1.Steve Ballmer, “One Microsoft: Company Realigns to Enable Innovation at Greater Speed, Efficiency,” email, July 11, 2013, accessed at Microsoft Company News, http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2013/jul13/07-11onemicrosoft.aspx.

2.Ibid.; Michael Endler, “Microsoft Reorganization Signals Big Challenges Ahead,” InformationWeek, July 11, 2013, http://www.informationweek.com; Nick Wingfield, “Microsoft Overhauls, the Apple Way,” New York Times, July 11, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com; “Will Microsoft’s Reorganization Pay Off?” Knowledge@Wharton, July 17, 2013, http://www.knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu; J. P. Mangalindan, “Microsoft’s Reorganization Is Only Step One,” Fortune, July 11, 2013, http://tech.fortune.cnn.com; David Goldman, “Microsoft Shakes Up Management—Again,” CNNMoney, July 15, 2013, http://money.cnn.com; Tom Warren, “Microsoft Announces Massive Company-Wide Reorganization,” The Verge, July 11, 2013, http://www.theverge.com.

3.A. Tacket, “Organizing and Organizations: An Introduction,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 53 (2002): 1401.

4.Douglas S. Sherwin, “Management of Objectives,” Harvard Business Review (May/June 1976): 149–160. See also: Lloyd Sandelands and Robert Drazin, “On the Language of Organization Theory,” Organizational Studies 10 (1989): 457–477.

5.Tim Peakman, “Organizing the Organization,” Drug Discovery Today 8 (2003): 673.

6.For a discussion emphasizing the importance of continually adapting organization structure, see: Michael A. Vercspej, “When Change Becomes the Norm,” Industry Week (March 16, 1992): 35–36.

7.Betsy Morris, “The GE Mystique,” Fortune (March 6, 2006): 98–102. For an interesting analysis of General Electric’s management development process, see: Derek Lehmberg, W. Glenn Rowe, Roderick E. White, and John R. Phillips, “The GE Paradox: Competitive Advantage through Fungible Non-Firm-Specific Investment,” Journal of Management 35, no. 5 (October 1, 2009): 1129–1153.

8.Saul W. Gellerman, “In Organizations, as in Architecture, Form Follows Function,” Organizational Dynamics 18 (Winter 1990): 57–68.

9.For an example of how organizing principles can be applied to the educational arena, see: A. Georges Romme, “Organizing Education by Drawing on Organization Studies,” Organization Studies 24 (2003): 697.

10.Max Weber, Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. and ed. A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (London: Oxford University Press, 1947); P. A. Saparito and J. E. Coombs, “Bureaucratic Systems’ Facilitating and Hindering Influence on Social Capital,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 37: 625–639.

11.Sandra T. Gray, “Fostering Leadership for the New Millennium,” Association Management (January 1995): L78–L82.

12.David Courpasson and Stewart Clegg, “Dissolving the Iron Cages? Tocqueville, Michels, Bureaucracy and the Perpetuation of Elite Power,” Organization 13 (2006): 319–343.

13.“GM Timeline,” MSNBC.com, http://www.msnbc.com, accessed June 3, 2010; Ryan Chilcote and Steve Rothwell, “GM to Focus on Cutting Spending, Reducing Bureaucracy,” Bloomberg.com, March 2, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com.

14.For a review focusing on division of labor, see: “Division of Labor Welcomed,” Business Insurance 34, no. 10 (March 6, 2000): 8.

15.Jeff Lewis and Walter Knott, “Division of Labor: To Gain the Benefits of a Team, Each Member Can’t Do Everything,” On Wall Street (August 1, 2003): 1; T. W. Malone, R. J. Laubacher, and T. Johns, “The Age of Hyperspecialization,” Harvard Business Review 89 (2011): 57–65.

16.Example based on “Painting by Numbers: China’s Art Business,” The Economist (June 10, 2006): 77.

17.Carol Ann Dorn, “Einstein: Still No Equal,” Journal of Business Strategy (November/December 1994): 20–23.

18.C. R. Walker and R. H. Guest, The Man on the Assembly Line (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952). For an excellent example of how technology can affect division of labor, see: John P. Walsh, “Technological Change and the Division of Labor: The Case of Retail Meatcutters,” Work and Occupations 16 (May 1989): 165–183.

19.For an interesting analysis of how such structural organizational factors as specialization influence organizational memory, see: Marina Fiedler and Isabell Welpe, “How Do Organizations Remember? The Influence of Organizational Structure on Organizational Memory,” Organization Studies 31, no. 4 (2010): 381–407.

20.J. Mooney, “The Principles of Organization,” in D. Waldo, ed., Ideas and Issues in Public Administration (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953), 86. See also: Peter Jackson, “Speed versus Heed,” CA Magazine (November 1994): 56–57; L. Pierce, “Organizational Structure and the Limits of Knowledge Sharing: Incentive Conflict and Agency in Car Leasing,” Management Science (2012).

