Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Digitalization trends and organizational structure: bureaucracy, ambidexterity or post-bureaucracy?

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Eurasian Business Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nowadays, the vast majority of forward-looking organizations is activating under the imperative of embracing digital transformation. This study aims to contribute to a more fine-grained understanding of the relationship between digitalization and organizing processes, with a particular emphasis on organizational structure. Espousing the bureaucratic, ambidextrous, and post-bureaucratic views of structure based on the individual dimensions of centralization, formalization, skill variety, interdependence and integration, we ask which structural arrangement is more suitable for leveraging the benefits of digitalization. Two consecutive studies were conducted drawing on samples of 117 digital natives and 141 older-generation managers employed by various organizations located in Norway. Our empirical findings provide consistent cross-study support for the relevance of post-bureaucratic structure in the context of digitalization. We highlight the contributions of our research to extant knowledge in the field and discuss specific implications for theory and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, P., Heckscher, C., & Prusak, L. (2011). Building a collaborative enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 89(7–8), 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S. J., Caza, B. B., & Reid, E. M. (2018). From surviving to thriving in the gig economy: A research agenda for individuals in the new world of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, D., Faraj, S., Hinds, P., von Krogh, G., & Leonardi, P. (2019). Special issue of organization science: Emerging technologies and organizing. Organization Science, 30(3), 642–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balda, J. B., & Mora, F. (2011). Adapting leadership theory and practice for the networked, millennial generation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai-Nahon, K., & Mason, R. M. (2010). How executives perceive the next generation. Information, Communication & Society, 13(3), 396–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, C., De Toni, A. F., De Zan, G., & Pessot, E. (2017). Cultivating business model agility through focused capabilities: A multiple case study. Journal of Business Research, 73, 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodolica, V., & Spraggon, M. (2018). An end-to-end process of writing and publishing influential literature review articles: Do’s and don’ts. Management Decision, 56(11), 2472–2486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodolica, V., & Spraggon, M. (2021). Pure structures or ambidextrous configurations? A grounded theory of knowledge-focused organizational design in innovative ventures. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(4), 626–649. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolin, M., & Härenstam, A. (2008). An empirical study of bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic characteristics in 90 workplaces. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 29(4), 541–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagliano, R., Caniato, F., Golini, R., & Longoni, A. (2011). The impact of country culture on the adoption of new forms of work organization. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(3), 297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cenamor, J., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2019). How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital platforms: The roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Research, 100, 196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claggett, J. L., & Karahanna, E. (2018). Unpacking the structure of coordination mechanisms and the role of relational coordination in an era of digitally mediated work processes. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 704–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J., & Puranam, P. (2018). Searching for structure: Formal organization design as a guide to network evolution. Management Science, 64(8), 3879–3895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O., & Parker, G. G. (2018). Introduction – Platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corso, M., Giovannetti, G., Guglielmi, L., & Vaia, G. (2018). Conceiving and implementing the digital organization. In CIOs and the digital transformation (pp. 181–203). Springer

  • Daugherty, P. J., Chen, H., & Ferrin, B. G. (2011). Organizational structure and logistics service innovation. International Journal of Logistics Management, 22(1), 26–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1982). Factors affecting the use of market research information: A path analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), 14–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dischner, S. (2015). Organizational structure, organizational form, and counterproductive work behavior: A competitive test of the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic views. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(4), 501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150(1), 119791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28(1), 62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Micro-foundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1351–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2015). Organizational design correlates of entrepreneurship: The roles of decentralization and formalization for opportunity discovery and realization. Strategic Organization, 13(1), 32–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gekara, V. O., & Nguyen, V. X. (2018). New technologies and the transformation of work and skills: A study of computerization and automation of Australian container terminals. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(3), 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghani, K. A., Jayabalan, V., & Sugumar, M. (2002). Impact of advanced manufacturing technology on organizational structure. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(2), 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G., & Zanini, M. (2018). The end of bureaucracy. Harvard Business Review, 96(6), 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. (2014). Let’s dance! Elastic coordination in creative group work: A qualitative study of modern dancers. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1256–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckscher, C. C. (1994). Defining the post-bureaucratic type. In C. C. Heckscher & A. Donnellon (Eds.), The post bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change (pp. 14–62). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8), 1391–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z. X., & Han, Y. (2012). Team empowerment and the organizational context: Decentralization and the contrasting effects of formalization. Journal of Management, 38(2), 475–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett, S., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). How Gen Y & Boomers will reshape your agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87(7/8), 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). Digital ubiquity: How connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingstad, Ø.S., & Karlsen, J. C. (2016). Structural influences on organizational learning-two case studies of introduction of new technology. Master’s thesis, NTNU

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josserand, E., Teo, S., & Clegg, S. (2006). From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: The difficulties of transition. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(1), 54–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2015). The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(1), 39–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsikea, E., Theodosiou, M., Perdikis, N., & Kehagias, J. (2011). The effects of organizational structure and job characteristics on export sales managers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, S. R., Nixon, A. E., & Nord, W. R. (2017). Examining organic and mechanistic structures: Do we know as much as we thought? International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 531–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. (2016). Leadership in the digital age—a study on the effects of digitalization on top management leadership. Master Thesis, Stockholm Business School

