Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 1
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment
Netasha Jones
Liberty University
BUSI 610 Organizational Design and Structure
Dr. Maddox
February 22, 2026
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 2
Annotated Bibliography
Albert, D. (2023). What do you mean by organizational structure? Acknowledging and
harmonizing differences and commonalities in three prominent perspectives. Journal of
Organization Design, 13, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-023-00152-y
This article focuses on how “organizational structure” should be defined so that research
in organization design can be meaningfully compared across studies. Albert reviews
existing literature and organizes structure into three main perspectives—how work
activities are arranged, how decision authority is distributed, and how legal entities are
structured—showing how differently scholars apply these ideas in practice. The main
takeaway is that inconsistent definitions and measurement choices make it difficult to
draw strong conclusions about how structure affects performance, innovation, or
strategic change. In supporting my paper, this article helps clarify what I mean by
organizational structure before comparing functional, divisional, matrix, or network
forms. Unlike empirical studies such as Turato et al. (2024), this source plays a more
foundational role by reducing the risk of “apples-to-oranges” comparisons. I will use this
article to justify my definitions and to keep my discussion of structure–performance
relationships consistent throughout the paper.
Besley, T., & Persson, T. (2022). Organizational dynamics: Culture, design, and performance.
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 40(2), 394–415.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewac020
Besley and Persson explore how organizational culture works together with design
choices, especially decentralization, to influence performance. The authors present a
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 3
theoretical model that views culture as shared workplace values and identities that
shape how authority is delegated, how conflicts arise, and how decisions about projects
are made. Their argument suggests that when an organization’s culture aligns with its
goals, decentralization can be a strength that improves productivity. However, when
culture and goals are misaligned, decentralization may create coordination problems
and reduce performance. This research explain why organizations with similar structures
often experience very different results. Compared with Stanikzai and Mittal (2025),
which provides a broad overview of alignment research, this article offers a clearer
explanation of how culture directly affects whether design choices are effective. I will
use this source to emphasize culture as a key factor that shapes how organizational
structure influences performance.
Capone, V., Schettino, G., Marino, L., Camerlingo, C., Smith, A., & Depolo, M. (2024). The new
normal of remote work: Exploring individual and organizational factors affecting work-
related outcomes and well-being in academia. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article
1340094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1340094
This study examines how confidence in remote work, organizational support, and the
complexity of workplace technology influence employee performance and well-being.
Drawing on survey responses from 373 university staff, the authors use a Job Demands–
Resources framework to explore how different forms of support relate to job
satisfaction, well-being, and performance outcomes. The findings show that employees
who feel confident working remotely and who receive strong organizational support
report higher satisfaction and well-being. In contrast, complex or difficult-to-use
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 4
technology negatively affects performance, although support from supervisors helps
reduce these challenges.
This study highlights that remote and hybrid organizational structures need strong
support systems in place to maintain employee performance. Compared with Handke et
al. (2024), which focuses on how hybrid work affects teams, this article offers valuable
insight at the individual level. I will use the research from this article to support
arguments about how structure, support, and employee outcomes are closely
connected.
Ciacci, A., Balzano, M., & Marzi, G. (2024). Optimising business models through digital
alignment and strategic flexibility: Evidence from the manufacturing industry. Journal of
Management & Organization, 31(3), 1477–1497. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.1
Ciacci et al. (2024) examine whether aligning digital systems with business strategy
improves efficiency and whether strategic flexibility strengthens that relationship. Using
quantitative analysis of manufacturing firms, the authors distinguish between digital
tools that support strategic decision-making and those that support operations. Their
findings show that both forms of digital alignment improve efficiency, but strategic
flexibility especially strengthens the benefits tied to decision-support systems. This study
reinforces the idea that organizational structure must allow information to move quickly
and support coordinated execution if digital investments are going to improve
performance. Compared to Joseph and Sengul (2025), this article is more focused on
manufacturing and digital alignment specifically, but it offers concrete evidence of how
structure and digital strategy connect to measurable outcomes. I will use this source to
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 5
support the argument that structural alignment is necessary for digital transformation to
positively affect performance.
Ellis, S., & Shenkar, O. (2025). Bringing the decision-maker back in: Using a structural
contingency lens to develop a mezzo uncertainty model. Journal of Organization Design,
14, 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-025-00190-8
This article explores how leaders’ perceptions of uncertainty influence organizational
decisions and structural choices. Rather than treating uncertainty as something purely
external, the authors argue that how decision-makers interpret uncertainty plays a
major role in shaping organizational responses. They introduce a conceptual model that
connects environmental complexity with leaders’ thinking styles, motivation, and
comfort with ambiguity. The main idea is that short-term feelings of uncertainty often
guide decisions more than objective conditions do. In this article, Ellis and Shenkar
explain why organizations operating in similar environments may choose very different
structures and experience different performance results. Compared with Albert (2024),
which focuses on defining organizational structure, this article explains how structural
decisions are actually made under uncertain conditions. This article will help strengthen
my paper by providing explanations of why structure–performance relationships depend
on leadership interpretation and context.