21.Bruce D. Sanders, “Making Work Groups Work,” Computerworld 24 (March 5, 1990): 85–89; L. Garicano and Y. Wu, “Knowledge, Communication, and Organizational Capabilities,” Organization Science (in press).

22.George D. Greenberg, “The Coordinating Roles of Management,” Midwest Review of Public Administration 10 (1976): 66–76; Stephen Ackroyd, “How Organizations Act Together: Interorganizational Coordination in Theory and Practice,” Administrative Science Quarterly 43, no. 1 (March 1998): 217–221.

23.Steve Lasky, “Collaboration Gets the MBTA Moving into the Security Fast Lane,” Security Technology Executive, September 2013, Business Insights: Global, http://bi.galegroup.com; Susan Bregman, “MBTA Takes Steps to Upgrade Safety and Security,” Transit Wire, May 3, 2013, http://www.thetransitwire.com; Peter Schworm, “US Slices Federal Funds for MBTA Security,” Boston Globe, September 3, 2013, http://www.bostonglobe.com.

24.Henry C. Metcalf and Lyndall F. Urwich, eds., Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (New York: Harper & Bros., 1942), 297–299; James F. Wolf, “The Legacy of Mary Parker Follett,” Bureaucrat Winter (1988–1989): 53–57. For a more recent discussion of the work of Mary Parker Follett, see: David M. Boje and Grace Ann Rosile, “Where’s the Power in Empowerment? Answers from Follett and Clegg,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 37, no. 1 (March 2001): 90–117.

25.Lyndall Urwich, Notes on the Theory of Organization (New York: American Management Association, 1952). For a more recent look at the implications of organizational structure on misbehavior, see: Granville King III, “The Implications of an Organization’s Structure on Whistleblowing,” Journal of Business Ethics 20, no. 4 (July 1999): 315–326.

26.David Stamps, “Off the Charts,” Training 34, no. 10 (October 1997): 77–83.

27.Xiaowen Huang, Mehment Kristal, and Roger Schroeder, “The Impact of Organzational Structure on Mass Customization Capability: A Contingency View,” Production and Operations Management 19, no. 5 (2010): 515–530.

28.“Organizational Chart,” Encyclopedia of Management (2010). For an interesting discussion of a nontraditional organization structure, see: David M. Lehmann, “Integrated Enterprise Management: A Look at the Functions, the Enterprise, and the Environment—Can You See the Difference?” Hospital Material Management Quarterly 19, no. 4 (May 1998): 22–26.

29.Eric J. Walton, “The Persistence of Bureaucracy: A Meta-Analysis of Weber’s Model of Bureaucratic Control,” Organization Studies 26, no. 4: 569–600.

30.S. R. Maheshwari, “Hierarchy: Key Principle of Organization,” Employment News 21, no. 49 (March 8–14, 1997): 1–2.

31.Cass Bettinger, “The Nine Principles of War,” Bank Marketing 21 (December 1989): 32–34; Donald C. Hambrick, “Corporate Coherence and the Top Management Team,” Strategy & Leadership 25, no. 5 (September/October 1997): 24–29.

32.Leon McKenzie, “Supervision: Learning from Experience,” Health Care Supervisor 8 (January 1990): 1–11. For a recent discussion of span of control, see: “Span of Control vs. Span of Support,” Journal for Quality and Participation 23, no. 4 (Fall 2000): 4.

33.For a look at the concept of span of management in public organizations, see: Kenneth Meier and John Bohte, “Span of Control and Public Organizations: Implementing Gulick’s Research Design,” Public Administration Review 63 (2003): 61.

34.Harold Koontz, “Making Theory Operational: The Span of Management,” Journal of Management Studies (October 1966): 229–243. See also: John S. McClenahen, “Managing More People in the ’90s,” Industry Week 238 (March 1989): 30–38.

35.For an account of how Corning Inc. organized its knowledge workers into an effective research and development department that exists to this day, see: W. Bernard Carlson and Stuart K. Sammis, “Revolution or Evolution? The Role of Knowledge and Organization in the Establishment and Growth of R & D at Corning,” Management & Organizational History 4, no. 1 (2009): 37–65.

36.The U.S. space program offers an interesting study of the forms of work organization—both simple and complex—required to ultimately succeed in putting an astronaut on the moon. See: Martin Parker, “Space Age Management,” Management & Organizational History 4, no. 3 (2009): 317–332.

37.V. A. Graicunas, “Relationships in Organization,” Bulletin of International Management Institute (March 1933): 183–187; L. F. Urwick, “V. A. Graicunas and the Span of Control,” Academy of Management Journal 17 (June 1974): 349–354; see also: N. J. Foss, J. Lyngsie, and S. A. Zahara, “The Role of External Knowledge Sources and Organizational Design in the Process of Opportunity Exploitation,” Strategic Management Journal 34: 1453–1471.

