards 1979. Contested terrain: the transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century, Basic Books.
- Egelhoff 1988. Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: a revision of the Stopford and Wells model, Strategic Management Journal 9(1), 1 to 14; a multi-firm study of multinationals.
- Emery and Thorsrud 1969. Form and Content in Industrial Democracy: Some Experiences from Norway and Other European Countries, Tavistock Publications, London; reissued by Routledge.
- Fakhfakh and colleagues 2012. Productivity, capital, and labor in labor-managed and conventional firms: an investigation on French data, ILR Review 65(4), 847 to 879; a study of large representative samples of French firms.
- Fayol 1949. General and Industrial Management, Translated by Constance Storrs, with a foreword by L. Urwick. Pitman, London.
- Foss 2003. Selective intervention and internal hybrids: interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon spaghetti organization, Organization Science 14(3), 331 to 349; one case study.
- Foss and Klein 2022. Why Managers Matter: The Perils of the Bossless Company, PublicAffairs, New York (320 pages).
- 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.
- Fuhrich 2019. Rationalisierung von unten: Arbeiter als Gestalter betrieblicher Rationalisierung bei VW, Arbeit-Bewegung-Geschichte: Zeitschrift für historische Studien 18(1), 111 to 126; one case study.
- 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).
- Hackman 2002. Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
- 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.
- Hamilton and colleagues 2003. Team incentives and worker heterogeneity: an empirical analysis of the impact of teams on productivity and participation, Journal of Political Economy 111(3), 465 to 497; a quantitative study of workers in one plant.
- Hannan and Freeman 1977. The population ecology of organizations, American Journal of Sociology 82(5), 929 to 964.
- Hannan and Freeman 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change, American Sociological Review 49(2), 149 to 164.
- Héthy 1986. New developments in collective forms of work organisation in socialist countries, International Labour Review 125(6), 659 to 674; a comparative review of official reports and published surveys from several countries.
- 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.
- 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.
- Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen 2012. Autonomous work groups and the challenge of inter-group coordination, Human Relations 65(7), 861 to 881; one case study.
- 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 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.
- Kirkman and Rosen 1999. Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment, Academy of Management Journal 42(1), 58 to 74; a field study of 111 teams in four organizations.
- Langfred 2004. Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams, Academy of Management Journal 47(3), 385 to 399; a quantitative study of 71 student self-managing teams.
- Langfred 2007. The downside of self-management: a longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams, Academy of Management Journal 50(4), 885 to 900; a longitudinal study of 35 teams.
- Lawler 1986. High-Involvement Management: Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
- Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston (xv and 279 pages); a multi-firm comparative field study.
- Levinthal 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes, Management Science 43(7), 934 to 950.
- Levitt and List 2011. Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3(1), 224 to 238; a reanalysis of one plant's original experimental data.
- Likert 1961. New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York.
- Lincoln and colleagues 1986. Organizational structures in Japanese and U.S. manufacturing, Administrative Science Quarterly 31(3), 338 to 364; a survey of about a hundred plants in two countries.
- MacCormack and colleagues 2012. Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: a test of the "mirroring" hypothesis, Research Policy 41(8), 1309 to 1324; a matched comparison of five pairs of software products.
- Mahringer and Danner-Schröder 2025. Autonomous, yet interdependent: designing interfaces across routine clusters, Academy of Management Journal 68(6), 1300 to 1327; one ethnographic case study.
- Manz and Sims 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managing work teams, Administrative Science Quarterly 32(1), from page 106; a study of one plant.
- March and Simon 1958. Organizations, Wiley, New York (262 pages; with the collaboration of Harold Guetzkow); second edition, Blackwell, 1993.
- Maurice and colleagues 1980. Societal differences in organizing manufacturing units: a comparison of France, West Germany, and Great Britain, Organization Studies 1(1), 59 to 86; a comparison of matched factories in three countries.
- Mayo 1933. The human problems of an industrial civilization, Macmillan; reissued by Routledge, 2004.
- Merton 1940. Bureaucratic structure and personality, Social Forces 18(4), 560 to 568; a conceptual essay with no test.
