literature review about organizational structure

What do you mean by organizational structure? Acknowledging and harmonizing differences and commonalities in three prominent perspectives

• Point of View
• Open access
• Published: 11 October 2023
• Volume 13 , pages 1–11, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Daniel Albert   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3888-1643 1  

4855 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The organizational design literature stresses the importance of organizational structure to understand strategic change, performance, and innovation. However, prior studies diverge regarding the conceptualizations and operationalizations of structure. Organizational structure has been studied as an (1) arrangement of activities, (2) representation of decision-making, and (3) legal entities. In this point-of-view paper, the three prominent perspectives of organizational structure are discussed in terms of their commonalities, differences, and the need to study their relationship more thoroughly. Future research may not only wish to integrate these dimensions but also be more vocal about what type of organization structure is studied and why.

Similar content being viewed by others

Organization Theory

Organizations: Theoretical Debates and the Scope of Organizational Theory

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

An important area of research in the organization design literature concerns the role of structure. Early research, including work by Chandler ( 1962 , 1991 ) and Burgelman ( 1983 ), has studied how strategy execution depends on a firm’s structure, and how that structure can influence future strategies. Moreover, prior work has explored organizational structure and its connection to strategic change (Gulati and Puranam 2009 ), performance (Csaszar 2012 ; Lee 2022 ), innovation (Eklund 2022 ; Keum and See 2017 ) and internal power dynamics (Bidwell 2012 ; Pfeffer 1981 ), among others.

What is surprising is the divergence in understanding what constitutes and defines organizational structure. This becomes particularly apparent when considering how structure has often been operationalized in prior studies. While there are a variety of conceptual and empirical approaches to organizational structure, this point of view paper focuses on three particularly prominent perspectives. Scholars of one stream of operationalization have argued that structure is how business activities are grouped and assessed in the form of distinct business units (or divisions) (Karim 2006 ; Mintzberg 1979 ), which may represent a company’s operating segments for internal and external reporting (Albert 2018 ). In another stream of operationalization, scholars argue that structure is inherent in the organizational chart, specifically, the chain of command and the allocation of decision-making responsibilities. Often, a simple yet powerful proxy has been to consider the roles assigned to the top management team members (Girod and Whittington 2015 ). Finally, a third type of operationalization of structure is the composition and arrangement of legal entities (Bethel and Liebeskind 1998 ; Zhou 2013 ), specifically, discrete subsidiaries constituting an organization’s business activities. This may be the most consequential understanding of structure as it relates to the containment of legal responsibilities.

These three perspectives overlap in some cases but may also characterize organizational structure differently in important ways. In a clear-cut case, a firm may consist of a top management team that perfectly reflects its business divisions and units, reported by consolidated but legally distinct entities. However, when examining the financial filings of different corporations, a different picture emerges as such clean alignment is often not the case. Not only are well-studied differences in the corporation's legal form (such as holding versus integrated) present, but top management responsibilities and reporting of business divisions often show that structure is indeed a multi-dimensional phenomenon in organizations.

To illustrate how different perspectives may lead to varying conclusions about organizational structure, two companies, the financial service firm Citigroup and the automotive company Ford Motor, are briefly discussed with respect to each perspective. Both Citigroup and Ford Motor are interesting cases, as they are large organizations with diversified business operations across various industry segments and a presence in multiple geographical markets. This complexity in business operations underscores the necessity of an organizational structure to implement and execute the firms' respective strategies.

The objective of this point of view is to emphasize and discuss the co-existence of fundamentally different measures and their underlying assumptions of organizational structure. These three perspectives highlight different aspects of organizational structure and can help reveal important nuances idiosyncratic to specific organizations. That is, complementing one perspective with one or two other perspectives can paint a more holistic picture of firm-specific structural designs. The “arrangement of activities” perspective provides generally a measure that captures sources of value creation, that is, the groupings of economic activities and knowledge. The “decision making representation” perspective provides generally a measure of hierarchical allocation of decision rights and has been likened to the level of centralization, that is, which responsibilities are specifically assigned to the highest level of decision-making. The “legal entities” perspective often captures decentralization as "truly" autonomous activities that can render integration more difficult and, therefore, imposes greater decentralization among such units.

A follow-up goal of this point of view paper is to discuss the implications and future research opportunities of clearly distinguishing between these perspectives in organizational design studies. A completely new area of research constitutes the inquiry of the relationships between these perspectives and whether and when alignment between the perspectives is enhancing or hindering performance, innovation, and strategic change. It is important to note that this point of view paper is not meant to provide an exhaustive list of perspectives of organizational structure, but to spark a constructive discussion around the theoretical and operational differences and commonalities between the arguably most prominent perspectives. Additional perspectives of organizational structure are discussed in the limitations section.

Three perspectives of structure

Structure as arrangement of activities.

This perspective suggests that groups of economic activities, managed and reviewed together, make up departments, units, and divisions that form the organizational structure (Joseph and Gaba 2020 ; Mintzberg 1979 ; Puranam and Vanneste 2016 ). In the middle of the twentieth century, Chandler ( 1962 ) observed that large American corporations not only diversified into a greater number of different business activities but also started to organize business activities into separately managed divisions, which are typically overseen by a corporate center unit. The organization of activities into compartments is often nested, that is, activities within a given compartment are further organized into subunits and so on. In a more general sense, such compartmentalization constitutes the division of labor (or specialization) in an organization, which can be organized along various dimensions. The most prevalent dimensions along which activities are organized into units include customer segments, products, geography, and functional domains, such as research and development, marketing, and sales activities (Puranam and Vanneste 2016 ).

The way activities are organized has been often related to archetypical designs, such as a more homogenous organization that is organized along functions and multi-divisional corporations that are more heterogenous in the activities making up business divisions (e.g., Raveendran 2020 ). The corporate center is often considered as a distinct unit of activities that holds the design rights of the organization, allowing it to organize these activities (Puranam 2018 ). The center may also play a coordinating role in the management of interdependencies between divisions to ensure alignment with corporate-level goals (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967 ) and foster value creation (Foss 1997 ).

Scholars of this perspective have studied how the arrangement of activities into compartments is associated with the propensity and type of reorganization (e.g., Karim 2006 ; Raveendran 2020 ), as well as its association with innovation outcomes (e.g., Karim and Kaul 2014 ). These two outcomes of interest are closely related, as compartments consist of employees and resources that constitute a source of knowledge that may be rearranged or combined with other units to address a (changing) market in novel and more efficient ways. Hence, this perspective may help to understand the sources of performance and innovation.

Illustration of arrangement of activities perspective

Figure  1 shows Citigroup’s operating business segments, which are in line with accounting regulations that require businesses to disclose operations in the way in which activities are managed internally and held accountable for cost and revenues (see Financial Accounting Standards No. 131). Accordingly, Citigroup operates three business segments, “Institutional Clients Group (ICG)”, “Personal Banking and Wealth Management (PBWM)” and “Legacy Franchises”, which are predominantly groupings of economic activities based on customer segments (i.e., institutional clients, private clients, and consumer clients). These groupings encompass various activities around this customer segment and the relevant product offerings. For example, the division Personal Banking encompasses activities for retail clients, such as Citibank’s physical retail network and online banking as well as private wealth operations for high-net-worth individuals. The respective segments may be understood as the organization’s business divisions, whereas further, nested, groupings exist within these divisions (e.g., U.S. Personal Banking constitutes a subunit with further subgroupings into Cards and Retail Banking operations). Supporting activities and operations that are not part of one of the three divisions are managed by the corporate center unit.

Citigroup’s operating business segments. This figure is the author’s own drawing but entirely based on Citigroup’s 2022 10-K report (page 2)

In Table 1 , the operating business segments are shown for the automotive company Ford. Accordingly, Ford operates six main segments (and one reconciliation of debt segment), “Ford Blue”, “Ford Model e”, “Ford Pro”, “Ford Next”, “Ford Credit”, and “Corporate Other”. These groupings encompass various product and customer segment activities, such as the “Ford Blue” legacy business of internal combustion engine automotives, under the Ford and Lincoln brands. Electric vehicle-related activities are grouped under “Ford Model e”, whereas “Ford Pro” groups activities to address corporate clients who seek to optimize and maintain fleets. Noteworthy is also the segment “Ford Next”, which is a grouping of investment activities into emerging business models. While these segments (i.e., divisions) encompass various activities, information is limited with respect to any nested groupings within these segments (or a potential lack thereof).

Structure as decision making representation

This perspective suggests that the job roles in the top management team (TMT) are reflective of the organizational structure, as executives are charged to oversee certain activities (Girod and Whittington 2015 ; Guadalupe et al. 2013 ). At first glance, this understanding is fairly similar to that of the arrangement of activities. At a closer look, however, the TMT structure perspective is more indicative of an information processing perspective. At the center of the information processing perspective lies hierarchy as a mechanism to cope with information uncertainty and resolve conflicts (Galbraith 1974 ). Moreover, information processing has long been considered as the way in which key decision-makers can ensure coordination and integration of units (Joseph and Gaba 2020 ). That is, the top management roles may in fact extend beyond the formal task structure and include the reintegration and coordination of activities more broadly.

The assignment of decision-making responsibilities can reveal how the organization “thinks” about interdependencies, such as the need to coordinate resources, the potential to leverage synergies and so forth. For example, roles that largely define autonomous areas of business allow managers to make decisions more independently from one another. In contrast, roles that are focused on dedicated functions, such as research and development, marketing, and finance often require greater coordination among managers (e.g., Hambrick et al. 2015 ). Hence, the decision-making representations in the top management team may be understood as a hierarchy mechanism to manage and even create interdependencies between activities. A case in point is the deliberate assignment of creating synergies between otherwise standalone units, for example, in the form of executives holding multiple roles that span several divisions.

While the assignment of decision-making responsibilities clearly relates to efforts of coordination and integration, it can also explain the emergence of internal power and politics dynamics (Cyert and March 1963 , Pfeffer 1981 ). For example, Romanelli and Tushman 9/14/2023 7:00:00 PM suggest that top management turnover is a measure of power dynamics in organizations and treat this as entirely distinct from organizational structure. Moreover, the upper echelons perspective has proposed that organizational choice and strategic outcomes are, at least in part, a direct reflection of the backgrounds of the leadership's individuals (Hambrick and Mason 1984 ), which suggests that design choices, such as organizational structure are decided under the auspice of the very same individuals (Puranam 2018 ) that researchers have used as a proxy to measure organizational structure. This emphasizes the importance of considering the TMT as a structure of decision-making representation rather than a measure of division of labor.

Perhaps it is this representational role of the TMT as a potential liaison between activity arrangements and decision-making, which Gaba and Joseph ( 2020 ) discuss as information processing, that has led some of the prior research argue that structure influences how decisions come about. Accordingly, decisions of reorganization and internal resource allocation are the result of a political negotiation process (Albert 2018 ; Bidwell 2012 ; Keum 2023 ; Pfeffer 1981 ; Pfeffer and Salancik 1974 ). Hence, this perspective may help understand the role of structure as a process that shapes decisions (Burgelman 1983 ).

Illustration of decision-making representation perspective

Table 2 shows Citigroup’s executive leadership team with each member’s specific job title that reflects the decision-making responsibilities. The team is made up of executives responsible for specific business divisions (e.g., one member carries the title CEO of Legacy Franchises), some members oversee particular geographical regions (e.g., one member carries the title CEO of Latin America), other members represent specific subsidiaries (e.g., one member carries the title CEO of Citibank N.A.), and again others are in charge of corporate functions (e.g., one member carries the title Head of Human Resources).

Table 3 shows Ford’s executive leadership team. The team is made up of executives responsible for business divisions, such as “President Ford Blue”, “CEO, Ford Pro” and “CEO, Ford Next”. In addition, executives represent particular activities of these divisions, such as “Chief Customer Officer, Ford Model e” and “Chief Customer Experience Officer, Ford Blue”. Similar to Citigroup, at Ford executives also represent geographical activities and various functional activities. Moreover, one executive represents a legal entity (Ford Next LLC), which is also a business segment (activity grouping).

Structure as legal entities

This perspective suggests that structure is delineated by legal boundaries, such as discrete subsidiaries that make up an organization’s operating units. This may constitute the most consequential understanding of structure as it relates to containment of legal responsibilities.

Thus, empirical studies have operationalized legal entities as a proxy for divisionalization in organizations (Argyres 1996 ; Zhou 2013 ) and degree of decentralization of research and development responsibilities (Arora et al. 2014 ). The way organizations are legally organized may be motivated by liability concerns, tax advantages, shareholder voting rights, as well as international law and compliance consideration (Bethel and Liebeskind 1998 ). Nevertheless, organizing into legally separate units can have important consequences for the management of the organization, such as limited economies of scope (see ibid.). For example, Monteiro et al. ( 2008 ) describe how subsidiaries in multinational corporations can become “isolated” from knowledge sharing with the rest of the organization. This isolation from intra-firm knowledge flows leads these subsidiaries to more likely underperform compared to less isolated subsidiaries.

It is important to note that legal structure is not always at the discretion of the organization. For example, the financial and economic crisis of 2007/8 has led legislators in some countries to introduce laws that require system-relevant banks to organize certain activities and assets into separate legal entities that contain losses and allow quicker resolvability in case the government decides to step in and take ownership stakes of affected units (Reuters 2014 ).

Legal structures, specifically in the context of multi-national organizations, have been studied with respect to decentralized decision-making, local market adaptation, and dynamics between subsidiaries and the headquarters (Bouquet and Birkinshaw 2008 ). Another aspect of studying legal entities in organizational design relates to internal reorganization. Legally separated activities are not only more straightforward to evaluate (i.e., greater transparency) as they typically maintain their own balance sheets and income statements, but they may also be easier to divest or spin-off, which provides the organization with greater flexibility. For example, the legal reorganization of Google into Alphabet in 2015 legally separated Google’s activities from all its “other bets”, which were run as their own legal organizations, with the goal for greater transparency and accountability (Zenger 2015 ). Moreover, the separation of activities into legal entities may also affect how easy or difficult it is for the organization to endorse cross-unit collaboration and execute internal reorganization without changing legal forms. Coordination cost between separate legal entities are greater, as more formal and legally binding contracts may need to be set.

