Organizational structure
Organizational structure refers to the systematic arrangement of roles, responsibilities, and relationships within an organization to facilitate the division of labor, coordination of activities, and achievement of collective goals.[1] It encompasses the framework for assigning tasks, establishing hierarchies, and defining reporting lines, which collectively shape how an organization operates and adapts to its environment.[2] This structure is essential for clarifying authority, enhancing efficiency, and aligning resources with strategic objectives, influencing everything from daily workflows to long-term decision-making.[3] At its core, organizational structure is built on foundational elements such as job design, which involves dividing complex tasks into specialized roles to increase productivity; departmentalization, the grouping of these jobs into units based on criteria like function, product, geography, or customer type; and span of control, which determines the number of subordinates reporting to a manager, affecting the overall hierarchy's depth and width.[3] These components enable differentiation—separating work horizontally by specialization, vertically by hierarchy, or spatially by location—and integration mechanisms like formal rules, centralized decision-making, or standardization to ensure cohesion.[1] For instance, functional departmentalization organizes employees by expertise areas such as marketing or finance to promote specialization, while product-based structures allow autonomy for specific lines like jet engines in a conglomerate.[3] Organizations adopt various structural types depending on size, industry, and external conditions, with common forms including hierarchical (or functional) structures that emphasize clear chains of command for stability in predictable environments; flat structures that minimize layers to foster agility and innovation in dynamic settings; matrix structures that blend functional and project-based reporting for resource flexibility in complex projects; and divisional structures that grant semi-autonomy to units focused on products, regions, or customers.[2] Additionally, scholars distinguish between mechanistic structures, which are rigid and bureaucratic for stable contexts, and organic structures, which are flexible and adaptive for turbulent ones, as theorized by Burns and Stalker in their analysis of innovation management.[1] These types balance advantages like efficient coordination against potential drawbacks such as slow decision-making in hierarchies or role confusion in matrices.[2] The evolution of organizational structures reflects adaptations to technological, environmental, and strategic shifts, from early bureaucratic models inspired by industrial efficiency to modern hybrid forms that incorporate teams and informal linkages for better horizontal communication.[3] Factors like organizational age, size, and power dynamics further influence structure choice, with larger entities often favoring divisional setups to manage complexity.[1] Ultimately, effective structures enhance information processing, employee well-being, and competitive performance by aligning internal processes with external demands.[2]Fundamentals
Definition and Core Elements
Organizational structure refers to the formal system by which work tasks are divided, grouped, and coordinated within an organization to achieve its goals.[4] This framework establishes the relationships among jobs, systems, processes, people, and groups, providing a blueprint for how authority, responsibilities, and communication flow to ensure efficient operations.[4] The core elements of organizational structure include several interrelated components that define its operational dynamics. Work specialization, also known as division of labor, involves breaking down complex tasks into simpler, specialized duties assigned to individuals or teams, enhancing efficiency through focused expertise but potentially leading to monotony if overemphasized.[4] Departmentalization groups jobs based on common tasks, products, processes, or geography, such as creating separate units for marketing or production, to facilitate coordination within specialized areas.[4] Hierarchy of authority, often visualized as levels of management from top executives to frontline workers, delineates reporting lines and power distribution.[5] Span of control refers to the number of subordinates directly reporting to a manager, with narrow spans creating taller hierarchies for close supervision and wide spans enabling flatter structures for greater autonomy.[4] Centralization versus decentralization determines where decision-making occurs: centralization concentrates authority at higher levels for uniformity, while decentralization distributes it to lower levels for flexibility and responsiveness.[4] Finally, formalization specifies the degree to which rules, procedures, and documentation govern behavior, ranging from highly structured environments with explicit policies to more fluid ones relying on norms.[4] Key concepts within organizational structure further refine these elements. The chain of command establishes a clear vertical line of authority, ensuring each employee knows whom to report to and receive instructions from, promoting accountability and order.[4] Coordination mechanisms integrate these components by aligning activities, such as through direct supervision (one manager overseeing others), standardized rules and procedures (formal guidelines), or plans (strategic schedules and objectives) to synchronize efforts across the organization.[6] These mechanisms help mitigate fragmentation from specialization and departmentalization, enabling the organization to function as a cohesive unit. Illustrative examples highlight variations in structure complexity. A simple structure might feature a direct line authority hierarchy, where a CEO issues commands straight to department heads without intermediaries, as seen in small startups emphasizing speed.[5] In contrast, a more complex structure incorporates staff authority, where advisory roles—such as human resources consultants—provide expertise to line managers (e.g., production supervisors) without direct command over operations, supporting decision-making in larger firms like manufacturing companies.[5] These distinctions underscore how core elements adapt to organizational size and needs, contributing to overall efficiency.[4]Importance and Theoretical Foundations