- Meyer and Rowan 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology 83(2), 340 to 363.
- Mills 1991. Rebirth of the Corporation, Wiley, New York.
- Mintzberg 1979. The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
- Mintzberg 1980. Structure in 5's: a synthesis of the research on organization design, Management Science 26(3), 322 to 341; a synthesis of earlier research, offering propositions without a new test.
- Mohr 1971. Organizational Technology and Organizational Structure, Administrative Science Quarterly 16(4), 444-459; a quantitative field study of technology and structure.
- Mohrman and colleagues 1995. Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, xxvii and 389 pages.
- Mortensen and Haas 2018. Perspective: rethinking teams: from bounded membership to dynamic participation, Organization Science 29(2), 341 to 355; a conceptual argument.
- Nonaka 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science 5(1), 14 to 37.
- 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.
- Ocasio 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal 18(S1) (summer special issue), 187 to 206.
- Osterman 1994. How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it?, ILR Review 47(2), 173 to 188; a survey of several hundred establishments.
- Palmer and colleagues 1993. Late adoption of the multidivisional form by large U.S. corporations: institutional, political, and economic accounts, Administrative Science Quarterly 38(1), 100 to 131; a multi-firm statistical study of adoption.
- Pennings 1975. The relevance of the structural-contingency model for organizational effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly 20(3), from p. 393 (September 1975); a quantitative field test of the structural-contingency model.
- Pfeffer and Salancik 1978. The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective, Harper and Row; reissued by Stanford University Press, 2003.
- Podolny and Page 1998. Network forms of organization, Annual Review of Sociology 24, 57 to 76.
- Powell 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization, Research in Organizational Behavior 12, 295 to 336 (JAI Press).
- Puranam 2021. Human-AI collaborative decision-making as an organization design problem, Journal of Organization Design 10(2), 75 to 80.
- Puranam and colleagues 2014. What's "new" about new forms of organizing?, Academy of Management Review 39(2), 162 to 180; a conceptual argument.
- Reitzig and Maciejovsky 2015. Corporate hierarchy and vertical information flow inside the firm: a behavioral view, Strategic Management Journal 36(13), 1979 to 1999; a field study combined with experiments.
- Rice 1958. Productivity and Social Organization: The Ahmedabad Experiment: Technical Innovation, Work Organization, and Management, Tavistock Publications, London; reissued by Routledge (ebook 2013).
- 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.
- Seibert and colleagues 2011. Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review, Journal of Applied Psychology 96(5), 981 to 1003; a meta-analysis of empowerment studies.
- Sewell and Wilkinson 1992. 'Someone to watch over me': surveillance, discipline and the just-in-time labour process, Sociology 26(2), 271 to 289; a theoretical argument drawing on observation of one plant.
- Shipper and Manz 1992. Employee self-management without formally designated teams: an alternative road to empowerment, Organizational Dynamics 20(3), 48 to 61.
- 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).
- Skelton and Pais 2019. Team Topologies: Organizing Business and Technology Teams for Fast Flow, IT Revolution Press (first edition September 2019, 240 pages, ISBN 9781942788812; second edition 2025).
- Stewart 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance, Journal of Management 32(1), 29 to 55; a meta-analysis of 93 studies.
- Streeck 1984a. Industrial Relations in West Germany: A Case Study of the Car Industry, Heinemann, London; St. Martin's Press, New York (178 pages).
- Thompson 1967. Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory, McGraw-Hill; reissued by Routledge, 2017.
- Tolbert and Zucker 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880 to 1935, Administrative Science Quarterly 28(1), from p. 22.
- Trist and Bamforth 1951. Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting, Human Relations 4(1), 3 to 38; an interview-based field study in one industry.
- Tushman and Nadler 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design, Academy of Management Review 3(3), from p. 613.
- Van de Ven and colleagues 1976. Determinants of coordination modes within organizations, American Sociological Review 41(2), from p. 322; a quantitative study of 197 work units in one agency.
- 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.
- Wall and colleagues 1986. Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: a long-term field experiment, Academy of Management Journal 29(2), 280 to 304; a long-term quasi-experiment in one company.
- 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.