Illustration of legal entities perspective

Figure  2 shows Citigroup’s legal structure. Accordingly, the organization is at the highest level a Bank Holding Company, which legally owns two (intermediate) holding entities, “Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.” and “Citicorp LLC”. Each of these two entities owns additional subsidiaries, which are largely organized by region (these may hold additional subsidiaries). This structure is quite different from Citigroup’s management of operating activities as none of the business divisions is reflected in the legal structure.

Citigroup material legal entities. This figure is the author’s own drawing and a slight adaptation rom Citigroup’s publicly available presentation material via https://www.citigroup.com/rcs/citigpa/akpublic/storage/public/corp_struct.pdf , accessed on March 23, 2023. The dark blue boxed refer to operating material legal entities. The four boxes that are within the grey dashed rectangle are branches of Citibank N.A

Table 4 shows a list of legal entities reported by Ford in its annual report. Many of these subsidiaries are focused on regional activities and/or credit-related activities, which may be due to regulatory requirements of operating consumer financing activities. The legal entity Ford Next LLC is also its own business segment (i.e., an arrangement of activities reported as a managed division) and directly represented in the executive team. The Ford example does not provide much detail on the exact ownership structure among subsidiaries, which generally is indicative of a legal hierarchical structure of the respective legal entities. However, Ford European Holdings Inc. appears to own European subsidiaries, such as Ford Deutschland Holding GmbH, which in turn is the legal entity that owns subsidiaries in Germany and so on.

A path forward

The study of the commonalities , differences , and relationships between the three perspectives of organization structure—i.e., structure as arrangement of activities, decision-making representation, and legal entities—offers great potential for the field of organizational design. Previous research has often focused on one of these dimensions at a time to study organizational structure, but each perspective plays an important role in organizing and influencing decision-making.

Commonalities

All three perspectives share central ideas of organizational design. First, there is the notion that tasks are grouped and kept separate . The arrangement of activities perspective suggests that economic processes are managed and carried out together when these influence one another. Thus, this perspective stresses the grouping of tasks most forcefully of all the perspectives. However, the two other lines of research also reflect groupings of tasks. The decision-making representation perspective considers job titles and decision-making authority assigned to distinct members of the executive team to generally be related to how tasks are structured. Decision makers, therefore, oversee a particular task environment. The legal entity perspective proposes legal boundaries as delineations of responsibility and accountability. That is, legal separation and containment of financial accountability constitute somewhat binding modularity.

The three views also embrace the concept of hierarchy , albeit manifested differently. The arrangement of activities captures hierarchy by stressing that activity groups (i.e., units) can be nested, that is, a division is made up of several sub-units with own task responsibilities. Hierarchy in decision-making representation is captured by reporting lines and may be more focused on hierarchy as a means of conflict resolution and the diffusion of top-down ideas. The legal entity view shares similarity with the arrangement of activities perspective in that nested structures of subsidiaries can exist, but the “mechanism” of hierarchy is the ownership structure.

Differences

While the three perspectives have obvious similarities and overlap—after all, that is why scholars rely on one or the other perspectives to proxy organizational structure—these perspectives also capture distinct elements and, therefore, draw attention to different theoretical aspects of organization structure. The arrangement of activities perspective draws attention to the locus of value creation and innovation associated with structure. The grouping of activities influences whether synergies can be realized, goals achieved more quickly (Raveendran 2020 ) and whether knowledge can be recombined to seize innovation opportunities (Karim and Kaul 2014 ). The representation of decision-making perspectives draws attention to the top management team as structural authority to resolve conflicts between lower-level decision makers, and lobby for distinct operating activities in the organization. Moreover, top management plays a crucial role in the restructuring of the arrangement of activities and decisions with respect to changing the composition of legal entities. For example, political power of executives has been argued and shown to affect division reorganization decisions (Albert 2018 ) and allocation decisions of internal non-financial resources (Keum 2023 ). Finally, the legal entities perspective draws attention to structure as legal accountability and draws a sharp line between what is truly separate and what is more ‘loosely’ integrated. Consequently, arranging activities as legally separate entities often requires more costly coordination measures, such as formal contracts.

Theoretical and empirical questions around these differences may investigate the following claims.

A research focus on organizational structure as arrangement of activities may be of particular interest for the aim of understanding performance and innovation outcomes as economic activities are directly related to the process of value creation.

A research focus on organizational structure as decision-making representation may be of particular interest for the aim of understanding how strategic goals are formed, with respect to change and associated corporate reorganizations.

A research focus on organizational structure as legal entities may be of particular interest for the aim of understanding barriers to integration and realization of synergies as well as flexibility with respect to changes in corporate scope.

However, these preliminary statements about the different perspectives on organizational structure are not meant to encourage researchers to keep them strictly separate. Instead, future studies can explore these perspectives' theoretical relationships, offering wonderful opportunities for new insights, as will be discussed next.

Relationships

By investigating underlying connections between the different perspectives, future research may surface important insights about organizational design that can open up entirely new research programs. An essential theoretical question involves whether there are any directional relationships between specific perspectives. For example, when does top management team structure induce or follow other changes (in divisions and legal structure)? Karim and Williams ( 2012 ) show that changes in executives’ division responsibilities helps predict subsequent reorganizations in the respective units. Another question is how the legal structure may affect the arrangement of activities over time. The greater cost of integration of legally separate entities may imply that greater autonomy is more likely to follow, which future research may want to investigate.

Moreover, it would be useful for the field of organizational design to better understand when potential structural changes in divisions and legal entities trigger in turn a reorganization of leadership responsibilities. The legal structure may change much more slowly than the other two types, because of regulatory and other legal reasons. Nevertheless, the legal structure can play an essential role in how the organization lays out its strategic priorities, is internally managed, and evaluates its performance. At least, these appear to be the main reasons of notable reorganization that lead to an overhaul in legal structure. Recent examples include the already mentioned case of Google’s legal reorganization into contained group subsidiaries under the Alphabet umbrella, Facebook’s legal reorganization into the corporation Meta (Zuckerberg 2021 ), and Lego’s reorganization into the Lego Brand Group (LEGO Group 2016 ). The question remains whether the legal reorganization is a means to enable better top management and divisional structures or whether the top management structure, for example, motivated such legal changes for better alignment.

Finally, a completely novel question that acknowledges the multifaceted perspectives of organizational structure emerges. What are the performance, innovation, and strategic change consequences for organizations when these different perspectives are aligned or misaligned? Are there specific “archetypes” organizational structures along these dimensions?

Implications

It is important to stress that in some cases it may be necessary to draw upon two or all three to gain a more holistic picture of organizational structure and important nuances that may be highly specific to a particular organization. Whereas the arrangement of activities provides an overview of distinct operating units, such as divisions and subunits, this perspective alone does not capture complex interrelationships with respect to who reports to whom. This becomes most critical in cases of a matrix organization, where, for example, a segment is guided by a product goal as well as some geographical goals.

Moreover, a comparison of some of the organizational structure characteristics between Citigroup and Ford demonstrates how important, potentially strategy-influencing differences exist when consulting all three perspectives. For example, the fact that Ford’s executive team is in part made up of executives who represent a specific legal entity, which is its own reporting segment, suggests that legal structure, decision-making and value creation for certain parts of the organization go hand in hand. In contrast, Citigroup’s legal structure bears little to no resemblance to its operational structure. This may suggest that in Citigroup’s case legal entities play a very different role for organizational design purposes, such as containing legal regulatory requirements and legal containment of liability, whereas its management of value creating activities and decision-making responsibilities is guided across these legal boundaries. Concluding that the legal structure is a reflection of operational and strategic design may be somewhat misdirected with respect to product-market operations but more reflective of risk and geographical profiles in Citigroup’s case. Future research is encouraged to explore such differences in more detail.

Limitations

Before concluding this point of view paper, it is important to acknowledge that there are other important attributes of organizational design and structure that should be considered. For example, the leadership perspective of structure may be extended or complemented by considering the structure of corporate governance and its effects on organizational changes (Castañer and Kavadis 2013 ; Goranova et al. 2007 ). Moreover, the arrangement of activities into departments, units, and divisions determines the formal structure of the organization. Employees who belong to the same department (and work on the same task) often work in the same physical location and, therefore, are more likely to interact (including outside their formal task) and form (informal) networks with those close to them (Clement and Puranam 2018 ). As such, the structure of tasks can affect the emergence of networks in the organization. Organizational changes to the arrangement of activities may consequently conflict with the informal structure that has formed over time (Gulati and Puranam 2009 ). Informal networks in the organization may, therefore, constitute another “measure” of structure, but this paper takes the perspective that networks are a more likely to be a consequence of organizational structure (albeit one that may affect future structures).

Finally, organizational design can exceed a focal firm’s boundaries. Partnerships, such as alliances, joint ventures, and meta-organizations (Gulati et al. 2012 ), pose additional challenges in determining the actual structure of an organization. Future research is advised to study how different dimensions of organizational structure extend to and impact such boundary-spanning multi-organization designs.

The divergence in prior literature with respect to conceptualizing and operationalizing organizational structure reveals that this construct has more facets to it than sometimes acknowledged. Studying the alignment and divergence of these three characteristics of structure within organizations has potential to qualify and complement prior theories and generate new insights with respect to nuances of organizational design that we may have overlooked in prior work. It is important to consider that focusing only on one of these dimensions at a time for studying structure can indeed be sufficient. However, the field of organizational design may wish to be more concise in which perspective is chosen and why, when building, testing, and extending theory. Highlighting what is not measured following a particular perspective can already enrich our understanding of the role of organizational structure in novel and impactful ways.

Data availability

Data used in this manuscript are publicly accessible through regulatory filings and company Investor Relations websites.

Albert D (2018) Organizational module design and architectural inertia: evidence from structural recombination of business divisions. Organ Sci 29(5):890–911

Article   Google Scholar  

Argyres N (1996) Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strateg Manag J 17(5):395–410

Arora A, Belenzon S, Rios LA (2014) Make, buy, organize: the interplay between research, external knowledge, and firm structure. Strateg Manag J 35(3):317–337

Bethel JE, Liebeskind JP (1998) Diversification and the legal organization of the firm. Organ Sci 9(1):49–67

Bidwell MJ (2012) Politics and firm boundaries: how organizational structure, group interests, and resources affect outsourcing. Organ Sci 23(6):1622–1642

Bouquet C, Birkinshaw J (2008) Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. J Manage 34:477–508

Burgelman RA (1983) A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Acad Manage Rev 8(1):61–70

Castañer X, Kavadis N (2013) Does good governance prevent bad strategy? A study of corporate governance, financial diversification, and value creation by French corporations, 2000–2006. Strateg Manag J 34(7):863–876

Chandler AD (1962) Strategy and structure. MIT Press, Cambridge

Google Scholar  

Chandler AD Jr (1991) The functions of the HQ unit in the multibusiness firm. Strateg Manag J 12(S2):31–50

Citigroup Inc. Form 10-K 2022 Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Clement J, Puranam P (2018) Searching for structure: formal organization design as a guide to network evolution. Manag Sci 64(8):3879–3895

Csaszar FA (2012) Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: evidence from mutual funds. Strateg Manag J 33(6):611–632

Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Oxford: Blackwell

Eklund JC (2022) The knowledge-incentive tradeoff: understanding the relationship between research and development decentralization and innovation. Strateg Manag J 43(12):2478–2509

Ford Motor Company Exhibit 21 in Form 10-K 2022 Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Ford Motor Company Form 10-Q (Q2) Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Foss NJ (1997) On the rationales of corporate headquarters. Ind Corp Change 6(2):313–338

Galbraith JR (1974) Organization design: an information processing view. Interfaces 4(3):28–36

Girod SJG, Whittington R (2015) Change escalation processes and complex adaptive systems: from incremental reconfigurations to discontinuous restructuring. Organ Sci 26(5):1520–1535

Goranova M, Alessandri TM, Brandes P, Dharwadkar R (2007) Managerial ownership and corporate diversification: a longitudinal view. Strateg Manag J 28(3):211–225

Guadalupe M, Li H, Wulf J (2013) Who lives in the C-Suite? Organizational structure and the division of labor in top management. Manag Sci 60(4):824–844

Gulati R, Puranam P (2009) Renewal through reorganization: the value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organ Sci 20(2):422–440

Gulati R, Puranam P, Tushman M (2012) Meta-organization design: rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strateg Manag J 33(6):571–586

Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons - the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manage Rev 9(2):193–206

Hambrick DC, Humphrey SE, Gupta A (2015) Structural interdependence within top management teams: a key moderator of upper echelons predictions. Strateg Manag J 36(3):449–461

Joseph J, Gaba V (2020) Organizational structure, information processing, and decision-making: a retrospective and road map for research. Acad Manag Ann 14(1):267–302

Karim S (2006) Modularity in organizational structure: the reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired business units. Strateg Manag J 27(9):799–823

Karim S, Kaul A (2014) Structural recombination and innovation: unlocking intraorganizational knowledge synergy through structural change. Organ Sci 26(2):439–455

Karim S, Williams C (2012) Structural knowledge: how executive experience with structural composition affects intrafirm mobility and unit reconfiguration. Strateg Manag J 33(6):681–709

Keum DD (2023) Managerial political power and the reallocation of resources in the internal capital market. Strateg Manag J 44(2):369–414

Keum DD, See KE (2017) The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and selection in the innovation process. Organ Sci 28(4):653–669

Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and environment: managing differentiation and integration. Harvard University Press, Boston

Lee S (2022) The myth of the flat start-up: reconsidering the organizational structure of start-ups. Strateg Manag J 43(1):58–92

LEGO Group (2016) New structure for active family ownership of the LEGO® brand. LEGO.com . Retrieved (July 28, 2023), https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news/2019/october/new-lego-brand-group-entity

Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of research. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

Monteiro LF, Arvidsson N, Birkinshaw J (2008) Knowledge flows within multinational corporations: explaining subsidiary isolation and its performance implications. Organ Sci 19(1):90–107

Pfeffer J (1981) Power in organizations. Pitman Publishing Inc., Marshfield

Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1974) Organizational decision making as a political process - case of a university budget. Adm Sci Q 19(2):135–151

Puranam P (2018) The microstructure of organizations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Book   Google Scholar  

Puranam P, Vanneste B (2016) Corporate strategy: tools for analysis and decision-making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Raveendran M (2020) Seeds of change: how current structure shapes the type and timing of reorganizations. Strateg Manag J 41(1):27–54

Reuters (2014) UBS launches share-for-share exchange for new holding company. Reuters (September 29) https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ubs-ag-holding-company-idUKKCN0HO0AH20140929

Zenger T (2015) Why Google Became Alphabet. Harvard Business Review (August 11) https://hbr.org/2015/08/why-google-became-alphabet

Zhou YM (2013) Designing for complexity: using divisions and hierarchy to manage complex tasks. Organ Sci 23:339–355

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Zuckerberg M (2021) Founder’s Letter, 2021. Meta.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I appreciate the helpful comments and guidance provided by the handling editor-in-chief Marlo Raveendran and two anonymous reviewers. I also would like to thank all three editors-in-chief for supporting the publication of this point of view manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA

Daniel Albert

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Albert .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Albert, D. What do you mean by organizational structure? Acknowledging and harmonizing differences and commonalities in three prominent perspectives. J Org Design 13 , 1–11 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-023-00152-y

Download citation

Received : 30 March 2023

Accepted : 12 September 2023

Published : 11 October 2023

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-023-00152-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Organizational structure
• Operationalization
• Decision-making
• Legal entities
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Organizing and Creating Information

• Citation and Attribution

What Is a Literature Review?