Güngördü-Arıoğlu, M., & Tunçalp, D. (2024). Understanding the processes of organizational
hybridization: A systematic review. Management Review Quarterly, 75, 3471–3520.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00465-6
This systematic review examines how hybrid organizations develop and why hybrid
forms are becoming more common. Instead of viewing hybridity as a fixed structure, the
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 6
authors describe it as an ongoing process shaped by internal and external pressures. By
reviewing existing research, they identify two main pathways: organizations may
become hybrid gradually in response to challenges, or they may intentionally adopt
hybrid structures as a strategic choice. The review also points out that there is limited
research on how hybrid structures affect long-term performance and resilience. This
review supports the idea that hybrid organizational structures are increasing but need to
be evaluated over time rather than judged immediately. Compared with Nguyen et al.
(2025), which focuses on agility and outcomes, this article explains how hybrid forms
emerge and evolve. The information from this review will justify focusing on hybrid
design and long-term effects.
Handke, L., Aldana, A., Costa, P. L., & O’Neill, T. A. (2024). Hybrid teamwork: What we know and
where we can go from here. Small Group Research, 55(5), 805–835.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241279078
Handke et al. (2024) review existing research on hybrid teamwork and examine how it
differs from traditional virtual teams. They define hybrid teams as groups whose
members shift between working remotely and in person, creating changing patterns of
communication and coordination. Through a critical literature review, the authors argue
that these shifting configurations create unique challenges related to subgroup
formation, coordination, and information flow. This study supports my argument that
structure is not only about reporting lines but also about coordination mechanisms. In
hybrid environments, performance depends on how well organizations manage
fluctuating communication patterns. Compared with Capone et al. (2024), which focuses
more on employee well-being, this article takes a team-level perspective and
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 7
emphasizes coordination. I will use this source in my discussion of remote and hybrid
structural challenges to support claims about communication flow and performance
sustainability.
Joseph, J., & Sengul, M. (2024). Organization design: Current insights and future research
directions. Journal of Management, 51(1), 249–308.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241271242
This article provides a broad review of organization design research published between
2000 and 2023. The authors summarize how different structural choices affect
coordination, control, and organizational outcomes. They organize the literature into
major themes, such as configuration and coordination, and highlight emerging topics
like artificial intelligence and flatter organizational forms. One key takeaway is that
structure influences performance by shaping how information flows, how incentives are
set, and how interdependent tasks are managed. This article will contribute to my paper
by helping organize my literature review and supporting the way I group my themes
around structure types, alignment, and performance. Compared with Albert (2024),
which focuses on defining structure, this article offers a broader overview of the field.
Nguyen, T., Le, C. V., Nguyen, M., Nguyen, G., Lien, T. T. H., & Nguyen, O. (2024). The
organisational impact of agility: A systematic literature review. Management Review
Quarterly, 75, 2709–2757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00446-9
Nguyen et al. (2024) review 249 empirical studies to understand how organizational
agility relates to performance and other outcomes. The authors find that agility is
generally associated with improved results, but definitions and measurement
approaches vary widely across studies. This inconsistency makes it difficult to compare
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 8
findings and draw firm conclusions. This review strengthens the argument that many
modern structures aim to increase agility, yet the effectiveness of these designs depends
on context and clarity. Compared to Stei et al. (2024), which tests a specific pathway
linking ambidexterity, agility, and performance, this article provides a broader overview
of the field. I will use it in my literature review to show why agility remains central to
structural redesign efforts.
Nie, Y., & Wang, J. (2024). Beyond collaborative network communities: Innovation performance
feedback and the formation of new bridging ties. Management and
Organization Review, 20(4), 649–670. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2024.23
Nie and Wang (2024) examine how innovation performance feedback influences firms’
decisions to form new network connections. Using data from publicly listed firms, they
test how positive or negative feedback shapes the creation of bridging ties across
network communities. They also find that CEO experience affects how firms respond to
performance signals. The findings show that network structures evolve in response to
performance outcomes, especially when firms seek innovation. This supports my
argument that structure is dynamic and often adapts to improve responsiveness.
Compared to Ciacci et al. (2024), which focuses on operational efficiency, this study
emphasizes innovation and boundary spanning.
Page, S. E., & Kallapur, A. (2025). Replace, augment, disrupt: AI & organizational
decisionmaking. Journal of Organization Design. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-025-00194-4
Page and Kallapur (2025) explore how generative AI is reshaping organizational decision-
making and what that means for structure. The authors ask whether AI will replace
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 9
human decision-makers, support them, or fundamentally change how decisions are
made. They develop a conceptual framework distinguishing routine operational
decisions from higher-level strategic ones and argue that AI is more likely to replace
routine tasks while augmenting complex strategic decisions. One of the most interesting
contributions is their discussion of risks, including the possibility of flawed reasoning or
“hallucinations” in AI outputs. They argue that organizations will need clearer
governance systems to define decision rights and accountability between humans and AI
tools. For my literature review, this article expands the meaning of organizational
structure beyond hierarchy and reporting lines to include digital governance and
decision protocols. Compared with Stanikzai and Mittal (2025), which focus on
alignment and sustainability, this article is more forward-looking and specifically
addresses AI-driven redesign.