Organizational structure plays a pivotal role in determining an organization's operational efficiency by delineating clear roles, responsibilities, and workflows that minimize redundancies and optimize resource allocation.[7] Effective structures facilitate streamlined communication channels, reducing information silos and enabling faster information flow across departments, which is essential for coordinated efforts in dynamic environments.[8] Moreover, the design of structure directly influences decision-making processes; centralized structures expedite top-down decisions in stable settings, while decentralized ones empower lower levels for quicker responses in volatile markets.[9] By fostering adaptability, appropriate structures allow organizations to reconfigure resources in response to external changes, such as market shifts, thereby enhancing resilience.[10] Additionally, structures that incorporate motivational elements, like clear career paths and collaborative frameworks, boost employee engagement and satisfaction, leading to higher retention and performance levels.[11] The theoretical foundations of organizational structure draw from classical management theory, which emphasizes efficiency through scientific principles. Frederick Taylor's scientific management, outlined in his 1911 work, advocated for time-motion studies and standardized tasks to eliminate waste, laying the groundwork for hierarchical structures focused on productivity. In contrast, human relations theory, pioneered by Elton Mayo through the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s and 1930s, highlighted the social and psychological aspects of work, demonstrating that attention to employee needs and group dynamics improves output beyond mere task optimization, influencing more relational-oriented structures.[12] Systems theory, developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the mid-20th century, conceptualizes organizations as open systems interacting with their environments, where structure must account for inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback loops to maintain equilibrium and adaptability. These theories collectively underscore structure as a mechanism for balancing efficiency, human elements, and environmental responsiveness. Key benefits of well-designed organizational structures include strong alignment with strategic goals, enabling focused execution and resource deployment toward core objectives.[13] They also support scalability by providing frameworks that accommodate growth without proportional increases in complexity, though challenges arise when rigid structures hinder expansion or innovation in rapidly scaling firms.[14] Furthermore, effective structures contribute to competitive advantage by streamlining operations and fostering unique capabilities, such as agile decision-making that outpaces rivals.[15] Evaluating organizational structure's effectiveness often involves metrics tied to performance outcomes, including productivity rates measured by output per employee or process efficiency gains.[16] Research indicates that adaptive and flexible structures can improve productivity and innovation rates—tracked via patent filings or new product launches—through better resource utilization and cross-functional collaboration.[17] For example, a meta-analysis of 143 studies confirms a positive correlation between innovation and overall organizational performance.[18]Historical Evolution
Early Concepts and Industrial Revolution Influences
The roots of organizational structure trace back to pre-industrial societies, where rigid hierarchies facilitated large-scale coordination and resource management. In ancient Egypt, the construction of monumental pyramids, such as those at Giza, relied on a sophisticated administrative hierarchy involving pharaohs, overseers, scribes, and skilled laborers, with clear division of labor to mobilize thousands of workers seasonally.[19] Similarly, the Roman legions exemplified military organizational prowess through a structured hierarchy, with the basic unit being the century of 80 men divided into 10 contubernia (sections of eight soldiers each), commanded by centurions under higher officers like tribunes and legates, enabling disciplined operations across vast territories.[20] In medieval Europe, feudal systems reinforced these hierarchical principles, organizing society around lords granting land (fiefs) to vassals in exchange for loyalty and military service, creating a pyramid of obligations from kings at the apex to serfs at the base. The Industrial Revolution, spanning the late 18th to 19th centuries, marked a pivotal shift from agrarian and craft-based production to centralized factory systems, necessitating formalized organizational structures to handle mass production. Adam Smith's 1776 analysis in The Wealth of Nations highlighted the efficiency gains from division of labor, using the pin factory as an example where 10 workers, each specializing in a single task, could produce 48,000 pins daily—far surpassing what individuals could achieve alone—thus influencing the design of factories with coordinated labor flows.