Review the literature, write the literature review, further reading, learning objectives, attribution.

This guide is designed to:

• Identify the sections and purpose of a literature review in academic writing
• Review practical strategies and organizational methods for preparing a literature review

A literature review is a summary and synthesis of scholarly research on a specific topic. It should answer questions such as:

• What research has been done on the topic?
• Who are the key researchers and experts in the field?
• What are the common theories and methodologies?
• Are there challenges, controversies, and contradictions?
• Are there gaps in the research that your approach addresses?

The process of reviewing existing research allows you to fine-tune your research question and contextualize your own work. Preparing a literature review is a cyclical process. You may find that the research question you begin with evolves as you learn more about the topic.

Once you have defined your research question , focus on learning what other scholars have written on the topic.

In order to  do a thorough search of the literature  on the topic, define the basic criteria:

• Databases and journals: Look at the  subject guide  related to your topic for recommended databases. Review the  tutorial on finding articles  for tips. 
• Books: Search BruKnow, the Library's catalog. Steps to searching ebooks are covered in the  Finding Ebooks tutorial .
• What time period should it cover? Is currency important?
• Do I know of primary and secondary sources that I can use as a way to find other information?
• What should I be aware of when looking at popular, trade, and scholarly resources ? 

One strategy is to review bibliographies for sources that relate to your interest. For more on this technique, look at the tutorial on finding articles when you have a citation .

Tip: Use a Synthesis Matrix

As you read sources, themes will emerge that will help you to organize the review. You can use a simple Synthesis Matrix to track your notes as you read. From this work, a concept map emerges that provides an overview of the literature and ways in which it connects. Working with Zotero to capture the citations, you build the structure for writing your literature review.

How do I know when I am done?

A key indicator for knowing when you are done is running into the same articles and materials. With no new information being uncovered, you are likely exhausting your current search and should modify search terms or search different catalogs or databases. It is also possible that you have reached a point when you can start writing the literature review.

Tip: Manage Your Citations

These citation management tools also create citations, footnotes, and bibliographies with just a few clicks:

Zotero Tutorial

Endnote Tutorial

Your literature review should be focused on the topic defined in your research question. It should be written in a logical, structured way and maintain an objective perspective and use a formal voice.

Review the Summary Table you created for themes and connecting ideas. Use the following guidelines to prepare an outline of the main points you want to make. 

• Synthesize previous research on the topic.
• Aim to include both summary and synthesis.
• Include literature that supports your research question as well as that which offers a different perspective.
• Avoid relying on one author or publication too heavily.
• Select an organizational structure, such as chronological, methodological, and thematic.

The three elements of a literature review are introduction, body, and conclusion.

Introduction

• Define the topic of the literature review, including any terminology.
• Introduce the central theme and organization of the literature review.
• Summarize the state of research on the topic.
• Frame the literature review with your research question.
• Focus on ways to have the body of literature tell its own story. Do not add your own interpretations at this point.
• Look for patterns and find ways to tie the pieces together.
• Summarize instead of quote.
• Weave the points together rather than list summaries of each source.
• Include the most important sources, not everything you have read.
• Summarize the review of the literature.
• Identify areas of further research on the topic.
• Connect the review with your research.
• DeCarlo, M. (2018). 4.1 What is a literature review? In Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. Open Social Work Education. https://scientificinquiryinsocialwork.pressbooks.com/chapter/4-1-what-is-a-literature-review/
• Literature Reviews (n.d.) https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/ Accessed Nov. 10, 2021

This guide was designed to: 

• Identify the sections and purpose of a literature review in academic writing 
• Review practical strategies and organizational methods for preparing a literature review​

Content on this page adapted from: 

Frederiksen, L. and Phelps, S. (2017).   Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students.  Licensed CC BY 4.0

• << Previous: EndNote
• Last Updated: Jul 17, 2024 3:55 PM
• URL: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize

Brown University Library  |  Providence, RI 02912  |  (401) 863-2165  |  Contact  |  Comments  |  Library Feedback  |  Site Map

Library Intranet

• Corpus ID: 257209639

A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ON FIRM PERFORMANCE

• Published 2022
• Business, Economics

74 References

Competitive strategy, structure and firm performance, organizational structure as a determinant of performance: evidence from mutual funds, organizational structure and performance in dutch small firms, firm‐specific versus industry structure factors in explaining performance variation: empirical evidence from turkey, the effect of competitive strategies and organizational structure on hotel performance, the effects of process-oriented organizational design on firm performance, the impacts of organizational structure on operational performance through innovation capability: innovative culture as moderator, an empirical analysis of organizational structure and financial performance in the restaurant industry., open innovation and firm performance: the role of organizational mechanisms, organizational structure: a review of structural dimensions and their conceptual relationships with individual attitudes and behavior, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
• About the Public Management Research Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, literature review, research design, data availability.

• < Previous

Formal Hierarchies and Informal Networks: How Organizational Structure Shapes Information Search in Local Government

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Travis A Whetsell, Alexander Kroll, Leisha DeHart-Davis, Formal Hierarchies and Informal Networks: How Organizational Structure Shapes Information Search in Local Government, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , Volume 31, Issue 4, October 2021, Pages 653–669, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab003

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Attention to informal communication networks within public organizations has grown in recent decades. While research has documented the role of individual cognition and social structure in understanding information search in organizations, this article emphasizes the importance of formal hierarchy. We argue that the structural attributes of bureaucracies are too important to be neglected when modeling knowledge flows in public organizations. Empirically, we examine interpersonal information-seeking patterns among 143 employees in a small city government, using exponential random graph modeling (ERGM). The results suggest that formal structure strongly shapes information search patterns while accounting for social network variables and individual-level perceptions. We find that formal status, permission pathways, and departmental membership all affect employees’ information search. Understanding the effects of organizational structure on information search networks will offer opportunities to improve information flows in public organizations via design choices.

Research in public administration has increasingly drawn attention to the salience of interpersonal communication networks within public organizations ( Moynihan and Pandey 2008 ; Nisar and Maroulis 2017 ; Siciliano 2015 ). To accomplish daily work tasks, individuals often lack the requisite information necessary to perform effectively. They seek out information from other individuals whom they perceive to have access to important knowledge. With the increasing informational intensity of the workplace, public organizations depend on the development of communication networks of individuals that span teams, departments, and formal lines of authority.

Interpersonal networks often emerge from informal collaboration and lateral coordination among individuals within organizations ( Berry et al. 2004 ; Isett et al. 2011 ). Research on networks within organizations has examined the importance of social processes, such as reciprocity and transitivity, as well as the effect of individuals’ position in social networks ( Leonardi and Contractor 2018 ; Krackhardt and Hanson 1993 ). Being at the periphery of a network is associated with negative attitudes toward one’s work ( Porter et al. 2019 ), whereas being in a position that bridges organizational sub-groups is correlated with positive outcomes ( Maroulis 2017 ). With regard to knowledge networks, research similarly emphasizes the importance of informal network structure. Better connected individuals are able to leverage more organizational knowledge ( Oparaocha 2016 ; Paruchuri and Awate 2017 ; Tasselli 2015 ).

In this article, we take different perspective on knowledge networks. In line with previous work, we employ a network-based conceptualization of communication: that is, forming ties for the purpose of information search. Unlike most other work, we do not focus only on drivers of tie formation based on network structure or attributes of individuals. In fact, we argue quite the opposite: The formal structure of the organization and its hierarchy shape informal communication networks in important ways that have largely been neglected in the literature. In line with previous work ( Krackhardt and Hanson 1993 ; McEvily, Soda, and Tortoriello 2014 ), we consider networked, social structures to be informal and designed or engineered organizational structures and processes as formal. We recognize that studying informal networks in organizations itself is partially a response to the historical dependence on formal structures ( Granovetter 1985 ; Krackhardt and Hanson 1993 ), and we do not suggest shifting back from the informal to the formal. Rather, we propose that we can improve our understanding of intraorganizational networks by accounting for the individuals’ place within a formal structure, thereby, connecting the formal with the informal.

While the “missing link” between formal organization and informal social structures has been occasionally discussed in the organizational sciences ( Hunter, Bentzen, and Taug 2020 ; McEvily, Soda, and Tortoriello 2014 ), we argue that organizational structures are particularly influential in public administration due to its reliance on rules, the hierarchy, and formal processes ( Hill and Lynn 2015 ). In essence, different configurations of the bureaucracy may affect public managers’ work and its outcomes, even in highly networked environments ( O’Toole and Meier 2010 ). This is likely to be even more true for generalist jurisdictions, where distinct departments take on very different functions, compared to specialist agencies, where tasks are narrower and sub-units more homogenous. Interestingly, however, most network research either focuses on private firms or, in the public sector, the highly specialized school system. We extend this work by studying more generalist local governments, which constitute one of the most common cases within public administration but have received little attention in the social network literature.

To investigate the connection between formal organization and informal social structure, we develop three hypotheses about the role of formal status, permission pathways, and departmental membership in explaining informal information search among government employees. Empirically, we show that all three formal-structural factors are important determinants of information search, controlling for the important attitudinal constructs of trust, commitment, and self-efficacy, as well as important social network processes such as reciprocity, transitivity, and popularity.

This article models these effects using exponential random graph modeling (ERGM) on a sample of 143 employees (reflecting a response rate of 92%) across multiple departments in a small city government. We estimate the effects on information-seeking behavior while controlling for a set of social-structural network variables as well as important cognitive variables. The results suggest that structure has important shaping effects on information search. Tie formation in the information search network is both constrained and driven by several aspects of organizational structure. The results suggest that formal structure has important implications for scholars and practitioners concerned with understanding the antecedents of information search in public organizations, suggesting that organizational design and interventions associated with formal structure may stimulate the emergence and maintenance of robust communication networks necessary to perform work tasks in the local government context.

In this section, we first provide a brief overview of the literature on intraorganizational networks in public administration. While certainly growing, this body of research is still underdeveloped, especially compared to the work on interorganizational networks. Next, we review the literature on information searching and sharing in public organizations to synthesize the state of research and identify our research gap. Finally, we develop hypotheses about the importance of organizational structure for shaping information search in social networks.

Intraorganizational Networks in Public Administration

The study of social networks within and between public organizations is an emerging subject in public administration research. During the latter half of the twentieth century, scholars developed methods for analyzing social relations between individuals in terms of graph theory and networks. The term “network” first appeared in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of articles in Public Administration Review in the mid-1980s. However, the substantive application of network analysis did not begin to occur until much later, with agenda-setting work (e.g., O’Toole 1997 ) appearing in the mid to late 1990s ( Hu, Khosa, Kapucu 2016 ). 1 Since then, a great deal has been uncovered about the resolution of public problems through social and organizational networks ( Berry et al. 2004 ; Isett et al. 2011 ; Provan and Kenis 2008 ; Provan and Milward 2001 ). For example, the concepts of policy networks, collaborative networks, and network governance emerged to provide theoretical explanation for the increasingly complex patterns of interaction between numerous actors around public programs, policies, or problems ( Kapucu, Hu, and Khosa 2017 ).

Much of the research on networks in public administration has occurred at the interorganizational level, with fewer articles exploring intraorganizational social networks between individuals within public organizations. Kapucu, Hu, and Khosa (2017) suggest that merely 14% of public administration network studies have used the individual as the level of analysis. Similarly, Isett et al. (2011) state that informal interpersonal networks are an understudied area. Information seeking networks of individuals are categorized as informal networks, as opposed to formal hierarchical relations or formal interorganizational relations that involve some contractual exchange of resources. 2

Intraorganizational networks are often defined in terms of the relationships between individuals within organizations. Such networks emerge as a result of complex communication patterns between individuals, where the exchange of information or resources is the generic criterion for quantification of a relationship (tie) between two individuals in a network ( Monge and Contractor 2003 ). As the number of ties increases between individuals, and as secondary ties begin to form between their partners, a network structure begins to emerge. Network structure can vary in terms of size, density, diameter, and centralization, etc. with consequences for the flow of information and resources in a network ( Wasserman and Faust 1994 ). As networks increase in size and density, they often begin to form a core-periphery structure, where the distribution of ties is concentrated around a few very well-connected individuals or groups ( Borgatti, Everett, and Johnson 2018 ). A ubiquitous phenomenon known as preferential attachment characterizes highly skewed distributions of network ties concentrated among few very well-connected nodes, observed in numerous types of networks across physical, biological, and social networks ( Barabasi and Alber 1999 ; Newman 2001 ).