38.For discussion about why managers should increase spans of management, see: Stephen R. Covey, “The Marketing Revolution,” Executive Excellence 14, no. 3 (March 1997): 3–4.

39.John R. Brandt, “Middle Management: ‘Where the Action Will Be,’” Industry Week (May 2, 1994): 30–36.

40.For a discussion of the benefits of tall structures, see: Harold J. Leavitt, “Why Hierarchies Thrive,” Harvard Business Review 81, no. 3 (2006): 96–102.

41.Philip R. Nienstedt, “Effectively Downsizing Management Structures,” Human Resources Planning 12 (1989): 155–165.

42.Paul Glader, “It’s Not Easy Being Lean,” Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2006, B1. For more information on how social responsibility influences organizational structure, see: A. Rasche, F. G. A. de Bakker, and J. Moon, “Complete and Partial Organizing for Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of Business Ethics 115 (2013): 651–663.

43.Yum Brands, “Yum! Brands Realigns Business Divisions to Propel Global Growth,” news release, November 20, 2013, http://www.yum.com; Yum Brands, “About Yum! Brands,” http://yum.com/company/, accessed January 10, 2014; Mark Brandau, “Yum Reorganizes Global Divisions by Brand,” Nation’s Restaurant News, November 21, 2013, http://nrn.com; Kari Hamanaka, “Taco Bell’s Creed Expands Duties Under Yum! Reorganization,” Orange County Business Journal, November 20, 2013, http://www.ocbj.com.

44.Geary A. Rummler and Alan P. Brache, “Managing the White Space on the Organization Chart,” Supervision (May 1991): 6–12.

45.Y. M. Zhou, “Synergy, Coordination Costs, and Diversification Choices,” Strategic Management Journal 32, no. 6 (2011): 624–639.

46.Roderick E. White and Thomas A. Poynter, “Organizing for Worldwide Advantage,” Business Quarterly 54 (Summer 1989): 84–89.

47.“EnergySolutions Announces New Organizational Structure,” Marketwire, March 30, 2010, http://www.marketwire.com.

48.M. Lindgren and J. Packendorff, “What’s New in New Forms of Organizing? On the Construction of Gender in Project-Based Work,” Journal of Management Studies 43, no. 4 (2006): 841–866.

49.Jon R. Katzenbach and Adam Michaels, “Life in the Matrix,” Strategy + Business, Autumn 2013, http://www.strategy-business.com; Kevan Hall, “Revisiting Matrix Management,” People & Strategy 36, no. 1 (2013): 4–5; Ruth Malloy, “Managing Effectively in a Matrix,” Harvard Business Review, August 10, 2012, http://blogs.hbr.org.

50.C. J. Middleton, “How to Set Up a Project Organization,” Harvard Business Review (March/April 1967): 73. See also: George J. Chambers, “The Individual in a Matrix Organization,” Project Management Journal 20 (December 1989): 37–42, 50.

51.Y. K. Shetty and Howard M. Carlisle, “A Contingency Model of Organization Design,” California Management Review 15 (1972): 38–45. For additional discussion of factors influencing formal structure, see: Paul Dwyer, “Tearing Up Today’s Organization Chart,” BusinessWeek (November 18, 1994): 80–90.

52.For insights on how Ralph Larsen, CEO of Johnson & Johnson, views problems and how his view might influence the formal structure of his organization, see: Brian Dumaine, “Is Big Still Good?” Fortune (April 30, 1992): 50–60.

53.An employee’s locus of control—that is, those aspects that an individual perceives to be within his or her own ability to modify—figures strongly into work outcomes. For a study of the influences on work outcomes, see: Steven M. Elias, “Restrictive Versus Promotive Control and Employee Work Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Locus of Control,” Journal of Management 35, no. 2 (March 1, 2009): 369–392. Elias also provides another interesting study of employee perceptions during the restructuring of their organization’s design. See: “Employee Commitment in Times of Change: Assessing the Importance of Attitudes Toward Organizational Change,” Journal of Management 35, no. 1 (February 1, 2009): 37–55.

54.Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Administration (Belmont, CA: Pitman, 1949). For more information about combining both formal and informal structures, see: C. A. O’Reilly III and M. L. Tushman, “Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future,” Academy of Management Perspectives 27: 327–338.

55.Jennifer Wang, “Picture Perfect,” Entrepreneur (April 2013): 30–36.

56.Ibid.; Will Yakowicz, “Under Pressure: Inside Shutterstock’s High Stakes Hackathon,” Inc., July 30, 2013, http://www.inc.com; Christine Lagorio-Chafkin, “How Shutterstock Went from Zero to IPO,” Inc., October 29, 2012, http://www.inc.com; Shutterstock, “About Us,” http://www.shutterstock.com, accessed January 10, 2014.