[21] This era's factories, powered by steam engines and concentrated in urban centers like Manchester and Birmingham, introduced formal hierarchies with managers overseeing specialized workers, replacing artisanal autonomy with top-down control to optimize output and discipline.[22] Early management concepts emerged to refine these structures, with Frederick Taylor's scientific management (Taylorism) introducing time-motion studies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to eliminate inefficiencies. Taylor's approach involved observing workers with stopwatches to standardize tasks, as demonstrated in his Bethlehem Steel experiments where shovel loads were optimized, boosting productivity by up to 200% through precise task allocation.[23] Complementing this, Henri Fayol, a French mining engineer, outlined 14 principles of management in 1916, emphasizing unity of command—where each employee reports to only one superior to avoid conflicting instructions—and the scalar chain, a clear line of authority from top to bottom ensuring orderly communication and decision-making. Urbanization during the Industrial Revolution profoundly shaped these evolving structures by concentrating populations in cities and promoting labor specialization. Rapid migration from rural areas to industrial hubs like London and New York swelled urban workforces, compelling factories to adopt hierarchical organizations to manage unskilled laborers performing repetitive tasks, as division of labor intensified with mechanization.[24] This specialization, while driving economic growth, also fostered social challenges, including labor unrest, as workers adapted to rigid factory disciplines amid overcrowded living conditions.[25]20th-Century Developments and Key Theorists
In the early 20th century, Max Weber developed the concept of the ideal bureaucracy as a rational form of organization suited to modern industrial societies, emphasizing efficiency through structured administration. Weber outlined key characteristics including a hierarchical authority structure with clear chains of command, division of labor and specialization of tasks, impersonal relationships based on formal rules rather than personal ties, and promotion based on technical qualifications and performance.[26] This model, articulated in his 1922 work Economy and Society, positioned bureaucracy as the most technically proficient administrative system for large-scale operations, influencing organizational design in both public and private sectors.[26] Mid-century developments saw the emergence of contingency theory, which challenged rigid bureaucratic models by arguing that effective organizational structures depend on environmental factors such as market stability and technological change. In their 1961 book The Management of Innovation, Tom Burns and George M. Stalker distinguished between mechanistic structures—characterized by high formalization, centralized decision-making, and rigid hierarchies, suitable for stable environments—and organic structures, which feature flexible roles, lateral communication, and adaptability, ideal for dynamic settings.[27] This framework highlighted how organizations must align their structures with external contingencies to enhance performance, laying groundwork for later adaptive theories.[27] World War II profoundly influenced organizational structures by necessitating rapid command efficiencies in military and industrial contexts, fostering innovations in coordination and resource allocation. The war prompted the widespread adoption of scientific management techniques, such as operational research, to optimize complex supply chains and decision-making under uncertainty, which later diffused into civilian management practices.[28] Post-war economic booms in the United States and Europe, driven by reconstruction and consumer demand, accelerated corporate diversification as firms expanded into new product lines and international markets to capitalize on growth opportunities. This period saw the rise of multinational structures, with companies decentralizing operations to manage global operations more effectively. Peter Drucker's post-WWII contributions emphasized decentralization and management by objectives (MBO) to counter bureaucratic rigidity, promoting structures where authority is distributed to lower levels for faster decision-making. In his 1954 book The Practice of Management, Drucker advocated setting clear, measurable objectives aligned across the organization to enhance accountability and innovation, influencing the shift toward more autonomous units in large firms.[29] By the late 20th century, critiques of traditional bureaucracy gained prominence, as seen in Tom Peters and Robert Waterman's 1982 In Search of Excellence, which analyzed high-performing companies and recommended flatter structures with fewer layers, emphasis on hands-on leadership, and values-driven cultures to foster agility and employee engagement.[30] These ideas reflected a broader movement toward leaner, more responsive organizations amid increasing global competition.[30]Primary Types
Bureaucratic and Hierarchical Structures