An individual’s position within the network has important influences on access to resources and perceptions of social status within the network. For example, individuals who occupy central positions in the network often benefit from enhanced access to information, resources, and the popularity and prestige that derive from the social capital associated with such access ( Lin 1999 ). Further, as routines of exchange develop among network actors, mechanisms of social interaction emerge to safeguard and maintain the structure and functioning of the network ( Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti 1997 ). Thus, Coleman (1994) posits a reciprocal process between structure and actor, where social structure has a downward influence on individual actor-level behavior, but actor-level behavior has upward influence back on structure, that is, Coleman’s Boat.

While the literature on intraorganizational and interpersonal networks within public organizations is limited, there are several important studies that examine the effects of such networks on variables of interest to management and organizational behavior scholars, including turnover intention ( Moynihan and Pandey 2008 ), organizational commitment ( Siciliano and Thompson 2018 ), resource sharing ( Fusi, Welch, and Siciliano 2019 ), innovation ( Nisar and Maroulis 2017 ; Zandberg and Morales 2019 ), and individual performance outcomes ( Siciliano 2017 ).

Among others, this research has shown that organization-internal networks act as “sticky webs” that keep people in the organization, while external networks act more like “trampolines” to the next organization ( Moynihan and Pandey 2008 ). Further, it has documented the social dependencies between individuals that shape perceptions and attitudes as well as differential effects in advice versus friendship networks ( Siciliano and Thompson 2018 ). In a study of performance outcomes of schools, including network measures significantly improved the variance in scores explained by the models for reading as well as mathematics scores ( Siciliano 2017 ).

Information Searching and Sharing in Public Organizations

Studies on information seeking and sharing in public organizations highlight the importance of interpersonal networks in facilitating the flow of knowledge for the accomplishment of work tasks. Binz-Scharf, Lazer, and Mergel (2012) apply the knowledge-based view (KBV) of organizations ( Grant 1996 ) to analyze resource exchanges in an interpersonal network of forensic laboratory workers. The KBV treats knowledge as a resource critical to the performance of organizations. As Nonaka (1994 , 15) suggests, information and knowledge can be distinguished in the following manner: “information is a flow of messages, while knowledge is created and organized by the very flow of information, anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder.” In this sense, information provides the material basis for the construction of theory with the pragmatic aim of guiding some action. However, because knowledge is often tacit rather than explicitly codified ( Polanyi and Sen 2013) , employees expend considerable effort on information search activities ( Nonaka 1994 ). Interpersonal communication networks facilitate the sharing of both tacit and explicit knowledge for the completion of work tasks. As Binz-Scharf, Lazer, and Mergel (2012) show, interpersonal networks are critical to the functioning and performance of knowledge-intensive public organizations. This research suggests that elements of the KBV of the firm may be generalized to public organizations.

While several studies have examined the effects of networks on outcomes of interest in the workplace, fewer studies have examined the antecedents of intraorganizational and intrapersonal network formation. Nisar and Maroulis (2017) studied information seeking in interpersonal communication networks of teachers in a public high school. Their results suggest that street-level bureaucrats tend to seek out information from individuals who use their discretion to experiment with new innovative practices in the workplace. Siciliano (2016) examines advice networks of teachers in five schools. His results suggest that the expertise of individuals becomes an important factor in being sought out for advice, specifically when the domain of activity is knowledge explicit. Conversely, he found the opposite to be true in less knowledge-intensive domains of activity.

While the drivers of information sharing in public organizations are manifold ( Yang and Maxwell 2011 ), we notice a predominance of individual-level factors, particularly cognitive variables, in social network studies. One such factor is trust. Mayer and colleagues provide the seminal definition of trust in organizations, as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other” ( Mayer et al. 1995 , 712). Trust figures prominently into research on information exchange at the individual ( Levin and Cross 2004 ), intraorganizational ( van de Bunt et al. 2005 ), and interorganizational levels ( Tsai and Ghoshal 1998 ; Shazi, Gillespie, and Steen 2015 ). The most common explanation for trust and information exchange focuses on trust in information sources, where sharing is facilitated if the information source is perceived as reliable ( Levin and Cross 2004 ; Shazi, Gillespie, and Steen 2015 ). Trust can also foster information sharing due to reducing transaction costs between sender and receiver ( Dawes, Cresswell, and Pardo 2009 ). As Yang and Maxwell (2011) suggest, when information is viewed as an asset within a broader organizational power game, withholding it from others is often a rational strategy for competitive advantage. Similarly, Dawes, Cresswell, and Pardo (2009) , citing Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti (1997) , suggest that transaction costs associated with interpersonal communication increase when trust is low. Thus, trust substitutes for more costly organizational structures designed to prevent exploitation by increasing monitoring and oversight controls.

Another factor is self-efficacy, which is an individual’s belief in their own capabilities given a specific domain of interest, such as in the performance of work tasks ( Lunenburg 2011 ). Self-efficacy has been examined as an antecedent for various outcomes of interest in several articles in public administration, most of which have been published in the last 10 years ( George et al. 2018 ; Jacobsen and Andersen 2017 ; Wright 2004 ). Self-efficacy effects on information search may materialize via two opposing logics: Individuals high in self-efficacy are less concerned with appearing incompetent to others due to confidence in their own abilities, suggesting that individuals higher in self-efficacy may be more willing to seek out knowledge from their coworkers. Conversely, individuals lower in self-efficacy may hesitate to reach for the costs of doing so, such as reputation damage and loss of self-esteem ( Johnson et al. 1995 ). Alternatively, it may be that individuals who have higher self-efficacy may feel themselves less likely to require advice or information from others. Siciliano (2015 , 2016 , 2017 ) examined the effects of self-efficacy on knowledge-seeking activities in a set of network studies, and he overall documents mixed and null findings. However, Siciliano’s results may be contingent on the context of the public-school workplace, where teachers have considerable autonomy and independence in the accomplishments of day-to-day teaching responsibilities. Analyzing self-efficacy in settings where employees require more interaction to accomplish work tasks may yield different results.

A third cognitive factor that is known to shape behaviors such as information sharing and search is employees’ organizational commitment. This term is widely understood as “the affective attachment to the organization, perceived costs associated with leaving the organization, and obligation to remain with the organization” ( Meyer and Allen 1991 , 64). We suspect that commitment will foster social exchange around information. Both behaviors—searching for information and providing it when others reach out—will require additional effort from the employee, which can be more likely expected of committed workers. In many instances, information search constitutes a type of extra-role behavior, where employees need to look outside of the formal hierarchy to obtain information required to solve nonroutine problems. Similarly, helping others when they search for information is often comparable to organizational citizenship behavior, which employees committed to the organization’s mission will engage in. Siciliano (2017) shows that commitment is a consequential variable in education networks. Research also suggests that public employees’ identification with their organization fosters the effectiveness of knowledge sharing but had no impact on the knowledge-sharing intensity ( Willem and Buelens 2007 ). Overall, we believe that organizational commitment will reinforce information-seeking behaviors.

Organizational Structure and Information Search

A general ontological principle of social networks is that they constitute complex phenomena that emerge from local processes of self-organization between individuals, rather than emerging purely from formal organizational structure ( Comfort 1994 ; Miller and Page 2009 ). However, organizational structure remains an important element in the development and shape of social networks ( Agranoff 2006 ; Cross, Rice, and Parker 2001 ; Eglene, Dawes, and Schneider 2007 ). Organizational structure in this respect pertains to the social architecture that arranges individuals and groups and delineates relationships between them ( Hall 1999 , 47; Tolbert and Hall 2009 , 20). Structure is formal in that it is explicitly developed and sanctioned by the organization ( Pugh, Hickson, and Vinings 1968 ).

We focus on the location of individual members within formal structure in altering information search in intraorganizational networks, which (along with other forms of organizational structure generally) is an understudied topic in social networks ( Hunter et al. 2020 ; Johnson et al. 1995 ). Three structural attributes of the individual are examined: formal status, permission pathways, and departmental membership.

Formal Status

Given the organizationally dependent nature of information search within public organizations, it is reasonable to question how formal status influences information search. 3 As Krackhardt (1990) suggests, those in higher positions of formal authority interact with more individuals and deal with more issues, often acting as bridges between disconnected others in a network. As he proposes, formal power influences informal network power, the cognitive accuracy with which others perceive the network, and the reputational power of others in the network. Individuals located upwards in the hierarchy are likely to have access to information relevant to the completion of work tasks both within and between departments ( Kahn and Kram 1994 ). They also are likely to have the “last word” (decision-making authority), so that employees reaching out can be more certain the information they receive is final or has been vetted and approved ( Allen and Cohen 1969 ; Galbraith 1974 ; Wager 1972 ).

The dynamics of information search differ for individuals lower in the hierarchy. Generally speaking, hierarchical structure creates acceptable pathways for information flow in which lower-status individuals are supposed to reach upwards to their immediate supervisor in seeking information ( Bavelas 1950 ; Daft, Murphy, and Willmott 2010 ). To circumvent the hierarchy and communicate over one’s supervisor, or to reach out to peers, disrupts the status quo ( Hage 1965 ), particularly if it involves acting outside one’s functional boundaries ( Burns and Stalker 1961 ). To occupy a hierarchically lower status position also reduces psychological safety by creating fears of retribution ( Kish-Gephart et al. 2009 ), which may reduce information search and sharing in the organization. In support of these propositions, an experiment with hierarchical structures produced fewer communications upward and laterally than more democratic structures ( Lyle 1961 ). This does not mean that employees, such as street-level bureaucrats, would not communicate a great deal with similar others. But our point is that relative to lower-level positions, higher-status individuals—by organizational design—need to reach out within and across units to manage effectively, and they serve as attractive sources of important information for others.

Hypothesis 1. Formal status is positively associated with the formation of information search ties.

Permission Pathways

According to formal-organizational theory, “interactions are by design” ( McEvily et al. 2014 , 306). That is, the way in which individuals work together follows formally defined processes and communication rules. While the role of rules in shaping organizational behavior has been prominently featured in public administration research (e.g., DeHart-Davis 2017 ), formal rules that govern interactions among work groups and the movement of information are also at the forefront of process management scholarship ( Nadler et al. 1997 ). Interestingly, formal processes are a factor often turned to in order to induce organizational reform, especially when reengineering strategies involve information technology ( Davenport 1993 ). While network research has shown that social interactions can deviate from organizational design, our point is that formalized lines of interaction and authority may still be a useful—yet widely undervalued—predictor of informal information exchange.

Social network research has suggested that networks often exhibit multiplexity , where, for example, networks based on advice ties are often dependent on other sorts of underlying relations such as friendship ties ( Lazega and Pattison 1999 ). As Siciliano suggests ( Siciliano 2015 , 551), “multiplexity is an important concept in the literature on intraorganizational networks given the tendency for formal roles (e.g., status, position) to overlap with informal roles.” Extending this logic to the present case, we hypothesize that information search relationships may depend to some extent on existing organizational authority, such that individuals will tend to seek out information from those with whom they also have existing permission-based relations. If an individual frequently has contact with another in order to gain permission for a given work task, then they may also be more likely to seek that person out for information more generally. Further, such individuals may hold positions of authority precisely because they have information relevant to the effective completion of particular tasks. Thus, we advance the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2. Permission network ties are positively associated with the formation of information search ties.

Departmental Membership

While the research on information searching and sharing has emphasized the social, informal dynamics behind such behaviors, we argue that organizational structure creates spaces in which these interactions occur. Departments, one type of organizational structuring, have been shown to be important prisms through which employees view the entire organization ( Kroll, DeHart-Davis, Vogel 2019 ). Employees within the same department function within the same operating environment, and thus are more likely to have shared understandings of workplace norms, values and expectations ( Ginsburg et al. 2009 ; Schaubrook et al. 2012). Furthermore, organizations are typically structured in ways that place task-interdependent individuals in work units ( Thompson 1967 ; Galbraith 1974 ), making it highly likely that they turn to each other when they need information rather than look outside. Since departments impose order on lateral communication, we infer more specifically that departmental membership should also play a critical role in guiding information search ( Cross, Rice, and Parker 2001 ). In support of this argument, Johnson and colleagues (1995) found that individuals with an interpersonal dependence on others, which is a logical feature of individuals within a department, were more likely to seek information from others. As Kleinbaum et al. put it, “structure itself induces a great deal of interaction,” and accordingly found higher levels of communication among dyads within the same business units ( Kleinbaum et al. 2013 ).

Using insights from the social network literature, intra-departmental relationships can be conceptualized as a type of actor-attribute-based homophily, where a node is more likely to form ties with nodes that share the same attribute ( McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001 ). However, departmental homophily is distinct from the self-organizing “birds of a feather flock together” type and is instead induced from the top–down structure of the organization. Further, information search is more functional in nature, based on the resolution of a workplace problem rather than being purely derived from organic social processes. Different types of departmental structures may be more likely to produce within versus between departmental ties. Finally, variability of information search patterns shaped by departmental structure may be even greater in the generalist local government setting, where departments within the city are often vastly different in size, levels of hierarchy, and culture. Accordingly, we expect that:

Hypothesis 3: Departmental membership is positively associated with the formation of information search ties.

Data Collection

To test the relationship between formal structure, social dynamics, and tie formation/information search, we emailed a Qualtrics survey link to all 155 employees of a small coastal local government in a Southeastern state. The survey was administered in October 2019 and remained open for 2 weeks. The response rate was 92% ( n = 143; N = 155). 4 Two individuals only partially completed the attitudes portion of the survey, which is why their scores were imputed based on the median values of the sample. 5 The survey sample represents the city workforce in age, gender, and departmental membership.

