Enter your answer

the shift and choice of organisational structure from centralised to decentralised is part of a larger problem and one documented by Chandler in his famous thesis regarding the relationship between strategy and structure.

here are some references that may be helpful to you:

Chandler, A.D. Jr. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Hall, D.J. and Saias, M.A. (1980). Strategy Follows Structure! Strategic Management Journal, Vol 1 No 2 (April-June 1980) 149-163

Mintzberg, H. (1990). The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management Strategic Management Journal, Vol 11 No 3 (March-April 1990) 171-195

In my view, a close reading of Chandler shows how his work was based on deep empirical and historical study of organisational evolution such that it is full of insights still useful today

:

Some organizations may "vacillate" between centralized and decentralized organizational structures but it is a surely a stretch of the imagination to think they all do: after all, structure is a function of the original purpose of the organization, or what Peter Drucker called the theory of the business. Indeed, some organizations are designed in decentralized forms to begin: large organizations with diversified products let divisions act with a high degree of autonomy to address particular situations, while the central part of the organization concentrates on the big picture. Henry Mintzberg, for one, distinguished entrepreneurial, machine, professional, diversified, innovative, missionary, and political organizations. To these, one would probably now add networked organizations. The point, down the line, is that not every type of organization necessarily requires decentralization.

Have you found some other examples of firms practicing vacillation as described by Boumgarden et. al. (2012)?