Saurabh, K., Upadhyay, P., & Rani, N. (2024). Towards blockchain decentralized autonomous
organizations (DAO) design. Information Systems Frontiers, 27, 659–681.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10455-w
This study examines how decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are designed
and how their structures relate to innovation and organizational outcomes. Using survey
data from DAO practitioners and researchers, the authors analyze how governance and
strategy are embedded in digital systems. Their findings suggest that design choices in
DAOs influence innovation and user outcomes, showing that decentralization can be
built directly into organizational systems. For my topic, this highlights the need to
expand traditional structure research to include digitally native organizations. Compared
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 10
with Besley and Persson (2024), which focuses on culture and decentralization, this
article provides a technology-based example.
Stanikzai, M. E., & Mittal, E. (2025). Strategic alignment of organizational structure based on
decisions for sustainable organizational performance: A bibliometric-systematic
literature
review. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), Article 2560650.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2560650
Stanikzai and Mittal (2025) review research on how structural decisions such as
centralization, decentralization, and AI-driven governance, support sustainable
performance. They identify patterns connecting decision structures to long-term
outcomes and propose a hybrid decision-making framework. The authors argue that
alignment across levels of the organization strengthens both innovation and efficiency.
They also note that automation and AI are increasingly shaping how decision authority is
distributed. This directly supports my argument that structure should be evaluated in
terms of decision rights and accountability systems, not just organizational charts.
Compared with Joseph and Sengul (2024), this article narrows the focus specifically to
decision architecture and sustainability.
Stei, G., Rossmann, A., & Szász, L. (2024). Leveraging organizational knowledge to develop
agility and improve performance: The role of ambidexterity. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 44(8), 1446–1466.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2023-0274
This study explores whether balancing exploration and exploitation helps organizations
improve performance by increasing agility. The authors test this relationship using
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 11
survey data and show that organizations that manage this balance effectively tend to be
more agile and perform better, especially in competitive environments. This article
provides a clear explanation of how flexible and cross-functional structures can
outperform rigid hierarchies. Compared with Nguyen et al. (2024), which reviews agility
research broadly, this study offers a specific and tested pathway.
Turato, G., Whiteoak, J., & Oprescu, F. (2024). The insights of allied health professionals
transitioning from a matrix structure to a centralized profession-based structure within a
public hospital setting. Journal of Organization Design, 13, 197–212.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-024-00178-w
Turato et al. (2024) study a hospital that transitioned from a matrix structure to a more
centralized, profession-based model. Using a longitudinal case study approach, the
authors analyze employee perceptions and organizational outcomes over several years.
They find that centralization improved accountability, clarified reporting lines, and
enhanced administrative efficiency in this context. Interestingly, morale and workforce
planning also improved after the shift. This reinforces the idea that centralized
structures can outperform matrix designs in settings where clarity and governance are
especially important. Compared with Virollina and Nasution (2023), which emphasize
how matrix structures can support strategic objectives when implemented well, this
article shows that context matters greatly.
Virollina, C., & Nasution, Y. (2023). Analysis of matrix organizational structure implementation in
achieving company strategic objective. International Journal of Social Service and
Research, 3(12), 3037–3047. https://doi.org/10.46799/ijssr.v3i12.608
Literature Review: Annotated Bibliography Assignment 12
Virollina and Nasution (2023) examine how a healthcare organization implemented a
matrix structure and whether it helped achieve strategic objectives. Using interviews
and document analysis within a structured evaluation framework, the authors assess
both strengths and challenges of the matrix design. Their findings suggest that matrix
structures can enhance coordination and synergy across departments, but they also
increase complexity and require strong leadership and communication systems. Without
clear governance, confusion and delays may occur. For my topic, this reinforces the idea
that structural effectiveness depends on implementation and leadership capability.
Compared with Turato et al. (2024), this study highlights the potential benefits of matrix
designs when managed well.
Worren, N., & Cammelli, F. (2025). Role grouping experiments: A new method for studying
organization re-design decisions. Journal of Organization Design, 14, 169–187.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-025-00189-1
Worren and Cammelli (2025) explore how individuals make role-grouping decisions
during organizational redesign. Through experimental methods involving 285
participants, they test how people group roles based on task interdependencies and
compare those decisions to coordination-cost benchmarks.The findings show that even
small increases in task complexity can significantly affect grouping accuracy, suggesting
that leaders may underestimate coordination challenges during redesign efforts. For my
topic, this helps explain why structural changes sometimes fail even when they appear
logical on paper. Misjudging interdependencies can weaken alignment and reduce
performance. Compared with broader review articles, this study focuses on the
microlevel decision-making behind redesign.