The survey instrument used the roster method to generate social network data ( Perry et al. 2018 ; Wasserman and Faust 1994 ; Wald 2014 ). The small city government context is useful for addressing the network boundary specification problem by restricting potential network actors to the common characteristic of employment within the organization ( Nowell et al. 2018 ). Thus, the survey asked about the occurrence and nature of interactions between survey participants and the full roster of every other employee in the city. 6

To identify network interactions between organizational members, survey participants were asked to indicate whether they sought out each organizational member for “information from this person to do my job.” The survey item about seeking information established interactions between employees based on acquiring knowledge about specific day-to-day work tasks. While we kept the language broad, we distinguished it in the survey from discussion seeking and permission seeking. The language “seek out” was used to establish directionality to the network ties. For ease of survey readability, organizational members were divided into sections by department. This survey item provided the basis for constructing the information search network, where information ties within the network serves as our dependent variable. Exact wording for all survey items can be found in Supplementary Appendix 1 .

Organizational trust was measured using three items related to supervisor, team, and organization-specific trust, which were adapted from Kroll, DeHart-Davis, and Vogel (2019) . The scale responses ranged from 0 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the items is 0.92. Organizational commitment was measured using three items, adapted from Meyer and Allen 1991 , including turnover intention (a derivation of continuance commitment), guilt about leaving the organization (normative commitment), and happiness regarding the prospect of remaining with the organization (affective commitment). These three items were selected for the survey to tap concepts across Meyer and Allen’s three dimensions while also being parsimonious in the number of survey items presented to research participants. The Cronbach’s alpha for these items is 0.85. Self-efficacy (the perception that goals are achievable despite difficulties) was measured using three items from Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001) . The scale responses ranged from 0 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the items is 0.92. Each set of variables was aggregated into principal components for use in the models; all three principal components produced eigenvalues above one, and the analysis produced a single component for each variable set. When factor analyzing all nine items together, they load on their original three factors with no significant cross-loadings (the factor analysis table is included in Supplementary Appendix 2 ).

Our organizational-structural variables were constructed based on administrative data to avoid issues related to common-source bias. To operationalize Hypothesis 1, regarding formal status, we employ two variables to tap into the concept of formal status. Administrative data allowed us to calculate the “hierarchical status” for individuals, defined as the number of steps to the top position (in this case, the city manager). The variable was then reverse coded to account for higher rather than lower status. The administrative data also permitted identifying whether individuals had “supervisory status,” which served as our second measure of formal status. To operationalize Hypothesis 2, regarding permission pathways, we generated a separate permission network alongside the information network, which asked participants to identify the individuals they seek out when they need “permission” to complete work tasks. The analysis includes the effect of tie formation in the permission network on tie formation in the information network by including an edge covariate in the analysis (edgecov). To operationalize Hypothesis 3, regarding department effects, we identified departments based on the city budget document for FY2019–20 and used department membership as a categorical node attribute to control for department-specific effects, both for receiver and sender effects (receiver.factor/sender.factor). We also include a nodematch term for department to identify assortative mixing, for example, homophily, between individuals in the same department.

We also include in table 1 four descriptive network statistics that are often useful in describing individual-level network position. While these are not central to the hypothesis testing, they are important to an initial descriptive analysis of networks. In-degree is the number of incoming ties a node receives; out-degree is the number of ties a node sends; betweenness centrality shows the number of times a node is on a path between other nodes (normalized); transitivity is the clustering coefficient of the nodes, which represents the degree to which the node is embedded within a cluster of nodes (using transitive triads as the measure) ( Wasserman and Faust 1994 ).

Descriptive Statistics

The ERG model allows for numerous model terms per variable of interest. We decided to include the same model terms for each variable: a term for direct tie sender effect, direct tie receiver effect, and a term which captures the effect of assortative mixing, such as homophily or heterophily: nodematch for factor variables or absdiff/diff for continuous variables.

Finally, we include structural network terms to account for the density of the network (edges); reciprocity in tie formation (mutual); transitivity, measured through directed geometrically weighted edgewise shared partner distribution (DGWESP); popularity, measured through geometrically weighted in-degree distribution (GWIDegree); and activity, measured with two out-degree distribution terms (ODegree; GWOdegree)—we used different out-degree terms in different models due to model convergence issues. A description of these variables is provided in table 2 .

Description of Network Variables

To investigate the effects of the variables on information-seeking behavior, we used ERGM. ERGM was developed to explore the factors that lead to the emergence of networks, permitting the inclusion of structural, dyadic, and actor-level attributes as predictors of tie formation in networks. In basic terms, the ERGM using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation to produce a probability distribution of simulated networks based on the observed network, providing estimates for model parameters. ERGM permits modeling the probability of tie formation, where the parameter estimates can be interpreted in a manner similar to logistic regression analysis. However, the advantage of ERGM is that it accounts for network dependency in probability of tie formation, which violates the assumption of independence of observations in the logistic regression setting. The ERGM model takes the following mathematical formulation (Robbins 2007).

Actor attributes, dyadic homophily effects, and network structure effects are contained in gA(y). Structural effects control for dependencies in the network and can be thought of as standard network control variables that model properties of self-organization in the network. The model parameters are contained in ηA. The parameters undergo an iterative estimation and updating process until they effectively model the distribution of simulated networks. ERGM models converge when the observed network is probable given the simulated distribution of networks ( Lusher, Koskinen, and Robins 2013 ).

The results of the analysis begin with a brief examination of descriptive network statistics and visualization of the information search network within the city government. Figure 1 shows a directed network of 143 nodes (individuals) and 1,778 edges (information search ties). The network is color-coded by the department and uses the Kamada-Kawai force-directed layout to space the nodes and edges. The nodes are sized according to their degree. The visualization shows a robust and dense network of directed information search ties with strong departmental clustering.

Information Search Network. The network visualization shows a directed network of individuals who listed others as individuals whom they seek for information to complete work-related tasks. The node color is based on the department. Node size is based on degree. Kamada-Kawai force-directed algorithm was used for the network visualization layout. Two isolates were removed from the graph. Edges have arrows representing the directionality of the information search.

Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for the whole network and for individual node level values that are aggregated as the department mean. The whole network has a density of 0.09, a degree centralization score of 0.26, a transitivity score of 0.46, and reciprocity score of 0.26. Individuals within the Administration Department, Information and Technology Department, and the Finance Department have the highest centrality in the network relative to other departments. For example, table 3 shows that comparing the average betweenness centrality scores of each department supports this observation: Administration has an average normalized betweenness centrality of 0.033, finance has a score of 0.019, and information and technology has a score of 0.016, while the average for the rest of the city is 0.007. The Police Department and the Fire/EMS Department display significant intra-departmental clustering relative to the rest of the network. For example, comparing the average clustering coefficient (transitivity score) of the departments supports this observation. Individuals within the fire/EMS department have an average transitivity score of 0.56, and police have a score 0.51, while the average for the rest of the departments is 0.346.

Descriptive Network Statistics for Full Network and Inter-Departmental Network

Note : The table shows descriptive statistics at the whole network level and at the node level aggregated by department mean. Statistics are included for the full network with all ties included ( figure 1 ), and for a separate network with all intra-departmental ties removed show next to the full value ( figure 3 ). Size is the same for both networks. Intra-Dept. Ties do not apply to the Inter-Departmental network.

Further supporting departmental clustering, a significant proportion of ties appear to be intra-departmental rather than between departments. Analyzing the departmental mixing matrix for the whole network showed that 59% of all 1,778 information search ties are indeed within departments. However, this percentage is heavily skewed by the Police Department (81%, n = 496) and the Fire/EMSDepartment (86%, n = 442). Figure 2 shows the mixing matrix of inter/intra-departmental ties, where the diagonal shows homophilous intra-departmental ties. The figure shows that Information and Technology, Administration, and Finance have a much lower ratio of homophilous ties, while also having more cross-connections with various other departments, for example, Finance sends a higher proportion of ties to Public Utilities than itself; Administration sends a higher proportion of ties to the Police Department. The opposite is true for the police and fire and EMS departments, where ties are mostly intra-departmental (see figure notes for more details).

Mixing Matrix Heatmap of Inter/Intra-Departmental Ties. The figure shows a heatmap of the departmental mixing matrix. Color is based on the normalized ratio intra- and inter-departmental ties, where a darker red on the diagonal represents higher departmental homophily. Cells not on the diagonal show inter-departmental ties. The departments are ordered by strength of homophily along the diagonal. The matrix is directed, such that the Y axis represent ties from those departments to the departments on the X axis. I_I, information and technology; ADMIN, administration; FIN, finance; LIB, library; WORKS, public works; UTIL, public utilities; P_R, parks and recreation; F_EMS, fire and EMS; POL, police.

Further, we observed that departments with taller hierarchies tended to have the highest proportion of homophilous ties. These departments were also much larger and had more ties overall. To focus on heterophilous departmental ties, we created a separate network that removed all intra-departmental ties. Figure 3 visualizes this network which has 727 edges instead of the full network which has 1,778, with a density of 0.036, compared to 0.087 in the full network. The network clearly lacks departmental clustering, and it is far easier to see lateral ties across the whole organization. Table 3 shows much smaller in-degree, out-degree, betweeness, and transitivity for homophilous departments in the inter-departmental network, relative to the full network.

Inter-Departmental Information Search Network. The visualization shows a network of only cross-departmental ties, with all homophilous intra-departmental ties removed. Nodes are sized by degree and color-coded by departmental membership. Twenty-nine isolated nodes were left out of the visualization.

Concluding the initial visual and descriptive analysis, variation in departmental centrality and clustering suggests that formal organizational structure affects the formation of the information search network, warranting further inferential analysis.

Moving beyond descriptive to inferential network analysis, table 4 presents the results of the exponential random graph models (ERGM) performed on the full network (Model 1) and for the cross-departmental ties network (Model 2). Before examining the results, we discuss the model specification approach. The models include the effects of hierarchical status, supervisory status, permission seeking, and three attitudinal controls, including self-efficacy, trust, and commitment. Each variable includes a receiver effect, a sender effect, and an assortative mixing effect appropriate to the variable type (either nodematch, absdiff, or diff). We chose this approach in order to model the directionality of each variable effect. Categorical sender and receiver effects of department membership account for departmental size, hierarchy, etc. Nodematch for department (departmental homophily) was included only in Model 1, since Model 2 has no intra-departmental ties. Finally, both models include appropriate network controls that improve the goodness-of-fit and account for social network processes, including terms that model density, reciprocity, transitivity, popularity, and activity.

Exponential Random Graph Models

Note : Standard errors are in parentheses. Exact p -values in brackets. Dependent variable is the probability of a tie forming between two nodes in the network. Diff options included, pow = 0, which avoids overspecification, reducing the values to 1 for a positive difference, 0 for no difference, and −1 for a negative difference between the i and j nodes. DGWESP options include 0.75 fixed alpha for both models, and triad type OSP for Model 1 and OTP for Model 2. GWIDegree includes a fixed alpha at 0.75 for Model 1 and 0.25 for Model 2. ODegree is fixed at 0 through 5 out-degrees, and each term is significant (abbreviated as FIXED). GWODegree for Model 2 uses a fixed alpha of 0.25. For an explanation of each model term see table 2 . ERGM controls for both models include seed = 101; MCMC.samplesize = 5,000; MCMC.interval = 5,000; MCMC.burnin = 80,000. Goodness-of-fit plots for the model are shown in Supplementary Appendix 3 . R code is available upon request.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

The model summary in table 4 shows that individuals with higher hierarchical status (positioned further up the organizational hierarchy) tend to both receive more ties and send more ties in the information network, with a positive and significant estimate on both terms, providing support for H1. The Diff term for hierarchical status shows a negative and significant estimate, indicating that individuals lower in the hierarchy tend to seek out those that are higher. 7 Next, the model shows that individuals with supervisory status also tend to receive more ties in the network, providing further support for H1. However, the model did not produce a significant estimate for the effect of supervisors sending ties, or for a homophily effect between supervisors. While, these effects appear to be accounted for by the more general hierarchical status variable, it is interesting that both variables (status and supervisor) can achieve some degree of statistical significance, even when tested together, pointing to the critical role of formal roles. Model 1 shows that the estimate on the permission-edge covariate is positive and significant, indicating that the existence of a permission tie increases the probability of an information tie forming, providing support for H2. Further, the model shows that the estimate on departmental homophily is significant and positive, providing further support for H3. Indeed, departmental homophily appears to be the strongest predictor of an information search tie in Model 1.

The estimates were mostly insignificant on the attitudinal controls included in Model 1, with the exception of trust, which showed a positive and significant tie sender effect, self-efficacy, which showed a negative and significant receiver effect, and a homophily effect for commitment (a negative sign on abdiff is interpreted as homophily). Finally, five network control variables substantially improved the goodness-of-fit and support the presence of general social network processes, which must be accounted for in testing hypotheses regarding drivers of network ties within organizations.

Next, Model 2, which contains only the subset of inter-departmental ties, shows a similar pattern of drivers of information search to Model 1. A comparison of models shows some statistical differences. First, the tendency for lower hierarchical status individuals to reach upward is rendered insignificant when focusing only on cross-departmental ties. Second, homophily between supervisors becomes significant, indicating that supervisors may be more likely to form lateral ties with each other. 8

In summary, the results of the ERGM analysis suggest that formal organizational structure has important effects on the formation of information search networks within city government, even while controlling for well-recognized perception-based factors as well as social network processes. The results suggest broad support for all three hypotheses.

This article sought to develop and test theory regarding the effects of formal organizational structure on the development of informal social networks within public organizations. The results showed broad support for the subject-line expectation, providing empirical evidence for the importance of a number of measures of formal organizational structure. To summarize, we found that formal status has important effects on information search, where those with higher hierarchical status tend to be both more active and more popular targets for information search, while individuals lower in the hierarchy tend to search upward. We also found evidence for multiplexity in the network, where information search ties tend to co-occur with permission search ties. Finally, we found that information search is heavily shaped by both department-specific variability and by a more general pattern of departmental homophily.