Bureaucratic structures represent a foundational model of organization characterized by formalized rules, hierarchical authority, and rational administration. Max Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy, outlined in his seminal work, emphasizes a monocratic hierarchy where offices are ordered with each level having clearly defined superiors and subordinates to ensure unambiguous chains of command.[31] This model incorporates layers of authority, where decisions flow downward and appeals ascend through regulated channels, promoting disciplined execution. Standardized procedures form a core element, with duties assigned as official roles governed by exhaustive, stable, written rules that are uniformly applied and documented in files to maintain continuity and impersonality in operations.[31] Impersonality is achieved by devoting authority to functional purposes rather than personal relationships, eliminating emotional influences and ensuring abstract rule application over individual discretion.[31] Weber posited this structure as particularly suited to stable environments, where its technical superiority enables precision, speed, and unambiguity in large-scale administration.[31] Hierarchical structures, often overlapping with bureaucratic forms, feature pyramid-like reporting lines that concentrate power at the apex, with authority cascading through multiple levels to subordinates.[32] A narrow span of control allows managers to oversee fewer direct reports, facilitating close supervision and centralized decision-making, where strategic choices remain at higher echelons.[32] These structures are prevalent in governments, such as the U.S. federal system with its constitutional framework branching into executive, legislative, and judicial arms, and in large manufacturing firms, where top executives direct middle managers who oversee operational workers.[32] Centralization ensures unified direction but limits lower-level autonomy, aligning with Weber's early 20th-century conceptualization of rational-legal authority in stable institutional settings.[31] Among the advantages of bureaucratic and hierarchical structures are clearly defined roles and responsibilities, which reduce ambiguity and enhance accountability by tracing actions to specific levels.[33] This clarity supports scalability, allowing organizations to expand by adding layers without disrupting core operations, and fosters efficient coordination in predictable contexts.[33] However, disadvantages include inherent rigidity, which hampers adaptability to dynamic changes, and slow decision-making due to elongated approval chains.[33] Employee alienation often arises from limited participation and a sense of disconnection from top leadership, potentially stifling motivation and innovation.[33] Variations within these structures include line-and-staff hierarchies, which integrate specialized advisory roles alongside traditional authority lines to bolster decision quality without undermining command unity.[34] In this setup, line managers retain operational authority, while staff experts in areas like human resources or finance provide non-binding recommendations, enhancing flexibility in complex organizations.[34] Pre-bureaucratic structures, a simpler variant suited to nascent enterprises, centralize authority with a single leader—typically the founder—who directly oversees a small team, bypassing formal hierarchies in entrepreneurial startups focused on rapid execution.[35] This approach relies on personal oversight rather than codified rules, ideal for environments demanding quick pivots during early growth phases.[35]Functional and Divisional Structures
In organizational theory, the functional structure organizes employees into departments based on specialized expertise and tasks, such as marketing, finance, human resources, and operations.[36] This approach emphasizes economies of scale within each function, allowing for deep specialization and efficient resource allocation across the organization.[37] It typically features centralized decision-making at the top levels, with clear hierarchies within departments to coordinate activities.[36] A historical example is the early 20th-century setup at Ford Motor Company, where production, engineering, and sales were grouped functionally under a centralized model to support mass manufacturing efficiencies.[38] The advantages of a functional structure include enhanced expertise development, as employees focus on similar tasks, fostering skill depth and knowledge sharing within departments.[37] It also promotes cost savings by avoiding duplication of roles and enabling standardized processes, which simplifies management and accountability.[36] However, this structure can lead to silos, where departments prioritize internal goals over organizational ones, resulting in poor cross-functional coordination and communication barriers.[37] Additionally, it may hinder responsiveness to diverse customer needs or market changes, as decision-making funnels through centralized layers, potentially slowing innovation in diversified firms.[36] In contrast, the divisional structure organizes the organization into semi-autonomous units based on products, geographic regions, or customer segments, each operating like a mini-organization with its own functional departments.[37] This design decentralizes operational decisions to division heads while maintaining a central headquarters for strategic oversight and resource allocation.[36] Pioneered in the 1920s by companies like DuPont and General Motors, as detailed in Alfred Chandler's seminal work, it addressed the limitations of functional structures in large, diversified enterprises by aligning operations with specific markets. For instance, General Electric adopted product-based divisions to manage its growing portfolio of appliances and industrial goods, enhancing focus on distinct business lines.[36] Divisional structures offer advantages such as greater market responsiveness, as each unit can tailor strategies to its specific environment, fostering autonomy and quicker decision-making.[37] They also support leadership development by providing general management experience across functions within a division.[36] A modern example is Unilever, which employs a product-type divisional model with business groups such as Beauty & Wellbeing, Personal Care, Home Care, Foods, and Ice Cream (as of 2025), allowing targeted innovation and regional adaptations while leveraging shared corporate resources.[39][40] Drawbacks include resource duplication across divisions, which increases costs, and potential inconsistencies in policies or standards without strong central coordination.[37] This can also lead to empire-building among division leaders, complicating overall organizational integration.[36] Hybrid forms, such as product-geographic matrices, combine elements of functional and divisional structures by overlaying product divisions with geographic units, providing flexibility for global operations; however, they introduce complexities in reporting lines that are explored further in matrix designs.[36]Matrix, Team, and Network Structures
The matrix structure represents a hybrid organizational form that integrates elements of functional and divisional designs, featuring dual reporting lines where employees report to both functional managers (overseeing specialized expertise) and project or product managers (focusing on specific initiatives). This setup emerged prominently in project-intensive industries like aerospace during the mid-20th century to address complex, temporary endeavors requiring cross-specialty collaboration. [41][42] Matrix organizations vary in authority distribution: weak matrices prioritize functional managers with project coordinators holding limited power, balanced matrices equate authority between functional and project leads, and strong matrices empower project managers with greater control over resources and decisions. These variations allow adaptation to project scale and complexity, though the dual chains can foster flexibility by enabling efficient resource allocation across initiatives. [43][44][45] Advantages of the matrix include enhanced resource sharing, which reduces duplication and supports dynamic allocation in multifaceted environments, and improved responsiveness to technical or market demands through integrated expertise. However, drawbacks often involve role ambiguity from conflicting directives, power struggles between managers, and potential slowdowns in decision-making due to negotiation needs. [46][41][45] Team-based structures emphasize cross-functional teams, such as agile squads, where members from diverse departments collaborate on shared goals, often in self-managing units that replace rigid silos with iterative processes. This approach draws from project management practices and promotes innovation by leveraging varied perspectives to accelerate problem-solving and adaptation in volatile settings. [47][48] Key benefits encompass heightened creativity and employee engagement through empowered collaboration, alongside improved performance via enhanced coordination mechanisms that align interdependent tasks. Drawbacks include the need for robust conflict resolution, as functional diversity can strain communication and increase coordination efforts, potentially leading to inefficiencies if not managed. [49][50][51] Network structures involve loose alliances among internal units and external partners, forming interconnected webs like supply chain networks that emphasize relational ties over formal control to facilitate knowledge exchange and adaptability. This form suits environments with intangible assets and rapid change, as articulated in organizational theory distinguishing networks from markets or hierarchies. [52] Benefits include scalability through access to specialized external capabilities, cost efficiencies from shared resources in alliances, and fostered innovation via enduring exchanges that build trust. Challenges arise from coordination difficulties in decentralized setups, heightened dependency risks on unreliable partners, and potential redundancies or trust erosion in loose ties. [53][54] Organizational circles, inspired by holacratic principles, organize work into nested, role-based circles that supplant traditional hierarchies with distributed authority, where each circle defines purposes, accountabilities, and inter-circle links for holistic governance. Developed by Brian J. Robertson, this structure uses dynamic roles filled by individuals to enable agile evolution without fixed job titles. [55][56]Flat, Virtual, and Post-Bureaucratic Structures
Flat organizations are characterized by minimal layers of management between executives and employees, leading to wide spans of control and greater direct interaction across levels.[57] This design reduces bureaucratic obstacles, enabling quicker information flow and decision-making while empowering staff through increased autonomy.[57] A prominent example is Valve Corporation, which employs a non-hierarchical model where employees self-select projects, form ad hoc teams by relocating desks, and use peer consensus for leadership roles and rewards, fostering innovation in its knowledge-intensive environment.[58] Benefits include enhanced creativity, faster adaptation to market changes, and attraction of proactive talent, but drawbacks involve potential overload on senior leaders, role ambiguity, and scalability issues as the organization grows beyond small sizes.[58][57] Virtual structures rely on digital technologies to coordinate remote, boundaryless teams that span geographic, temporal, and organizational divides, often by outsourcing core functions to external partners.[59] This approach allows organizations to assemble diverse expertise without physical constraints, cutting costs on travel, office space, and infrastructure while improving work-life balance for participants.[59] Global talent access enables rapid responses to dynamic markets, particularly in industries like software development.