Collaborative Work Management Technologies and Managerial Intensity in U.S. Corporations: An Examination

References

• Acemoglu D, He A, Le Maire D (2022) Eclipse of rent-sharing: The effects of managers’ business education on wages and the labor share in the US and Denmark. Preprint, submitted March 21, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4059303.Google Scholar
• Acemoglu D, Naidu S, Restrepo P, Robinson JA (2019) Democracy does cause growth. J. Political Econom. 127(1):47–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Askin N, Petriglieri G, Lockard J (2016) Tony Hsieh at Zappos: Structure, culture and radical change. INSEAD case study, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Baker AC, Larcker DF, Wang CC (2022) How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates? J. Financial Econom. 144(2):370–395.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron JN, Hannan MT, Burton MD (1999) Building the iron cage: Determinants of managerial intensity in the early years of organizations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 64(4):527–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belenzon S, Hashai N, Patacconi A (2019) The architecture of attention: Group structure and subsidiary autonomy. Strategic Management J. 40(10):1610–1643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Garicano L, Sadun R, Van Reenen J (2014) The distinct effects of information technology and communication technology on firm organization. Management Sci. 60(12):2859–2885.Link, Google Scholar
• Bresnahan TF, Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM (2002) Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. Quart. J. Econom. 117(1):339–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Van Der Vegt GS, Cantimur Y, Rink F (2016) Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Acad. Management J. 59(4):1265–1289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burford N, Shipilov AV, Furr NR (2022) How ecosystem structure affects firm performance in response to a negative shock to interdependencies. Strategic Management J. 43(1):30–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burning Glass Technologies (2019) Mapping the genome of jobs: The Burning Glass skills taxonomy. Working paper, Burning Glass Technologies, Boston.Google Scholar
• Burton RM, Håkonsson DD, Nickerson J, Puranam P, Workiewicz M, Zenger T (2017) GitHub: Exploring the space between boss-less and hierarchical forms of organizing. J. Organ. Design 6(1):10.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caliendo L, Monte F, Rossi-Hansberg E (2015) The anatomy of French production hierarchies. J. Political Econom. 123(4):809–852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Callaway B, Sant’Anna PH (2021) Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. J. Econom. 225(2):200–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cengiz D, Dube A, Lindner A, Zipperer B (2019) The effect of minimum wages on low-wage jobs. Quart. J. Econom. 134(3):1405–1454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandler AD (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Chen C, Suen W (2019) The comparative statics of optimal hierarchies. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 11(2):1–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi J, Menon A, Tabakovic H (2021) Using machine learning to revisit the diversification–performance relationship. Strategic Management J. 42(9):1632–1661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choudhury P, Crowston K, Dahlander L, Minervini MS, Raghuram S (2020) GitLab: Work where you want, when you want. J. Organ. Design 9:23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins PD, Ryan LV, Matusik SF (1999) Programmable automation and the locus of decision-making power. J. Management 25(1):29–53.Google Scholar
• Colombo M, Delmastro M (2008) The Economics of Organizational Design: Theoretical Insights and Empirical Evidence (Palgrave Macmillan, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Csaszar (2021) A note on calculating the average span of control. J. Organ. Design 10:83–84.Google Scholar
• Davenport S, Leitch S (2005) Circuits of power in practice: Strategic ambiguity as delegation of authority. Organ. Stud. 26(11):1603–1623.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deming D, Kahn LB (2018) Skill requirements across firms and labor markets: Evidence from job postings for professionals. J. Labor Econom. 36(S1):S337–S369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drakos N, Mariano J, Gotta M (2023) Market guide for collaborative work management. Accessed September 4, 2024, https://www.gartner.com/document-reader/document/4022601.Google Scholar
• Edwards R (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Eklund JC (2022) The knowledge‐incentive tradeoff: Understanding the relationship between research and development decentralization and innovation. Strategic Management J. 43(12):2478–2509.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Sci. 50(2):159–173.Link, Google Scholar
• Fadhel A, Panella K, Rouen E, Serafeim G (2021) Accounting for employment impact at scale. Harvard Business School Accounting and Management Unit Working Paper No. 22–018, Harvard Business School, Boston. Google Scholar
• Fayol H (1949) General and Industrial Administration (Pitman, New York).Google Scholar
• Felin T (2015) Valve corporation: Strategy tipping points and thresholds. Preprint, submitted January 31, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2558471.Google Scholar
• Foss NJ, Klein PG (2022) Why Managers Matter: The Perils of the Bossless Company (PublicAffairs, New York).Google Scholar
• Freeland RF (2009) The social and legal bases of managerial authority. Bus. History 57(4):194–217.Google Scholar
• Galbraith JR (1974) Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces 4(3):28–36.Link, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Khashabi P, Panico C (2020) Managing autonomy in industrial research and development: A project-level investigation. Organ. Sci. 31(1):165–181.Link, Google Scholar
• Gao J, Merkley KJ, Pacelli J, Schroeder JH (2023) Do internal control weaknesses affect firms’ demand for accounting skills? Evidence from U.S. job postings. Accounting Rev. 98(3):203–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garicano L (2000) Hierarchies and the organization of knowledge in production. J. Political Econom. 108(5):874–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldfarb A, Taska B, Teodoridis F (2023) Could machine learning be a general purpose technology? A comparison of emerging technologies using data from online job postings. Res. Policy 52(1):104653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gormley TA, Matsa DA (2011) Growing out of trouble? Corporate responses to liability risk. Rev. Financial Stud. 24(8):2781–2821.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guadalupe M, Wulf J (2010) The flattening firm and product market competition: The effect of trade liberalization on corporate hierarchies. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 2(4):105–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Lawrence PR, Puranam P (2005) Adaptation in vertical relationships: Beyond incentive conflict. Strategic Management J. 26(5):415–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamel G (2011) First, let’s fire all the managers. Harvard Bus. Rev. 89(12):48–60.Google Scholar
• Harrison JR, Carroll GR (2006) Culture and Demography in Organizations (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hershbein B, Kahn LB (2018) Do recessions accelerate routine-biased technological change? Evidence from vacancy postings. Amer. Econom. Rev. 108(7):1737–1772.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsieh Y-Y, Vergne J-P (2023) The future of the web? The coordination and early‐stage growth of decentralized platforms. Strategic Management J. 44(3):829–857.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsieh Y-Y, Vergne J-P, Anderson P, Lakhani K, Reitzig M (2018) Bitcoin and the rise of decentralized autonomous organizations. J. Organ. Design 7(1):14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iacus SM, King G, Porro G (2012) Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Anal. 20(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Impink SM (2022) General-purpose technologies and differentiation: evidence from startup cloud adoption. Preprint, submitted September 6, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4200675.Google Scholar
• Joseph J, Wilson AJ, Park J, Chow D (2023) Capacity through comprehension: Information processing, mutual understanding, and organization design in healthcare. Working paper, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
• Kellogg KC, Valentine MA, Christin A (2020) Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Acad. Management Ann. 14(1):366–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim CM, Cunningham C, Joseph J (2023) Corporate proximity and product market reentry: The role of corporate headquarters in business unit response to product failure. Acad. Management J. 66(4):1209–1232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koçak Ö, Levinthal DA, Puranam P (2023) The dual challenge of search and coordination for organizational adaptation: How structures of influence matter. Organ Sci. 34(2):851–869.Link, Google Scholar
• Laloux F (2014) Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage in Human Consciousness (Nelson Parker, Millis, MA).Google Scholar
• Langfred CW (2007) The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects tf conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Acad. Management J. 50(4):885–900.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and Environment (Division of Research, Harvard Business School, Boston).Google Scholar
• Lawrence M, Poliquin C (2023) The growth of hierarchy in organizations: Managing knowledge scope. Strategic Management J. 44(13):3155–3184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee S (2022) The myth of the flat start‐up: Reconsidering the organizational structure of start‐ups. Strategic Management J. 43(1):58–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee S, Csaszar FA (2020) Cognitive and structural antecedents of innovation: A large-sample study. Strategy Sci. 5(2):71–97.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee MY, Edmondson AC (2017) Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Res. Organ. Behav. 37:35–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee S, Puranam P (2017) Incentive redesign and collaboration in organizations: Evidence from a natural experiment. Strategic Management J. 38(12):2333–2352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee E, Ilseven E, Puranam P (2023) Scaling nonhierarchically: A theory of conflict‐free organizational growth with limited hierarchical growth. Strategic Management J. 44(12):3042–3064.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leung MD, Liang C, Lourie B, Zhu C (2021) Heterogeneous gender effects of a firm’s environment social governance efforts on employee turnover. Acad. Management Proc., ePub ahead of print July 26, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.15713abstract.Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, Workiewicz M (2018) When two bosses are better than one: Nearly decomposable systems and organizational adaptation. Organ. Sci. 29(2):207–224.Link, Google Scholar
• Li Q, Lourie B, Nekrasov A, Shevlin T (2022) Employee turnover and firm performance: Large-sample archival evidence. Management Sci. 68(8):5667–5683.Link, Google Scholar
• Li K, Mai F, Shen R, Yan X (2021) Measuring corporate culture using machine learning. Rev. Financial Stud. 34(7):3265–3315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCormack A, Rusnak J, Baldwin CY (2006) Exploring the structure of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and proprietary code. Management Sci. 52(7):1015–1030.Link, Google Scholar
• Malone TW (2018) Superminds: The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together (Little, Brown Spark, New York).Google Scholar