Our findings regarding the effects of hierarchical power on network activity speaks to a body of research on informal networks ( Kilduff and Krackhardt’s 2008 ; Krackhart 1990 ; Krackhardt and Hanson 1993 ) that analyzed the influence of formal status on informal network development. Those located higher in the organization are better positioned to observe and influence informal networks. While we found that supervisors appeared to be the recipients of more ties, those with close proximity to power, controlling for supervisor status, were more active in seeking information both within and between departments (supporting Kahn and Kram 1994 ). Further, the fact that managers high up in the hierarchy are likely to be sought out for information emphasizes a dilemma: While supportive managers may want to play this role and provide insights and feedback to employees, organizations need to establish structures that prevent managers from being overburdened or creating a bottleneck. As Maroulis, Diermeier, and Nisar (2020 , 77) suggest, managers can enhance informational diversity within organizational sub-units by reconfiguring them to contain more cross-unit ties. One way to do this might be to establish staff positions, which could serve as a filter for all coordination and communication-related inquiries. A second possibility would be the creation of learning forums around themes such as improving performance or visualizing impact ( Moynihan 2005 ), which would allow managers to interact with a cross-section of employees, while being focused on specific issues for a limited time period.

Our finding for the permission network has two implications. First, the lines of permission matter a great deal even for the social and largely informal phenomenon of information seeking. Second, while permission pathways are one important structural factor, it is not the only one. Put another way, even after controlling for the permission network, all other structural-formal factors, including hierarchical status, supervisor status, and departmental membership, still show significant, independent effects. This finding confirms our point that the structural side of organizations has several facets, and many of them come into play at the same time.

Scholars have argued that hierarchy should have a waning influence over information seeking, presumably due to organizations becoming flatter and less layered, thus creating the need for organizational members to actively seek information outside chains of command. In support of this argument, Cross, Rice, and Parker (2001) found that being at the same hierarchical level did not influence information benefits, nor did colocation in the same office. Yet, our findings suggest the hierarchy significantly shapes information flows within organizations, constraining them both vertically and horizontally. Our finding of strong homophily based on departmental structure supports Siciliano’s (2015) previous observations that schoolteachers display grade level homophily. Interestingly, Nisar and Maroulis (2017) find no such homophily effect in the presence of a major organizational reform initiative. This suggests that when homophily becomes undesirable, the structure itself may be altered to stimulate the development of information search pathways across organizational sub-structures. Thus, public organizations wishing to foster information flow and stimulate collaboration across departments should consider intentional cross-departmental initiatives to overcome the impeding influence of formal structure on organization-wide information flow. Given the role of departments in constraining information flow, public managers should consider explicitly encouraging cross-departmental information exchange that will diminish silos.

While a great deal of research on information search and knowledge sharing has been concerned with the bridging of organizational silos and facilitating lateral communication, our findings point to one additional consideration: If department membership is still one of the main factors for explaining information exchange, then one way to further improve communication is through well-developed relations within work units. This finding is in line with research that has argued that the development of social capital within teams can benefit the organization as a whole ( Kroll et al. 2019 ). Information sharing within teams or departments could be fostered if members are encouraged to speak up and listen to each other and feel safe to take risks ( Edmondson and Roloff 2008 ).

Further, we found that accounting for formal structure had important consequences for existing perceptual-cognitive variables. The results suggested that trust is strongly associated with information search regardless of the model specification or network configuration, while organizational commitment appears to be more relevant at the cross-departmental level and loses much of its significance after controlling for variables that capture organizational structure and social network processes. Interestingly, self-efficacy, which had displayed mixed significance and direction of effect on network ties in previous studies, shows a strong significant negative effect on information search in our study. This finding fits with Binz-Scharf, Lazer, and Mergel’s (2012) observation that reputational concerns remain a “major obstacle” to information sharing in public organizations.

Like other research, our study is prone to some limitations. First, the analysis is cross-sectional and does not account for change over time. Rather, the study utilizes ERGM to analyze a snapshot of a social network to test hypotheses regarding the formation of social ties. Future research could extend the study to account for temporal dynamics. Second, the study includes only one organization. Hence, we cannot generalize the findings far beyond the present context. However, we take a different philosophical approach, emphasizing the current study as an instrumental case for the development of theory and its illustration, rather than generalizing to a broader population. Analysis of public sector organizations with different department structures, of different sizes, in different geographic locations, may produce valuable additional insights. Future research could extend the study to account for more organizations. Recently developed, multilevel ERGMS could be used in future research to control for departmental clustering in intraorganizational networks ( Stewart et al. 2019 ).

The vast majority of research on public sector networks has focused on the antecedents and consequences of interorganizational networks, often neglecting intra -organizational social networks. Those studies that have examined intraorganizational networks have tended to focus on the effect of informal dynamics of social structure, cognitive-perceptual variables, and the attributes of individuals, such as commitment, trust, and self-efficacy. As a result, the function of formal organizational structure in determining the shape of informal intraorganizational networks has been relatively neglected. The current study addresses this lacuna by developing theory and testing hypotheses regarding the effects of formal structure on information search within a small city government. The results suggest strong effects of formal structure on constraining and enabling information search across and within departments, as well as interesting relative effects of trust, commitment, and self-efficacy in the presence and absence of formal-structural variables.

Our call to better integrate formal organization and informal social structures in public administration research mirrors similar developments and emerging research in other disciplines ( Hunter et al. 2020 ; McEvily et al. 2014 ; Spillane and Kim 2012 ). To that end, we show that the literature on formal organization bears a great deal of potential to further enhance theories of social structure, using information search as our phenomenon of interest. Empirically, we find support for the important role of formal status, permission pathways, and departmental membership. We draw attention to generalist, structurally fragmented public organizations (such as local governments) for which formal organization tends to be particularly instructive in shaping organizational behavior. Our call for more theoretical integration goes beyond the use of formal-structural factors as controls. Rather, we see much potential in theorizing, where (a) formal structure is used to identify contingency factors for social network theory; (b) formal and informal structures reinforce or mitigate each other’s impact on behavioral outcomes; or (c) both types of structure directly influence each other, either in a complementary or substitutional manner (see also McEvily et al. 2014 ).

Considering that bureaucracies are known for their reliance on tall hierarchies, formal authority, and routine processes, we suggest that these factors will also be influential in shaping more informal, social interactions. This is not to say that formal structure would be the only factor that requires more attention. Organizational culture, for example, remains a salient feature of tall organizations, as well as tall organizational sub-units, e.g., police departments, which can further shape the development of informal networks in unique ways. The incorporation of organizational culture into social network analysis is thus a potential avenue for future research. In addition, our analysis showed strong differences between departments within the same organization, pointing to the importance of task variables and, possibly, culture differences that may even exist at the sub-organizational level. If one’s research interest is in understanding behaviors within public organizations, then the mere use of variables that are widely employed in the analysis of firms (such as network position, work attitudes, or demographic attributes) may be insufficient. Overall, our study provides a practical starting point for the unification of formal and informal network structure within public sector intraorganizational network studies.

We would like to thank Michael Siciliano and three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on the manuscript.

A Web of Science search ((SU=“public administration”) AND (TS=“network analysis”)) show the term network analysis did not appear in the searchable text of a general public administration journal until 1997.

A topic search for intraorganizational or interpersonal network within the subject category of public administration yielded only 24 results in the Web of Science database (accessed 23 January 2020).

In related research, experimental evidence related to hierarchy and networks has examined the location of a central person in a network and its influence on communications patterns. Bavelas (1950) and Leavitt (1951) found that networks with communications funneled through centralized individuals were higher performing. Guetzkow and Simon found that centralized network structures performed more efficiently, but only if self-organized and not pre-ordained ( Guetzkow and Simon 1955 ). Mulder examined centralized decision-making and observed that centralized decision structures were higher-performing ( Mulder 1960 ). And a comparison of flat versus tall decision structures found tall decision structures to be higher performing than flat ones, with no significant difference in tall and flat structures on decision speed ( Carzo and Yanouzas 1969 ). However, not all research supports these linkages. In particular, some scholars have found that centralized network communications structures such as those found in hierarchies exert mixed ( Shaw 1964 ) or no influence ( Maroulis et al. 2020 ; Shore et al. 2015 ) on performance outcomes.

Several factors contribute to the high response rate. First, as an incentive to participate, the city offered the chance for one survey participant to win 8 h of vacation. The winner was randomly selected by the research team. The winner was given the option of not having their name announced to the broader organization. A second factor is the reputation of the administering university, which is known, trusted and respected by local government employees.

We chose to impute these observations because they completed the network portion of the survey, and ERGM analysis does not permit missing observations in the independent variables. While median imputation may bias standard errors on the attitude controls, there was very little difference on ERGMS with/without these two nodes.

Names were displayed in alphabetical order. To test the possibility that the ordering of names might privilege individuals with last names earlier in the alphabet, we ran a correlation between in-degree centrality (measured as the total number of times an individual is indicated as being sought out) and name order (numbered 1 through 155). The correlation was 0.06, indicating that roster ordering was not a factor in the selection of information seeking ties. We also ordered the names by department, finding no general pattern that would indicate a bias toward selecting individuals appearing earlier in the roster.

Additional models with alternative specifications are included in Supplementary Appendix 4 . Alternative models using the Absdiff term as opposed to the Diff term show that there is a more general tendency for ties to form between individuals of similar hierarchical status; there is a significant interaction between hierarchical status and supervisory status; and both departmental size and hierarchical levels within the department had negative effects on tie formation.

The network statistics on Model 2 displayed a similar pattern to Model 1. However, we were able to use less idiosyncratic modeling terms in Model 2, due to eliminating a large number of intra-departmental triads. Thus, the model fit for Model 2 is better than Model 1 (see Supplementary Appendix 3 for GOF plots).

The data underlying this article are available on figshare, at the following DOI URLs.

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13714063.v1

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13714060.v1

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13713895

Agranoff , Robert . 2006 . Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers . Public Administration Review 66 (s1) : 56 – 65 .

Google Scholar

Allen , Thomas J. , and Stephen I. Cohen . 1969 . Information flow in research and development laboratories . Administrative Science Quarterly 14 ( 1 ): 12 – 19 .

Barabási , Albert-László , and Réka Albert . 1999 . Emergence of scaling in random networks . Science 286 ( 5439 ): 509 – 12 .

Bavelas , Alex . 1950 . Communication patterns in task-oriented groups . The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22 ( 6 ): 725 – 30 . doi: 10.1121/1.1906679 .

Berry , Frances S. , Ralph S. Brower , Sang Ok Choi , Wendy Xinfang Goa , HeeSoun Jang , Myungjung Kwon , and Jessica Word . 2004 . Three traditions of network research: What the public management research agenda can learn from other research communities . Public Administration Review 64 ( 5 ): 539 – 52 .

Binz-Scharf , Maria Christina , David Lazer , and Ines Mergel . 2012 . Searching for answers: Networks of practice among public administrators . The American Review of Public Administration 42 ( 2 ): 202 – 25 .

Borgatti , Stephen P. , Martin G. Everett , and Jeffrey C. Johnson . 2018 . Analyzing social networks . Los Angeles, CA : Sage .

Google Preview

Burns , Tom , and George Macpherson Stalker . 1961 . The management of innovation . London, UK : Tavistock Publications .

Carzo , Rocco , Jr. and John N. Yanouzas . 1969 . Effects of flat and tall organization structure . Administrative Science Quarterly 14 ( 2 ): 178 – 91 .

Chen , Gilad , Stanley M. Gully , and Dov Eden . 2001 . Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale . Organizational Research Methods 4 ( 1 ): 62 – 83 .

Coleman , James S . 1994 . Foundations of social theory . Cambridge, UK : Harvard University Press .

Comfort , Louise K . 1994 . Self-organization in complex systems . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4 ( 3 ): 393 – 410 . doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037220

Cross , Rob , Ronald E. Rice , and Andrew Parker . 2001 . Information seeking in social context: Structural influences and receipt of information benefits . IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 31 ( 4 ): 438 – 48 .

Daft , Richard L. , Hugh Willmott , and Jonathan Murphy . 2010 . Organizational theory and design . Boston, MA : Cengage Learning EMEA .

Davenport , Thomas . 1993 . Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology . Boston, MA : Harvard Business School Press .

Dawes , Sharon S. , Anthony M. Cresswell , and Theresa A. Pardo . 2009 . From ‘need to know’ to ‘need to share’: Tangled problems, information boundaries, and the building of public sector knowledge networks . Public Administration Review 69 ( 3 ): 392 – 402 .

DeHart-Davis , Leisha . 2017 . Creating effective rules in public sector organizations . Washington, DC : Georgetown Univ. Press .

Edmondson , Amy , and Kathryn Roloff . 2008 . Overcoming barriers to collaboration: Psychological safety and learning in diverse teams. In Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches , ed. Salas Eduardo , Gerald F Goodwin , and C. Shawn Burke , 183 – 208 . New York, NY : Routledge .

Eglene , Ophelia , Sharon S. Dawes , and Carrie A. Schneider . 2007 . Authority and leadership patterns in public sector knowledge networks . The American Review of Public Administration 37 ( 1 ): 91 – 113 .

Fusi , Federica , Eric W. Welch , and Michael Siciliano . 2019 . Barriers and facilitators of access to biological material for international research: The role of institutions and networks . Science and Public Policy 46 ( 2 ): 275 – 89 .

Galbraith , Jay R . 1974 . Organization design: An information processing view . INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics 4 ( 3 ): 28 – 36 .

George , Bert , Sebastian Desmidt , Eva Cools , and Anita Prinzie . 2018 . Cognitive styles, user acceptance and commitment to strategic plans in public organizations: An empirical analysis . Public Management Review 20 ( 3 ): 340 – 59 .

Ginsburg , Liane , Debra Gilin , Deborah Tregunno , Peter G. Norton , Ward Flemons , and Mark Fleming . 2009 . Advancing measurement of patient safety culture . Health Services Research 44 ( 1 ): 205 – 24 .

Granovetter , Mark . 1985 . Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness . American Journal of Sociology 91 ( 3 ): 481 – 510 .