[59] However, challenges include communication hurdles from time zone differences, cultural variances, and language barriers, alongside difficulties in cultivating trust and cohesion, which can hinder productivity and team performance.[59] Technology dependency further exacerbates risks, as system failures or inadequate tools may disrupt collaboration.[59] Post-bureaucratic structures embody a philosophical shift away from rigid rules and authority-based control, prioritizing influence derived from knowledge, commitment, and consensus to achieve collective goals.[60] In these models, interactive dialogue and interdependence replace top-down commands, allowing everyone to contribute to the organization's mission through persuasion rather than position.[60] This fosters creativity, adaptability, and maximized intelligence by integrating formal processes with informal networks, as seen in the hierarchy-community phenotype model, which conceptualizes organizations as phenotypes blending hierarchical efficiency for stability with community collaboration for innovation.[60][61] Advantages include greater decision-making capacity and employee engagement, but risks involve insufficient direction, challenges in binding commitments, and potential conflicts without enforced discipline.[60] Virtual teams extend these principles by enabling network-like extensions that emphasize flexibility over fixed roles.[59]Theoretical Models
Mintzberg's Configurations
Henry Mintzberg developed a comprehensive framework for understanding organizational structures through his analysis of basic parts, coordination mechanisms, and resulting configurations, as outlined in his seminal 1979 book The Structuring of Organizations.[62] This model posits that organizations can be dissected into five fundamental components that interact to form distinct structural types, each suited to particular environmental conditions and strategic needs. By synthesizing empirical research, Mintzberg emphasized how these elements determine an organization's ability to coordinate activities effectively and adapt to external demands.[62] The five basic parts of an organization, according to Mintzberg, include the strategic apex, which comprises top management responsible for overall direction and environmental scanning; the middle line, consisting of managers who link the apex to operations through interpretation and control; the operating core, the frontline workers who perform the primary tasks; the technostructure, analysts who design standardization procedures; and support staff, who provide indirect services like maintenance and human resources. These parts form the "building blocks" of structure, with their relative influence varying across configurations to achieve coordination. The prime coordinating mechanism in any organization is the one that dominates its primary activities, such as direct supervision, where a single authority oversees subordinates; standardization of work processes, which specifies task procedures; standardization of outputs, which sets performance targets; standardization of skills, achieved through professional training; or mutual adjustment, relying on informal communication for flexibility.[63][62] Mintzberg's five configurations emerge from the dominance of specific parts and mechanisms, creating holistic structures tailored to environmental complexity, stability, and demands for efficiency or innovation. The simple structure, dominated by the strategic apex and direct supervision, features high centralization and is ideal for small, dynamic firms like startups or retail outlets in volatile markets, where quick decision-making is essential. In contrast, the machine bureaucracy relies on the technostructure and standardization of work processes, promoting efficiency through formalized routines in stable environments, such as mass-production manufacturers or large government agencies.[63][64] The professional bureaucracy centers on the operating core with standardization of skills, granting autonomy to trained experts in complex yet stable settings, exemplified by hospitals, universities, or law firms where professional norms guide operations. The divisionalized form emphasizes the middle line and standardization of outputs, enabling decentralization into semi-autonomous units focused on markets or products, suitable for diversified conglomerates like multinational corporations facing varied demands. Finally, the adhocracy leverages support staff and mutual adjustment for innovation in turbulent, complex environments, such as R&D labs or consulting firms, where project teams collaborate fluidly to solve novel problems. These configurations illustrate how organizations evolve or transition based on age, size, technical systems, and external pressures, with no single form universally superior.[62][64]| Configuration | Dominant Part | Prime Mechanism | Key Characteristics | Typical Environment/Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simple Structure | Strategic Apex | Direct Supervision | Centralized, flexible, entrepreneurial | Simple, dynamic; small firms, startups |
| Machine Bureaucracy | Technostructure | Standardization of Processes | Formalized, efficient, hierarchical | Stable, simple; manufacturing, utilities |
| Professional Bureaucracy | Operating Core | Standardization of Skills | Autonomous professionals, standardized expertise | Stable, complex; hospitals, universities |
| Divisionalized Form | Middle Line | Standardization of Outputs | Decentralized units, performance targets | Stable to turbulent, diverse; conglomerates |
| Adhocracy | Support Staff | Mutual Adjustment | Innovative, project-oriented, collaborative | Turbulent, complex; R&D, tech consultancies |