• March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Marchetti A, Puranam P (2022) Organizational cultural strength as the negative cross-entropy of mindshare: A measure based on descriptive text. Humanities Soc. Sci. Comm. 9(1):135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martela F (2023) Managers matter less than we think: How can organizations function without any middle management? J. Organ. Design 12(1–2):19–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKinley W (1987) Complexity and administrative intensity: The case of declining organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 32(1):87–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mintzberg H (1973) Nature of Managerial Work (Prentice-Hall, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Mintzberg H (1979) The Structure of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research (Prentice-Hall, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Nandram SS (2016) Organizational Innovation by Integrating Simplification: Learning from Buurtzorg Nederland (Springer, Cham, Switzerland).Google Scholar
• Nickerson JA, Zenger TR (2004) A knowledge-based theory of the firm—The problem-solving perspective. Organ. Sci. 15(6):617–632.Link, Google Scholar
• Noponen N, Feshchenko P, Auvinen T, Luoma-aho V, Abrahamsson P (2024) Taylorism on steroids or enabling autonomy? A systematic review of algorithmic management. Management Rev. Quart. 74:1695–1721.Google Scholar
• Penrose E (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Pondy LR (1969) Effects of size, complexity, and ownership on administrative intensity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 14(1):47–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P (2018) The Microstructure of Organizations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Radner R (1992) Hierarchy: The economics of managing. J. Econom. Literature 30(3):1382–1415.Google Scholar
• Radner R (1993) The organization of decentralized information processing. Econometrica 61(5):1109–1146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rajan RG, Wulf J (2006) The flattening firm: Evidence from panel data on the changing nature of corporate hierarchies. Rev. Econom. Statist. 88(4):759–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rambachan A, Roth J (2023) A more credible approach to parallel trends. Rev. Econom. Stud. 90(5):2555–2591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ravasz E, Barabási AL (2003) Hierarchical organization in complex networks. Phys. Rev. E Statist. Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 67(2 Part 2):026112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raveendran M (2020) Seeds of change: How current structure shapes the type and timing of reorganizations. Strategic Management J. 41(1):27–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raveendran M, Silvestri L, Gulati R (2020) The role of interdependence in the micro-foundations of organization design: Task, goal, and knowledge interdependence. Acad. Management Ann. 14(2):828–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reineke P, Katila R, Eisenhardt KM (2025) Decentralization in organizations: A revolution or a mirage? Acad. Management Ann. 19(1):298–342.Google Scholar
• Reitzig M (2022) Get Better at Flatter: A Guide to Shaping and Leading Organizations with Less Hierarchy (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2007) Patterned interactions in complex systems: Implications for exploration. Management Sci. 53(7):1068–1085.Link, Google Scholar
• Roth J (2022) Pretest with caution: Event-study estimates after testing for parallel trends. Amer. Econom. Rev. Insights 4(3):305–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth J, Sant’Anna PHC, Bilinski A, Poe J (2023) What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature. J. Econometrics 235(2):2218–2244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1996) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management J. 17(S2):63–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schein EH (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Schneider N (2019) Decentralization: An incomplete ambition. J. Cultural Econom. 12(4):265–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schweitzer S, De Cremer D (2024) When being managed by technology: Does algorithmic management affect perceptions of workers’ creative capacities? Acad. Management Discoveries 10(3):375–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seshadri S, Shapira Z, Tucci C (2015) Are flatter organizations more innovative? Hierarchical depth and the importance of ideas. Working paper, Indian School of Business, Mohali, India.Google Scholar
• Shaikh M, Vaast E (2023) Algorithmic interactions in open source work. Inform. Systems Res. 34(2):744–765.Link, Google Scholar
• Shirky C (2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (Penguin Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1947) Administrative Behavior (Simon and Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) New developments in the theory of the firm. Amer. Econom. Rev. 52(2):1–15.Google Scholar
• Srikanth K, Puranam P (2014) The firm as a coordination system: Evidence from software services offshoring. Organ. Sci. 25(4):1253–1271.Link, Google Scholar
• Starbird K, Palen L (2011) “Voluntweeters” self-organizing by digital volunteers in times of crisis. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (CHI ’11) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 1071–1080.Google Scholar
• Stroube B, Dushnitsky G (2023) Built with BuiltWith: A technical note. Preprint, submitted June 10, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4475309.Google Scholar
• The Economist (2015) Digital Taylorism. (September 10), https://www.economist.com/business/2015/09/10/digital-taylorism.Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad. Management Rev. 3(3):613–624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber M (1968) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
• Williamson (1967) Hierarchical control and optimum firm size. J. Political Econom. 75(2):123–138.Google Scholar
• Zhang L (2023) The changing role of managers. Amer. J. Soc. 129(2):439–484.Google Scholar
• Zhou YM (2013) Designing for complexity: Using divisions and hierarchy to manage complex tasks. Organ. Sci. 24(2):339–355.Link, Google Scholar