Grant , Robert M . 1996 . Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm . Strategic Management Journal 17 ( S2 ): 109 – 22 .

Guetzkow , Harold , and Herbert A. Simon . 1955 . The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and performance in task-oriented groups . Management Science 1 ( 3–4 ): 233 – 50 .

Hage , Jerald . 1965 . An axiomatic theory of organizations . Administrative Science Quarterly 10 ( 3 ): 289 – 320 .

Hall , Richard H . 1999 . Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes . Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall .

Hill , Carolyn , and Laurence Lynn . 2015 . Public management: Thinking and acting in three dimensions . Los Angeles, CA : Sage .

Hu , Qian , Sana Khosa , and Naim Kapucu . 2016 . The intellectual structure of empirical network research in public administration . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26 ( 4 ): 593 – 612 . doi: 10.1093/jopart/muv032

Hunter , Starling , Henrik Bentzen , and Jan Taug . 2020 . On the “missing link” between formal organization and informal social structure . Journal of Organization Design 9 ( 1 ): 1 – 20 .

Isett , Kimberley R. , Ines A. Mergel , Kelly LeRoux , Pamela A. Mischen , and R. Karl Rethemeyer . 2011 . Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 ( suppl_1 ): i157 – 73 . doi: 10.1093/jopart/muq061

Jacobsen , Christian Bøtcher , and Lotte Bøgh Andersen . 2017 . Leading public service organizations: How to obtain high employee self-efficacy and organizational performance . Public Management Review 19 ( 2 ): 253 – 73 .

Johnson , J. Davis , William A. Donohue , Charles K. Atkin , and Sally Johnson . 1995 . A comprehensive model of information seeking: Tests focusing on a technical organization . Science Communication 16 ( 3 ): 274 – 303 .

Jones , Candace , William S. Hesterly , and Stephen P. Borgatti . 1997 . A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms . Academy of Management Review 22 ( 4 ): 911 – 45 .

Kahn , William A. , and Kathy E. Kram . 1994 . Authority at work: Internal models and their organizational consequences . Academy of Management Review 19 ( 1 ): 17 – 50 .

Kapucu , Naim , Qian Hu , and Sana Khosa . 2017 . The state of network research in public administration . Administration & Society 49 ( 8 ): 1087 – 120 .

Kilduff , Martin. & David Krackhardt . 2008 . Interpersonal networks in organizations: Cognition, personality, dynamics, and culture , vol. 30 . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .

Kish-Gephart , Jennifer J , James R. Detert , Linda Klebe Treviño , and Amy C. Edmondson . 2009 . Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work . Research in Organizational Behavior 29 ( January ): 163 – 93 .

Kleinbaum , Adam M. , Toby E. Stuart , and Michael L. Tushman . 2013 . Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization . Organization Science 24 ( 5 ): 1316 – 36 .

Krackhardt , David . 1990 . Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations . Administrative Science Quarterly 35 ( 2 ): 342 – 69 .

Krackhardt , David , and Jeffrey R. Hanson . 1993 . Informal networks . Harvard Business Review 71 ( 4 ): 104 – 11 .

Kroll , Alexander , Leisha DeHart-Davis , and Dominik Vogel . 2019 . Mechanisms of social capital in organizations: How team cognition influences employee commitment and engagement . The American Review of Public Administration 49 ( 7 ): 777 – 91 .

Lazega , Emmanuel , and Philippa Pattison . 1999 . Multiplexity, generalized exchange and cooperation in organizations: A case study . Social Networks 21 ( 1 ): 67 – 90 .

Leavitt , Harold . 1951 . Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46 ( 1 ): 38 – 50 .

Leonardi , Paul , and Noshir Contractor . 2018 . Better people analytics . Harvard Business Review 96 ( 6 ): 70 – 81 .

Levin , Daniel , and Rob Cross . 2004 . The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer . Management Science 50 ( 11 ): 1477 – 90 .

Lin , Nan . 1999 . Building a network theory of social capital . Connections 22 ( 1 ): 28 – 51 .

Lunenburg , Fred . 2011 . Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and performance . International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration 14 ( 1 ): 1 – 6 .

Lusher , Dean , Johan Koskinen , and Garry Robins . 2013 . Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications . New York, NY : Cambridge University Press .

Lyle , Jack . 1961 . Communication, group atmosphere, productivity, and morale in small task groups . Human Relations 14 ( 4 ): 369 – 79 .

Maroulis , Spiro . 2017 . The role of social network structure in street-level innovation . American Review of Public Administration 47 ( 4 ): 419 – 30 .

Maroulis , Spiro , Daniel Diermeier , and Muhammad Nisar . 2020 . Discovery, dissemination, and information diversity in networked groups . Social Networks 61 : 67 – 77 .

Mayer , Roger C. , James H. Davis , and F. David Schoorman . 1995 . An integrative model of organizational trust . Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709 – 734 .

McEvily , Bill , Giuseppe Soda , and Marco Tortoriello . 2014 . More formally: Rediscovering the missing link between formal organization and informal social structure . Academy of Management Annals 8 ( 1 ): 299 – 345 .

McPherson , Miller , Lynn Smith-Lovin , and James Cook . 2001 . Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks . Annual Review of Sociology 27 ( 1 ): 415 – 44 .

Meyer , John , and Natalie Allen . 1991 . A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment . Human Resource Management Review 1 ( 1 ): 61 – 89 .

Miller , John , and Scott Page . 2009 . Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life . Princeton, NJ : Princeton Univ. Press .

Monge , Peter , and Noshir Contractor . 2003 . Theories of communication networks . Oxford, UK : Oxford Univ. Press .

Moynihan , Donald . 2005 . Goal-based learning and the future of performance management . Public Administration Review 65 ( 2 ): 203 – 16 .

Moynihan , Donald , and Sanjay Pandey . 2008 . The ties that bind: Social networks, person-organization value fit, and turnover intention . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 ( 2 ): 205 – 27 . doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum013

Mulder , Mauk . 1960 . Communication structure, decision structure and group performance . Sociometry 23 ( 1 ): 1 – 14 .

Nadler , David and Michael Tushman . 1997 . Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture . Oxford, UK : Oxford Univ. Press .

Newman , Mark . 2001 . Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks . Physical Review E 64 ( 2 ): 025102 .

Nisar , Muhammad , and Spiro Maroulis . 2017 . Foundations of relating: Theory and evidence on the formation of street-level bureaucrats’ workplace networks . Public Administration Review 77 ( 6 ): 829 – 39 .

Nonaka , Ikujiro . 1994 . A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation . Organization Science 5 ( 1 ): 14 – 37 .

Nowell , Branda , Anne-Lise Velez , Mary Hano , Jayce Sudweeks , Kate Albrecht , and Toddi Steelman . 2018 . Studying networks in complex problem domains: Advancing methods in boundary specification . Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 1 ( 4 ): 273 – 82 .

Oparaocha , Gospel . 2016 . Towards building internal social network architecture that drives innovation: A social exchange theory perspective . Journal of Knowledge Management 20 ( 3 ): 534 – 56 .

O’Toole , Laurence. Jr.   1997 . Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration . Public Administration Review 57 ( 1 ): 45 – 52 .

O’Toole , Laurence Jr . and Kenneth Meier . 2010 . In Defense of bureaucracy . Public Management Review 12 ( 3 ): 341 – 61 .

Paruchuri , Srikanth , and Snehal Awate . 2017 . Organizational knowledge networks and local search: The role of intra-organizational inventor networks . Strategic Management Journal 38 ( 3 ): 657 – 75 .

Perry , Brea , Bernice Pescosolido , and Steven Borgatti . 2018 . Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, and models . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge Univ. Press .

Polanyi , Michael , and Amartya Kumar Sen   2013 . The tacit dimension . Chicago, IL : The Univ. of Chicago Press .

Porter , Caitlin , Sang Woo , David Allen , Melissa Keith . 2019 . How do instrumental and expressive network positions relate to turnover? A meta-analytic investigation . Journal of Applied Psychology 104 ( 4 ): 511 – 36 .

Provan , Keith , and Patrick Kenis . 2008 . Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 ( 2 ): 229 – 52 . doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum015

Provan , Keith , and Brinton Milward . 2001 . Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks . Public Administration Review 61 ( 4 ): 414 – 23 .

Pugh , D. , D. Hickson , C. Hinings , and C. Turner . 1968 . Dimensions of organization structure . Administrative Science Quarterly 13 ( 1 ): 65 – 105 .

Shaw , Mary . 1964 . Communication networks. In Advances in experimental social psychology , ed. Leonard Berkowitz , 111 – 47 . New York, NY : Academic Press .

Shazi , Rahmat , Nicole Gillespie , and John Steen . 2015 . Trust as a predictor of innovation network ties in project teams . International Journal of Project Management 33 ( 1 ): 81 – 91 .

Shore , Jesse , Ethan Bernstein , David Lazer . 2015 . Facts and figuring: An experimental investigation of network structure and performance in information and solution spaces . Organization Science 26 ( 5 ): 1432 – 46 .

Siciliano , Michael . 2015 . Advice networks in public organizations: The role of structure, internal competition, and individual attributes . Public Administration Review 75 ( 4 ): 548 – 59 .

Siciliano , Michael . 2016 . Ignoring the experts: Networks and organizational learning in the public sector . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27 ( 1 ): 104 – 19 . doi: 10.1093/jopart/muw052

Siciliano , Michael . 2017 . Professional networks and street-level performance: How public school teachers’ advice networks influence student performance . American Review of Public Administration 47 ( 1 ): 79 – 101 .

Siciliano , Michael , and James Thompson . 2018 . If you are committed, then so am I: The role of social networks and social influence on organizational commitment . Administration & Society 50 ( 7 ): 916 – 46 .

Spillane , James , and C. Min Kim . 2012 . An exploratory analysis of formal school leaders’ positioning in instructional advice and information networks in elementary schools . American Journal of Education 119 ( 1 ): 73 – 102 .

Stewart , Jonathan , Michael Schweinberger , Michal Bojanowski , and Martina Morris . 2019 . Multilevel network data facilitate statistical inference for curved ERGMs with geometrically weighted terms . Social Networks 59 : 98 – 119 .

Tasselli , Stefano . 2015 . Social networks and inter-professional knowledge transfer: The case of healthcare professionals . Organization Studies 36 ( 7 ): 841 – 72 .

Tolbert , Pamela , and Richard Hall . 2009 . Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes . Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Prentice Hall .

Thompson , James D . 1967 . Organizations in action . New York : McGraw Hill .

Tsai , Wenpin and Sumantra Ghoshal . 1998 . Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks . Academy of Management Journal 41 ( 4 ): 464 – 76 .

van de Bunt , Gerhard , Rafael Wittek , and Maurits de Klepper . 2005 . The evolution of intra-organizational trust networks: The case of a German paper factory: An empirical test of six trust mechanisms . International Sociology 20 ( 3 ): 339 – 69 .

Wager , Wesley . 1972 . Organizational ‘linking pins’. Hierarchical status and communicative roles in interlevel conferences . Human Relations 25 ( 4 ): 307 – 26 .

Wald , Andreas . 2014 . Triangulation and validity of network data. In Mixed methods social networks research: Design and applications , ed. Silvia Domínguez and Betina Hollstein , 65 – 89 . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge Univ. Press.

Wasserman , Stanley , and Katherine Faust . 1994 . Social network analysis: Methods and applications . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge Univ. Press .

Willem , Annick , and Marc Buelens . 2007 . Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: The effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 ( 4 ): 581 – 606 . doi: 10.1093/jopart/mul021

Wright , Bradley E.   2004 . The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognitive theories . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 ( 1 ): 59 – 78 .

Yang , Tung-Mou , and Terrence Maxwell . 2011 . Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors . Government Information Quarterly 28 ( 2 ): 164 – 75 .

Zandberg , Tjeerd , and Fernando Nieto Morales . 2019 . Public managers’ networking and innovative work behavior: The importance of career incentives . International Review of Administrative Sciences 85 ( 2 ): 286 – 303 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1477-9803
• Print ISSN 1053-1858
• Copyright © 2024 Public Management Research Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, organizational structure in family firms: a systematic literature review.

Journal of Strategy and Management

ISSN : 1755-425X

Article publication date: 12 April 2022

Issue publication date: 8 February 2023

This paper provides a review of the academic literature on organizational structure (OS) in family firms, highlighting the contribution to knowledge and identifying research gaps and possible avenues for future research.

Design/methodology/approach

Different databases were used to search the relevant literature on OS in family firms, including Scopus, ABI/Inform Global, Business Source Complete, and Emerald Insight. The systematic literature review presents an analysis of 52 studies on OS in family firms.

The literature largely reveals inconsistent findings in terms of the characteristics and outcomes of OS in family firms. The majority of the studies (21) are either survey-based or employ a case study approach (18), with relatively fewer studies (8) being conceptual in nature. A large number of the studies (34) were conducted in developed countries, whereas only nine were undertaken in developing countries. Moreover, 23 studies examine characteristics of OS, 23 studies explore the outcomes, while 15 investigate the antecedents of OS in family firms. The characteristics of OS in family firms relate to the degree of centralization and formalization. The antecedents or factors affecting OS in family firms include cultural values, family influence, need for succession, and ownership and management changes. The positive outcomes of OS include legacy building, enhancing entrepreneurial orientation, and efficiency. The negative outcomes of OS include exploitation of fewer opportunities, maintaining the status quo, and adverse effects on sustainability initiatives.

Originality/value

Existing reviews generally explore the highest level of OS in family firms. The current review complements this debate and reviews OS in family firms from the perspective of the lower and operational levels. As such, the current review is both timely and relevant, as it identifies limitations of the available literature as well as suggests avenues for future research.