  • Khan, S. J., & Mir, A. A. (2019). Ambidextrous culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovations: The role of organizational slack and environmental factors. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(4), 652–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoreva, V., Vaiman, V., Bondarouk, T., & Salojärvi, S. (2019). Exploring the influence of digitalization on global talent management. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 10238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotlarsky, J., van den Hooff, B., & Houtman, L. (2015). Are we on the same page? Knowledge boundaries and transactive memory system development in cross-functional teams. Communication Research, 42(3), 319–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2011). Innovative organizations: Structure, learning, and adaptation. DIME Final Conference, 6, 8–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudien, S. M., & Pesch, R. (2019). Understanding the influence of digitalization on service firm business model design: A qualitative-empirical analysis. Review of Managerial Science, 13(3), 575–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. Y., Kozlenkova, I. V., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Structural marketing: Using organizational structure to achieve marketing objectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 73–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T., Drews, P., et al. (2017). Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering community. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(4), 301–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, D. Y., & Liu, J. (2014). Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2793–2799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Germain, R., & Krotov, K. (2019). Performance effects of technological dynamism: Private vs. state enterprises in Russia. Journal of East-West Business, 25(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maravelias, C. (2003). Post-bureaucracy–control through professional freedom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(5), 547–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 141–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, R., & Gupta, P. (2002). Comparing the manufacturing strategies of Australian firms with their European counterparts. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(12), 1411–1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meske, C., & Junglas, I. (2020). Investigating the elicitation of employees’ support towards digital workplace transformation. Behavior & Information Technology, 39(4), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihalache, O. R., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2014). Top management team shared leadership and organizational ambidexterity: A moderated mediation framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(2), 128–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustafa, G., Glavee-Geo, R., Gronhaug, K., & Saber Almazrouei, H. (2019). Structural impacts on formation of self-efficacy and its performance effects. Sustainability, 11(3), 860–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(4), 753–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nylén, D., & Holmström, J. (2015). Digital innovation strategy: A framework for diagnosing and improving digital product and service innovation. Business Horizons, 58(1), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberg, A., & Walgenbach, P. (2008). Hierarchical structures of communication in a network organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(3), 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Socio-materiality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M., Kääriäinen, J., & Teppola, S. (2017). Tackling the digitalization challenge: How to benefit from digitalization in practice. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 5(1), 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., & Claver-Cortés, E. (2010). Can formalization, complexity, and centralization influence knowledge performance? Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 310–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2015). How smart, connected products are transforming companies. Harvard Business Review, 93(10), 96–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangus, K., & Slavec, A. (2017). The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and absorptive capacity on firms’ innovation and business performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, D. (2016). The digital transformation playbook: rethink your business for the digital age. Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rolandsson, B., Dølvik, J. E., Hedenus, A., Steen, J. R., Ilsøe, A., Larsen, T. P., et al. (2019). Digitalization in Nordic manufacturing: Some case-study illustrations. Nordic future of work project 2017–2020, working paper, 3

  • Salleh, N. A. M., Rohde, F., & Green, P. (2017). Information systems enacted capabilities and their effects on SMEs’ information systems adoption behavior. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(3), 332–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 179–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, R. (2000). New product quality and product development teams. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16(2), 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. C., Fjeldstad, Ø. D., & Langer, A. M. (2017). Designing the digital organization. Journal of Organization Design, 6(1), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2018). Information technology, knowledge management and environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation ambidexterity: A study in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 824–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2008). Knowledge creation processes in small innovative hi-tech firms. Management Research Review, 31(11), 879–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2012). A multidimensional taxonomy of knowledge transfer processes. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1273–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2017). Collective tacit knowledge generation through play: Integrating socially distributed cognition and transactive memory systems. Management Decision, 55(1), 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2018). A practice-based framework for understanding (informal) play as practice phenomena in organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(6), 846–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2021). On the heterogeneity and equifinality of knowledge transfer in small innovative organizations. Management Decision, 59(6), 1421–1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stank, T. P., Keller, S. B., & Daugherty, P. J. (2001). Supply chain collaboration and logistical service performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Styhre, A., & Lind, F. (2010). The softening bureaucracy: Accommodating new research opportunities in the entrepreneurial university. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verle, K., Markič, M., Kodrič, B., & Zoran, A. G. (2014). Managerial competencies and organizational structures. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(6), 922–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1958). Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilden, R., Gudergan, S. P., Nielsen, B. B., & Lings, I. (2013). Dynamic capabilities and performance: Strategy, structure and environment. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 72–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C. Y., Boon-Itt, S., & Wong, C. W. (2011). The contingency effects of environmental uncertainty on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 604–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, L., Cui, N., Qualls, W., & Zhang, L. (2017). How socialization tactics affect supplier-buyer co-development performance in exploratory and exploitative projects: The mediating effects of cooperation and collaboration. Journal of Business Research, 78, 242–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeow, A., Soh, C., & Hansen, R. (2018). Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yunis, M., Tarhini, A., & Kassar, A. (2018). The role of ICT and innovation in enhancing organizational performance: The catalyzing effect of corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 88, 344–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zammuto, R. F., Griffith, T. L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D. J., & Faraj, S. (2007). Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 749–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Møre and Romsdal Fylke Komune (2018-0036), and Regional Forskning Fond (RFF), Møre and Romsdal, Norway (296449).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Business, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, PO Box 1517, 6025, Aalesund, Norway

    Ghulam Mustafa, Hans Solli-Sæther & Jon Ivar Håvold

  2. The Said T. Khoury Chair of Leadership Studies, School of Business Administration, American University of Sharjah, PO Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

    Virginia Bodolica

  3. Østfold University College, Halden, Norway

    Anam Ilyas

Authors
  1. Ghulam Mustafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans Solli-Sæther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Virginia Bodolica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jon Ivar Håvold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anam Ilyas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginia Bodolica.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mustafa, G., Solli-Sæther, H., Bodolica, V. et al. Digitalization trends and organizational structure: bureaucracy, ambidexterity or post-bureaucracy?. Eurasian Bus Rev 12, 671–694 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-021-00196-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-021-00196-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation