Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Create an outline from the attached literature review similar to the outline example provided. Outline must include:  Title page.  Abstract.  Introduction  Findi - Writingforyou

Create an outline from the attached literature review similar to the outline example provided.  Outline must include:   Title page.  Abstract.  Introduction  Findi

Create an outline from the attached literature review similar to the outline example provided.  Outline must include: 

 Title page.
 Abstract.
 Introduction
 Findings
 Conclusions, recommendations, and suggestions for further study
 References.

In the findings section, there must be main headings and subheadings of the material that will be
discussed.  Assignment must be in APA format



The literature review critically engages with the domain of chaos theory, elucidating its profound implications for the architecture and functionality of organizational structures. At the heart of chaos theory lies the exploration of complex systems, meticulously dissecting their sensitivity to initial conditions and the emergence of discernible patterns within seemingly stochastic phenomena. This theoretical framework posits that contrary to the disorderly facade, there is an intrinsic order and pattern to systems traditionally perceived as random and chaotic. Subverting the orthodoxy, chaos theory posits that chaotic systems, despite their apparent unpredictability, harbor nuanced, discernible patterns that can be rigorously analyzed and leveraged across a spectrum of fields, including but not limited to organizational design and strategic management. This scholarly inquiry endeavors to provide an exhaustive analysis of chaos theory's applicability in interpreting organizational behavior, decision-making processes, and the quintessential dynamics of modern entities. The aspiration is to furnish a nuanced comprehension of how incorporating chaos theory principles can equip organizations to adeptly navigate and prosper within the capricious and often tumultuous terrains of the contemporary corporate milieu.

Leveraging chaos theory within organizational contexts is predicated on its potential to decode the complex interplay of factors that govern organizational behavior. The theory's emphasis on nonlinearity and feedback loops offers a robust framework for understanding how organizations respond to external and internal stimuli, often in ways that are not immediately apparent or linear in causation. By acknowledging the fractal nature of organizational dynamics—wherein similar patterns recur at various scales—leaders and managers can better anticipate and respond to emerging trends and disruptions. Furthermore, chaos theory's acknowledgment of the 'butterfly effect'—where small changes can have significant consequences—underscores the importance of strategic foresight and meticulous attention to the organizational environment. Through this lens, decision-making is viewed as a delicate balance between adaptability and predictability, requiring a nuanced approach sensitive to the initial conditions and potential bifurcation points that could lead to vastly different outcomes. This review synthesizes empirical and theoretical contributions that delineate the application of chaos theory to organizational studies, illustrating its relevance and potential to enhance resilience and innovation in a landscape characterized by volatility and complexity.

Chaos Theory in Organizational Design


Organizations are multifaceted constructs that perpetually strive to devise strategic configurations to accommodate the fluidity of the commercial ecosystem. The ascendancy of chaos theory has been marked by its utility in dissecting and mastering organizational frameworks' intrinsic convolution and capriciousness. Originating from the mathematical study of unpredictable and complex systems, chaos theory provides a vantage point for scrutinizing the behavior of such systems, accentuating the pronounced impact of initial conditions and the discernible deterministic patterns that emerge amidst ostensibly stochastic processes. This reconceptualization of randomness challenges the notion of utter disorder, revealing instead a tapestry woven with intricate structures and mathematical constants that govern the ebbs and flows of dynamic systems. Through this literature review, we traverse the core tenets of chaos theory, extrapolating their relevance to organizational architecture. The discourse navigates through the tribulations of contemporary structures, offers a retrospective glance at historical trajectories, and elucidates pivotal structural elements that sway organizational design and adaptability.

In the intricate landscape of hospitality and tourism, Altinay and Arici (2022) provide a compelling argument for applying chaos theory to comprehend and navigate the complexities of service marketing structures. Their work posits that the hospitality industry's marketing paradigms are undergoing a significant transformation, which is increasingly dynamic and sensitive to initial conditions—characteristics indicative of chaotic systems. By adopting a chaos theory perspective, they argue that marketers can better understand and respond to the unpredictable variations that influence customer behaviors and preferences. This approach enables a more nuanced appreciation of the nonlinear interactions within the hospitality sector, facilitating the development of more agile and responsive marketing strategies.

Complementing this perspective, Altinay and Kozak (2021) further explore chaos theory's applicability to destination competitiveness in the tourism industry. Their 'butterfly competitiveness model' underscores the delicate interplay of variables that can lead to large-scale changes in destination attractiveness and competitiveness. This model illuminates how small, often overlooked factors can disproportionately affect a destination's appeal, echoing the sensitive dependence on initial conditions that is a hallmark of chaos theory. Together, these studies underscore chaos theory's valuable insights in decoding the complexities of marketing and competitiveness within the volatile realms of hospitality and tourism management.


Addressing Modern Organizational Challenges through Chaos Theory

Current Challenges in Organizational Design

Decoding and addressing the diverse and complex challenges inherent in modern organizational ecosystems is critical to crafting structures emblematic of durability and skill. Within the whirlwind of the contemporary commercial sphere, entities are compelled to maneuver through an abyss of volatility, propelled by rapid technological evolution, the escalation of global interconnectedness, and the fluidity of consumer inclinations. The imperative to engineer and sustain organizational infrastructures capable of enduring but flourishing in the face of these relentless fluctuations stands as a cardinal quest for academics and industry connoisseurs. Through this lens, the pursuit of knowledge and strategic innovation in organizational design becomes not merely academic but a vital, applied science aimed at equipping entities to prosper in an era of ceaseless transformation.

The intricate relationship between chaos theory and organizational design is elucidated through a synthesis of scholarly works investigating the underpinnings and applications of this dynamic theory within the context of institutional structures and processes. Ganz (2023) explores the nuanced art of institutional design amidst conflict and chaos, suggesting that the unpredictability inherent in chaotic systems can inform more resilient and adaptable organizational frameworks. This perspective aligns with the insights of Keyes and Benavides (2018), who reflect on the lessons learned from the Ebola crisis in Dallas, advocating for a chaos theory-informed approach to organizational learning and decision-making in the face of uncertainty.

Moreover, de Souza and Kuniyoshi (2020) offer a comparative analysis between chaos theory and innovation processes, highlighting the potential for chaos theory to enhance our understanding of the innovation trajectory within complex organizational systems. Their work suggests that recognizing the chaotic elements of innovation can lead to more sophisticated and robust models of organizational change. In tandem, Zein Eddine (2021) reviews the contemporary organizational reality through the lens of chaos theory, providing a comprehensive overview of how this theory can be applied to dissect and navigate the complexities of modern organizational life. Together, these scholarly contributions underscore the significance of chaos theory as a powerful analytic and diagnostic tool for designing both flexible and robust organizations in the face of an ever-evolving and uncertain global business environment.

Chaos Theory as a Response to Organizational Challenges

Chaos Theory, with its foundation in nonlinear dynamics, offers a distinctive lens through which to interpret and navigate organizational complexities. Malka (2021) posits that this paradigm encourages entities to reconceptualize uncertainty and apparent disorder as conduits for innovation and advancement rather than impediments. Through this framework, organizations are compelled to cultivate agility, foreseeing and swiftly adapting to the vicissitudes of their environment, aware that even minute variations can precipitate profound impacts. This approach aids enterprises in reconfiguring unpredictability into strategic advantages, fostering a milieu of perpetual adaptation and learning. Consequently, the integration of Chaos Theory principles into organizational planning emerges as a tactical maneuver to counter the contemporary business arena's intricacies, equipping corporations to endure and flourish amidst relentless flux and ambiguity.Top of FormBottom of Form

Chaos Theory and Organizational Structure

Structural Dimensions and Contingency Factors

Within organizational theory, the structural dimensions—encompassing hierarchy, the distribution of authority, and the degree of formalization—are instrumental in navigating an organization's intricate environments. Chaos theory calls into question the efficacy of conventional, inflexible organizational models, advocating for a paradigm shift towards more malleable and adaptive structures. Such a shift is particularly pertinent in the current era of swift and unpredictable business climate changes, where static frameworks often struggle to match the pace of innovation and transformation. Altinay and Arici (2022) underscore the alignment of organic organizational structures with the tenets of chaos theory. These structures are characterized by agility, decentralized decision-making, and an accentuated reliance on horizontal communication channels. They are expressly designed to accommodate unexpected market fluctuations, technological advancements, and consumer behavioral shifts, enabling organizations to realign their strategic orientation rapidly and efficiently.

Altinay and Arici (2022) and Altinay and Kozak (2021) converge on applying chaos theory in the hospitality industry, asserting its efficacy in unveiling the underlying market dynamics and destination competitiveness patterns. The former delineates the transformational impact of this theory on service marketing structures, advocating for adaptive strategies in an industry buffeted by fluctuating consumer preferences and global trends. The latter introduces the 'butterfly competitiveness model,' illustrating how minor strategic alterations can precipitate significant shifts in a destination's appeal. Together, these studies highlight chaos theory's role as a critical analytical framework for developing agile marketing strategies and enhancing destination attractiveness in the inherently unpredictable hospitality sector.

Contingency Factors in Chaotic Environments

In the discourse of organizational design, evaluating contingency factors such as organizational size, technological infrastructure, and environmental volatility is paramount. Altinay and Kozak (2021) suggest that the scale of the enterprise influences its structural proclivities; smaller firms often gravitate towards organic systems that foster agility and ingenuity, whereas larger organizations may grapple with the inertia of entrenched bureaucracies. The nature of the technology employed can further enable or constrain such organizational flexibility. Organic designs, characterized by their adaptability, are more apt to flourish in turbulent environments where change is perpetual. Chaos theory thus compels leaders to critically reflect on these contingencies, advocating for a malleable and insightful approach to organizational structure that is capable of not only enduring but also capitalizing on the tumultuous nature of the contemporary business landscape, as Keyes and Benavides (2018) underscore.

Ganz (2023) and de Souza & Kuniyoshi (2020) both investigate the profound implications of chaos theory on organizational design and innovation. Ganz's work delves into how organizations can harness the principles of chaos theory to navigate conflict and uncertainty, advocating for institutional designs that thrive on the unpredictability inherent in chaotic environments. This approach calls for a radical rethinking of traditional organizational structures, making a case for more adaptable and dynamic systems that respond to change with innovative strategies. In a complementary vein, de Souza and Kuniyoshi's comparative study draws parallels between chaos theory and the innovation process, suggesting that the nonlinear and often unpredictable nature of innovation can benefit from chaos theory's insights into the dynamics of complex systems. Their research underscores the potential for chaos theory to inform and enhance the innovation processes within organizations, enabling them to be more responsive to the rapid shifts that characterize the modern business landscape. Together, these studies underscore the value of applying chaos theory to organizational design and innovation, highlighting the theory's potential to foster resilience and adaptability in the face of constant change.

Historical Perspectives on Organizational Design

From Traditional to Chaotic

The paradigm of organizational design has been in a state of perpetual evolution, adapting to the shifting difficulties and intricacies of the commercial sphere. Daft (2010) traces the lineage of organizational structures, noting their genesis in classical management theories, which venerated bureaucratic, hierarchical systems optimized for efficiency and uniformity. Such configurations were emblematic of the industrial era when business operations were characterized by repetitiveness and predictability. However, Oestreicher (2007) observes that as the commercial landscape burgeoned in complexity, particularly with the advent of the information age, these rigid and monolithic structures proved to be increasingly obsolete. In the contemporary era, marked by rapid technological change and economic interconnectivity, the demand for more flexible, adaptive organizational models has become paramount, reflecting a departure from the static frameworks of yesteryear.

The contemporary organizational discourse is enriched by insights from chaos theory, as explored by de Souza and Kuniyoshi (2020), who examine its synergy with the innovation process, positing that the unpredictability and nonlinearity espoused by chaos theory can significantly inform and enhance the mechanisms of innovation within organizations. This theoretical intersection advocates for a paradigm where flexibility and adaptability are beneficial and essential for organizational growth and survival. Complementarily, Ganz (2023) addresses the application of chaos theory to institutional design, particularly in contexts marred by conflict, underscoring the theory's utility in crafting resilient organizational structures in the face of turbulence. This scholarship collectively encourages a reconceptualization of organizational design to be less about rigid control and more about thriving within the inherent disorder of the modern business environment, thereby leveraging chaos not as a detriment but as a catalyst for institutional learning and evolution.

Role of Chaos Theory in Organizational Evolution

The integration of chaos theory into organizational design heralds a profound shift in paradigmatic thinking, as articulated by Zein Eddine (2021). This theoretical framework underscores the importance of adaptability and responsiveness, advocating for the emergence of dynamic, self-organizing systems adept at navigating the flux inherent in contemporary business landscapes. Oestreicher (2007) reflects on this evolution, highlighting the departure from rigid, deterministic structures towards ones that embrace the unpredictable nature of global markets, rapid technological innovation, and shifting societal norms. Keyes and Benavides (2018) further reinforce this perspective, positing that organizational agility and the capacity to pivot swiftly in response to mercurial market dynamics are advantageous and essential for sustained success in today's volatile economic climate.

The intricate nature of organizational dynamics, as explored through the prism of chaos theory by Keyes and Benavides (2018), reveals the criticality of embracing uncertainty and leveraging it as a catalyst for organizational learning and growth. Their analysis of the Ebola incident in Dallas underscores the necessity for institutions to foster learning environments that can adapt to unforeseen challenges. Complementing this perspective, Daft (2021) advocates for a paradigm that transcends traditional hierarchies in favor of more fluid and resilient structural designs in his seminal work on organizational theory and design. This aligns with the views of Malka (2021), who considers the inherent conflicts within organizations as opportunities for innovation, suggesting that chaos, rather than being a disruptive force, can engender constructive change and development. Together, these works underscore a pivotal shift in organizational design from rigid, predetermined structures to more adaptive, chaos-informed frameworks that can thrive amidst the complexities of the contemporary business environment.

Organizational Configurations

Organic Versus Mechanistic

The contrast of organic versus mechanistic organizational structures, as reframed by the principles of Chaos Theory, underscores an essential dichotomy in organizational design. Ganz (2023) posits that organic structures, characterized by their collaborative ethos, imaginative problem-solving, and decentralized decision-making, embody a level of agility and flexibility indispensable in environments marked by volatility and continuous change. The inherent malleability of organic configurations is their forte, enabling rapid adaptation to evolving circumstances—an attribute of paramount importance in today's unpredictable and fluid business terrains. Conversely, mechanical structures, with stringent procedural directives and rigid hierarchical constructs, are tailored to provide stability, control, and operational efficiency. Their rigidity, which might be a liability in a turbulent context, becomes an asset in static and predictable settings where consistency and uniformity are the keys to optimal performance.

In exploring organizational design within the framework of chaos theory, Daft (2021) provides a comprehensive understanding of how organizations can be structured to manage complexity and thrive in unpredictable environments. The principles of chaos theory suggest that amidst the apparent disorder, underlying patterns can be harnessed to foster innovation and resilience. This concept is further examined by Malka (2021), who posits that conflict, often perceived as a destructive force, can be transformed through chaos theory into an opportunity for organizational growth and learning. Oestreicher (2007) traces the development of chaos theory, underscoring its application beyond the natural sciences and into the social sciences, providing valuable insights for organizational theory and the design of adaptive and robust systems. Together, these works contribute to a nuanced understanding of the role of chaos in shaping organizational structures and strategies, advocating for a design that is responsive to change and capable of leveraging chaos for positive transformation.

Hybrid Organizational Structures

Ganz (2023) posits that contemporary enterprises stand to benefit from a blended organizational design that synergistically integrates the strengths of both organic and mechanical models. As elucidated by Daft (2021), this hybrid structure embraces the fluidity and inventiveness necessary to respond to environmental flux while incorporating aspects of stability and command essential for maintaining operational continuity. By calibrating this flexibility to the specific demands of the prevailing circumstances, organizations can navigate complex landscapes with a more nuanced and productive approach, enhancing their capacity to manage the multifaceted challenges of the modern business ecosystem.

Efficiency, Effectiveness and Stakeholder Approach

Measuring Efficiency and Effectiveness and a Stakeholder-Centric Approach

Efficiency and effectiveness serve as critical metrics in evaluating organizational success, benchmarks historically quantified through linear cause-and-effect paradigms. However, chaos theory heralds a significant paradigmatic shift towards a more holistic and inclusive stakeholder approach. As de Souza & Kuniyoshi (2020) articulate, this approach acknowledges the complex web of interrelations and the inherently dynamic constitution of organizational systems. It redefines efficiency and effectiveness, expanding its scope to encompass a broader stakeholder spectrum's multifaceted influences and interests. Daft (2021) emphasizes the importance of understanding the impact of chaos theory on the metrics and mechanisms driving the achievement of organizational objectives. By adopting this expanded viewpoint, organizations can more adeptly steer through the intricacies of their operational contexts, tailor their strategies to align with the nuanced requirements of stakeholders, and thus bolster their performance and resilience amidst the ever-shifting landscapes of contemporary business.

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Suggestions for Further Study

Chaos theory's burgeoning influence on organizational design represents a critical pivot in strategic business thinking. Daft (2021) illuminates the possibilities that chaos theory's principles offer for enhancing adaptability, resilience, and innovation within organizational structures. De Souza & Kuniyoshi (2020) further posit that this paradigmatic shift can empower organizations to transmute the inherent uncertainty of their operating environments into a catalyst for creative and flexible responses. This literature review corroborates the notion that integrating chaos theory into the fabric of organizational design is indispensable for successfully navigating the intricacies of the modern business landscape, enabling a proactive stance towards change, and augmenting overall efficacy in dynamic settings.

Pourasad et al. (2021) advocate for an organizational culture steeped in experimentation and learning that leverages unpredictability as a springboard for innovation. Recommendations for organizations include fostering an environment conducive to inventive thinking and calculated risk-taking, thus catalyzing the emergence of novel solutions. Promoting employee autonomy is underscored as a mechanism for expediting decision-making in response to evolving conditions. Moreover, adopting malleable structural designs ensures organizations maintain agility and resilience amidst incessant environmental fluctuations. Future research endeavors should delve into the practical implementation of chaos theory within specific industrial contexts and examine the pivotal role of leadership in orchestrating chaos-informed management strategies, thereby enriching the discourse on chaos theory's application in organizational design.


Altinay, L., & Arici, H. E. (2022). Transformation of the Hospitality Services Marketing Structure: A chaos theory perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 36(5), 658–673.

Altinay, L., & Kozak, M. (2021). Revisiting destination competitiveness through chaos theory: The butterfly competitiveness model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49, 331–340.

Daft, R. L. (2021). Organization Theory & Design (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.

de Souza, C. L., Kuniyoshi, M. S., & Freitas, A. B. (2021). Comparative study between chaos theory and the innovation process. Pensamento & Realidade, 35(3), 129–138.

Ganz, S. C. (2023). Conflict, chaos, and the art of Institutional Design. Organization Science.

Keyes, L. M., & Benavides, A. D. (2018). Chaos theory, uncertainty, and organizational learning. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 21(4), 226–241.

Malka, S. C. (2021). On the blessings that chaos brings: A closer look at conflict through the lens of Chaos Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal, 7(1), 1–17.

Oestreicher, C. (2007). A history of chaos theory. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 9(3), 279–289.

Pourasad, Y., Ranjbarzadeh, R., & Mardani, A. (2021). A new algorithm for Digital Image Encryption based on Chaos Theory. Entropy, 23(3), 341.

Zein Eddine, I. R. (2021). Contemporary organizational reality through the eyes of chaos theory: A literature review. BAU Journal – Health and Wellbeing, 4(1).




BUS 610 Organizational Design and Structure

Organizational Design and Structure: Management and Leadership

Student Name

Date of Submission

Respectfully submitted to: Dr. Clifton Howell

Management and Leadership


a. In all of classical and theory on management, the span of control, including management, supervision, authority and leadership, are critical factors in organizational success (Mena & Chen, 2011, p. 1).

b. A successful organizational design and structure requires both managers and leaders.


a. Organizational Design

i. According to John Price (2013), there is no generally accepted definition of design and depending on the field, the term has different connotations.

ii. However, even with a lack of agreement on a definition, there are many great leaders that continue to believe that organizational design is an essential element of organizational success (Price, 2013).

iii. Organizational design has multiple components; however strategy is one of the most important factors (Daft, 2013, p. 69).

iv. It is important to select design characteristics, for example efficiency, learning, balanced mix (Daft, 2013, p. 69).

v. Organizational design is the intent, the process, and the desired outcome (Price, 2013).

vi. In applying the idea of leadership to organizational design, an organizational leader “has a design (intent) to design (plan, process) the design (product, structure)” (Price, 2013).

b. Organizational Structure

i. Organizational structure is created when employees are subdivided into units and divisions in a formal manager so they can focus their efforts on a required task for a company (Spector, 2013 p. 127).

ii. Developing an organizational structure provides managers a tool to make the organization more effective based upon the various demands of the organization (Daft, 2013, p. 131).

iii. Companies need to select the best structure to meet its current needs, whe3ther that is efficiency and vertical control or perhaps the organization is in a place where it requires horizontal coordination and innovation (Daft, 2013, p. 131).

iv. Vertical control and horizontal coordination

v. Must accomplish two goals for an organization:

1. Framework of responsibilities, reporting relationship, and groups (Daft, 2013, p. 133).

2. Provides a mechanism to link and coordinate the organizational elements into a cohesive whole (Daft, 2013, p. 133)

vi. Types of organizational structure

1. Functional

a. A functional structure is best used with an organization is in need of coordination through vertical hierarchy (Daft, 2013, p. 131).

b. A functional structure is more internally focused (Spector, 2013, p. 132).

c. Typically, smaller or start up organizations adopt a functional structure whereby employees with similar job designs are groups together in functional departments (Spector, 2013, p. 128).

d. Functional structures seek economies of scale (Spector, 2013, p. 132).

e. It is also important when trying to meet organization goals and when an organization uses task specialization and has a strict chain of command for the efficient use of scare resources (Daft, 2013, p. 131).

f. However, a functional structure is limiting because it lacks flexibility an innovation (Daft, 2013, p. 131).

g. Functional structure is also known as traditional vertical decision making and is an organi