• Organizational structure
• Centralization
• Formalization
• Specialization
• Decision-making
• Flexibility
• Family firms
• Family-controlled business
• Family-owned business

Ahmad Tipu, S.A. (2023), "Organizational structure in family firms: a systematic literature review", Journal of Strategy and Management , Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 76-91. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-09-2021-0194

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

The Literature Review: 5. Organizing the Literature Review

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Why Do a Literature Review?
• 3. Methods for Searching the Literature
• 4. Analysing the Literature
• 5. Organizing the Literature Review
• 6. Writing the Review

1. Organizing Principles

A literature review is a piece of discursive prose, not a list describing or summarizing one piece of literature after another. It should have a single organizing principle:

• Thematic - organize around a topic or issue
• Chronological - sections for each vital time period
• Methodological - focus on the methods used by the researchers/writers

4. Selected Online Resources

• Literature Review in Education & Behavioral Sciences This is an interactive tutorial from Adelphi University Libraries on how to conduct a literature review in education and the behavioural sciences using library databases
• Writing Literature Reviews This tutorial is from the Writing section of Monash University's Language and Learning Online site
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It This guide is from the Health Services Writing Centre at the University of Toronto
• Learn How to Write a Review of the Literature This guide is part of the Writer's Handbook provided by the Writing Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. Structure of the Literature Review

Although your literature review will rely heavily on the sources you read for its information, you should dictate the structure of the review. It is important that the concepts are presented in an order that makes sense of the context of your research project.

There may be clear divisions on the sets of ideas you want to discuss, in which case your structure may be fairly clear. This is an ideal situation. In most cases, there will be several different possible structures for your review.

Similarly to the structure of the research report itself, the literature review consists of:

• Introduction

Introduction - profile of the study

• Define or identify the general topic to provide the context for reviewing the literature
• Outline why the topic is important
• Identify overall trends in what has been published about the topic
• Identify conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions
• Identify gaps in research and scholarlship
• Explain the criteria to be used in analysing and comparing the literature
• Describe the organization of the review (the sequence)
• If necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope)

Body - summative, comparative, and evaluative discussion of literature reviewed

For a thematic review:

• organize the review into paragraphs that present themes and identify trends relevant to your topic
• each paragraph should deal with a different theme - you need to synthesize several of your readings into each paragraph in such a way that there is a clear connection between the sources
• don't try to list all the materials you have identified in your literature search

From each of the section summaries:

• summarize the main agreements and disagreements in the literature
• summarize the general conclusions that have been drawn
• establish where your own research fits in the context of the existing literature

5. A Final Checklist

• Have you indicated the purpose of the review?
• Have you emphasized recent developments?
• Is there a logic to the way you organized the material?
• Does the amount of detail included on an issue relate to its importance?
• Have you been sufficiently critical of design and methodological issues?
• Have you indicated when results were conflicting or inconclusive and discussed possible reasons?
• Has your summary of the current literature contributed to the reader's understanding of the problems?

3. Tips on Structure

A common error in literature reviews is for writers to present material from one author, followed by information from another, then another.... The way in which you group authors and link ideas will help avoid this problem. To group authors who draw similar conclusions, you can use linking words such as:

• additionally

When authors disagree, linking words that indicate contrast will show how you have analysed their work. Words such as:

• on the other hand
• nonetheless

will indicate to your reader how you have analysed the material. At other times, you may want to qualify an author's work (using such words as specifically, usually, or generally ) or use an example ( thus, namely, to illustrate ). In this way you ensure that you are synthesizing the material, not just describing the work already carried out in your field.

Another major problem is that literature reviews are often written as if they stand alone, without links to the rest of the paper. There needs to be a clear relationship between the literature review and the methodology to follow.

• << Previous: 4. Analysing the Literature
• Next: 6. Writing the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 10:36 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwi.edu/litreviewsoe

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

28 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Asking questions are actually fastidious thing if you are not understanding anything fully, but this article presents good understanding yet.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Literature Review Guide: How to organise the review

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to start?
• Picking your research question and searching
• Search strategies and Databases
• How to organise the review
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• Library summary

How to structure your literature review (ignore the monotone voice as advice is good)

How to structure and write your literature review

• Chronological, ie. by date of publication or trend
• Methodological
• Use Cooper's taxonomy to explore and determine what elements and categories to incorporate into your review
• Revise and proofread your review to ensure your arguments, supporting evidence and writing is clear and precise

Cronin, P., Ryan, F. & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach . British Journal of Nursing, 17 (1), pp.38-43.

Different ways to organise a Literature Review

CHRONOLOGICAL (by date): This is one of the most common ways, especially for topics that have been talked about for a long time and have changed over their history. Organise it in stages of how the topic has changed: the first definitions of it, then major time periods of change as researchers talked about it, then how it is thought about today.

BROAD-TO-SPECIFIC : Another approach is to start with a section on the general type of issue you're reviewing, then narrow down to increasingly specific issues in the literature until you reach the articles that are most specifically similar to your research question, thesis statement, hypothesis, or proposal. This can be a good way to introduce a lot of background and related facets of your topic when there is not much directly on your topic but you are tying together many related, broader articles.

MAJOR MODELS or MAJOR THEORIES : When there are multiple models or prominent theories, it is a good idea to outline the theories or models that are applied the most in your articles. That way you can group the articles you read by the theoretical framework that each prefers, to get a good overview of the prominent approaches to your concept.

PROMINENT AUTHORS : If a certain researcher started a field, and there are several famous people who developed it more, a good approach can be grouping the famous author/researchers and what each is known to have said about the topic. You can then organise other authors into groups by which famous authors' ideas they are following. With this organisation it can help to look at the citations your articles list in them, to see if there is one author that appears over and over.

CONTRASTING SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT : If you find a dominant argument comes up in your research, with researchers taking two sides and talking about how the other is wrong, you may want to group your literature review by those schools of thought and contrast the differences in their approaches and ideas.

Ways to structure your Literature Review

Different ways to organise your literature review include:

• Topical order (by main topics or issues, showing relationship to the main problem or topic)
• Chronological order (simplest of all, organise by dates of published literature)
• Problem-cause-solution order
• General to specific order
• Known to unknown order
• Comparison and contrast order
• Specific to general order
• << Previous: Videos
• Next: Examples of Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 4:32 PM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

Introduction to Literature Reviews: Structure and Organization

• Structure and Organization
• Searching for Resources
• Evaluate the Results
• Contact This link opens in a new window

The typical structure of a literature review generally includes an introduction, body paragraphs organized thematically or chronologically, and may or may not its own conclusion. Each section serves a specific purpose, such as introducing the topic, providing background information, summarizing relevant studies, and identifying gaps or controversies in the literature. Webster and Watson define a successful literature review as something that "creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed (Webster and Watson, 2002, from   Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, 2nd edition). 

Your topic and questions should serve as a natural guide. The review first and foremost serves as an overview of your topic with a state of the research in your area, perhaps the lack of any research, or to show that there are gaps of knowledge that need filling. Readers need to know how your research fits into the scholarly communication in your area. 

Next, you should determine the scope of coverage. How comprehensive will this be? If you are writing a dissertation, this can be quite lengthy. If you are a junior or senior, then you may want to pare that down and concentrate on the highlights. 

Purdue's OWL (Online Writing Lab) has some excellent suggestions on types of organization (thematic, chronological, etc.) and much more on literature reviews.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Searching for Resources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 26, 2023 8:52 AM
• URL: https://hbu.libguides.com/litreview

Literature Reviews

• "How To" Books
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
• Organizing the Literature Review
• Writing the Literature Review
• Endnote This link opens in a new window
• Evaluating Websites

Organization

Organization of your Literature Review

What is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? What order should you present them?

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper.

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.

Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).

Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing the literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario and then three typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

You've decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you've just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale's portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980's. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Chronological

If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.

By publication

Order your sources chronologically by publication if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

Another way to organize sources chronologically is to examine the sources under a trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Using this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.

Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.

More authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as "evil" in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.

Methodological

A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Once you've decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.

History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.

Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

• << Previous: Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
• Next: Writing the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Nov 2, 2021 12:11 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/literature-review
• Request a Class
• Hours & Locations
• Ask a Librarian
• Special Collections
• Library Faculty & Staff

Library Administration: 631.632.7100

• Stony Brook Home
• Campus Maps
• Web Accessibility Information
• Accessibility Barrier Report Form

Comments or Suggestions? | Library Webmaster

Except where otherwise noted, this work by SBU Libraries is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

× The Libraries will be closed for Labor Day Weekend from Saturday-Monday, August 31 - September 2 . Enjoy the holiday!

× sherrill library will be closed from may 18 - september 2 due to construction. services by appointment: research consultations, library instruction, pick up appointments moriarty library will be open may 28 - august 16, monday - thursday from 10am-6pm, friday from 9am-noon. closed weekends and holidays. as always, our web resources are available 24/7. questions our chat and ask us services are available monday-thursday, 10am-6pm and friday 9am-noon., × the libraries will be closed for memorial day weekend from friday-monday, may 24-27. enjoy the holiday, × spring break: monday, 03/13/2023 - sunday, 03/19/2023: library pickups are by appointment. need an appointment email us at sherrill library: [email protected] or moriarty library: [email protected], × alert mm/dd/yyyy: something is broken please contact us with questions., × alert 12/14/2023: ebsco allsearch is unavailable. we are working to fix this as quickly as we can. in the meanwhile, please try searching for articles from our proquest central database and for ebooks and books from our flo catalog . we're very sorry for the inconveniance. --> × welcome back our remote services guide has everything you need to know about library services we're offering this semester, including research help, study spaces, and more for other campus plans, see the lesley university covid-19 response. any other questions ask us, × welcome back our remote services guide has everything you need to know about library services we're offering this semester, including research help, study spaces, and more any other questions ask us.

• Literature Review
• What type of literature review should you write?
• Hide Menu Thingy Widget
• Additional Guides & Reading Materials

Library & Research Help

• Sherrill Library: 617-349-8850
• Moriarty Library: 617-349-8070
• Text: 617-340-8008
• Research Help:  Ask Us!
• Email:  [email protected]
• Art & Design Research Email: [email protected]

There are different methods to organize and present the materials collected for the literature review.

The list below goes over different organizational frameworks that can be used to present the research conducted. If you are not sure what method to use, check with your professor.​

• Chronological:  The chronological framework organizes the literature in the order in which they are published. For example, if you were writing about a specific teaching method, you would begin with the materials that first introduced the method. You would then follow with case studies applying that method. You would conclude your review with contemporary papers that may even give a historical perspective on the method from when it was first conceived and how it is applied today.
• by publication:  This framework is useful if you notice a series of articles that are written in response to one another that are all within one publication. You still follow chronological order, but you break it so that the articles responding to one another are grouped together.
• by trend:  This framework looks at specific trends and organizes them chronologically. For example, if you were looking at the history of assistive technology in helping students with disabilities, you may organize the reviews by what disability was being treated, and then present the history of using assistive technology to treat that particular disability in chronological order.
• Thematic:  The thematic framework is similar to organizing by trend, except that you are not organizing the reviews in the order that they were published. This does not mean that you do not consider the timeline for how a topic or issue developed, but that you will not focus on organizing your reviews chronologically. Rather, the emphasis will be on the themes you find within the topic or issue — such as commonalities — and from there you fit your reviews into the separate ideas in which they fit. For example, if the review topic was arts-based research, your review may focus on different ways artistic inquiry was used to understand the creative process, focusing then on the concepts rather than the development.
• Methodological:  The method or practice applied in a case study can be the basis for organizing a literature review. This framework focuses on how the author(s) or the person(s) administering a study applied similar methods as another study. As a result, the types of literature in a literature review that applies the methodological framework tends to review similar materials. For example, if you reviewed methods used to treat post traumatic stress syndrome, the review would organize the studies by the methods used to treat the patients and not the order that the studies were published.

Note: After choosing the organizational framework for the literature review, it should be easier to write because you should have a clear idea of what sections you need to include in the paper. For example, a chronological review will have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review will have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

In some cases the literature does not quite fit the framework you have chosen. In this case, you should determine where it makes sense to place the literature and confirm this choice with your professor.

• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Additional Guides & Reading Materials >>
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2022 2:41 PM
• URL: https://research.lesley.edu/LitReview

Moriarty Library

Porter Campus 1801 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 617-349-8070

Sherrill Library

South Campus 89 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-349-8850

• Process: Literature Reviews
• Literature Review
• Managing Sources

Ask a Librarian

Does your assignment or publication require that you write a literature review? This guide is intended to help you understand what a literature is, why it is worth doing, and some quick tips composing one.

Understanding Literature Reviews

What is a literature review  .

Typically, a literature review is a written discussion that examines publications about  a particular subject area or topic. Depending on disciplines, publications, or authors a literature review may be: 

A summary of sources An organized presentation of sources A synthesis or interpretation of sources An evaluative analysis of sources

A Literature Review may be part of a process or a product. It may be:

A part of your research process A part of your final research publication An independent publication

Why do a literature review?

The Literature Review will place your research in context. It will help you and your readers:  

Locate patterns, relationships, connections, agreements, disagreements, & gaps in understanding Identify methodological and theoretical foundations Identify landmark and exemplary works Situate your voice in a broader conversation with other writers, thinkers, and scholars

The Literature Review will aid your research process. It will help you to:

Establish your knowledge Understand what has been said Define your questions Establish a relevant methodology Refine your voice Situate your voice in the conversation

What does a literature review look like?

The Literature Review structure and organization may include sections such as:  

An introduction or overview A body or organizational sub-divisions A conclusion or an explanation of significance

The body of a literature review may be organized in several ways, including:

Chronologically: organized by date of publication Methodologically: organized by type of research method used Thematically: organized by concept, trend, or theme Ideologically: organized by belief, ideology, or school of thought

• Find a focus
• Find models
• Review your target publication
• Track citations
• Read critically
• Manage your citations
• Ask friends, faculty, and librarians

Additional Sources

• Reviewing the literature. Project Planner.
• Literature Review: By UNC Writing Center
• PhD on Track
• CU Graduate Students Thesis & Dissertation Guidance
• CU Honors Thesis Guidance

• Next: Managing Sources >>
• University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
• Research Guides
• Research Strategies
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 3:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/strategies/litreview
• © Regents of the University of Colorado