Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance

Examining types of Organizational Structure in... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690" }, "headline": "Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their...", "datePublished": "2025-07-14T14:38:37", "dateModified": "2026-03-11T06:07:29", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Turyamureeba silaji" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Zulaihatu Lawal Bagiwa" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Tukur Muhammad" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background This study examines the types of organizational structures in privately chartered universities in Western Uganda and how these structures impact academic staff performance. Grounded in Henri Fayol’s Administrative Management Theory and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, this study integrates structural and motivational perspectives to explore the impact of institutional design on academic operations. Method A concurrent triangulation research design was employed to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches. Data were collected from 186 academic staff members using structured questionnaires and 10 academic deans through in-depth interviews. Results Quantitative findings revealed that functional and hierarchical structures were the most common, with 55.4% of respondents reporting highly centralized decision-making and 42.5% reporting poor communication flow. A significant positive correlation was observed between organizational structure and academic staff performance (r = 0.512, p < 0.01). Regression analysis showed that organizational structure explained 26.2% of the variance in academic staff performance (R2 = 0.262, F (1, 184) = 65.46, p < 0.001). Qualitative data supported these results, with participants highlighting that rigid and bureaucratic structures limit flexibility, innovation, and collaboration, whereas excessive centralization undermines academic autonomy (Yusoff & Isa, 2021). Conclusion The study concludes that, while traditional structures dominate private chartered universities, they often hinder academic performance. To enhance staff effectiveness, universities should adopt adaptive and participatory structures (Berkowitz, 2023). Aligning Fayol’s principles of work specialization, centralization, and communication flow with Vroom’s motivational framework offers a strategic path for organizational improvement. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1", "name": "Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities..." } } ] } Home Browse Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article silaji T, Bagiwa ZL and Muhammad T. Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164151.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] Turyamureeba silaji https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9807-6630 1 , Zulaihatu Lawal Bagiwa 1 , Tukur Muhammad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1343-2884 2 Turyamureeba silaji https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9807-6630 1 , Zulaihatu Lawal Bagiwa 1 , Tukur Muhammad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1343-2884 2 PUBLISHED 14 Jul 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda 2 Department of Science, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Bushenyi, Western Campus, Uganda Turyamureeba silaji Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing Zulaihatu Lawal Bagiwa Roles: Supervision Tukur Muhammad Roles: Supervision OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background This study examines the types of organizational structures in privately chartered universities in Western Uganda and how these structures impact academic staff performance. Grounded in Henri Fayol’s Administrative Management Theory and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, this study integrates structural and motivational perspectives to explore the impact of institutional design on academic operations. Method A concurrent triangulation research design was employed to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches. Data were collected from 186 academic staff members using structured questionnaires and 10 academic deans through in-depth interviews. Results Quantitative findings revealed that functional and hierarchical structures were the most common, with 55.4% of respondents reporting highly centralized decision-making and 42.5% reporting poor communication flow. A significant positive correlation was observed between organizational structure and academic staff performance (r = 0.512, p < 0.01). Regression analysis showed that organizational structure explained 26.2% of the variance in academic staff performance (R 2 = 0.262, F (1, 184) = 65.46, p < 0.001). Qualitative data supported these results, with participants highlighting that rigid and bureaucratic structures limit flexibility, innovation, and collaboration, whereas excessive centralization undermines academic autonomy (Yusoff & Isa, 2021). Conclusion The study concludes that, while traditional structures dominate private chartered universities, they often hinder academic performance. To enhance staff effectiveness, universities should adopt adaptive and participatory structures (Berkowitz, 2023). Aligning Fayol’s principles of work specialization, centralization, and communication flow with Vroom’s motivational framework offers a strategic path for organizational improvement. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Organizational Structure; Academic Staff Performance; Private Universities; Uganda Corresponding Author(s) Turyamureeba silaji ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Turyamureeba silaji Competing interests: The author is currently affiliated with the Kampala International University and is conducting this research as part of an ongoing PhD thesis. While this affiliation facilitated access to some study participants and institutions, every effort was made to ensure objectivity and academic rigor throughout the research process. The author declares no other competing interests. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 silaji T et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: silaji T, Bagiwa ZL and Muhammad T. Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164151.1 ) First published: 14 Jul 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164151.1 ) Latest published: 11 Mar 2026, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164151.3 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four-frame model has been empirically shown to influence organizational effectiveness in academic settings. Studies applying their framework demonstrate that universities employing a balanced approach across structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames report higher faculty satisfaction, improved collaboration, and enhanced performance outcomes. For example, institutions that integrate structural clarity with supportive human resource practices and inclusive decision-making tend to foster better academic staff engagement and productivity. This empirical evidence underscores the importance of multifaceted organizational designs in optimizing academic staff performance. Organizational structure plays a critical role in shaping the internal operations of education institutions ( Akinyele & Fasogbon (2019) ). In private universities, the type of organizational structure adopted directly influences academic staff performance in terms of teaching, research, and administration. The structure defines authority lines, communication flows, decision-making processes, and division of labor, all of which have a bearing on staff efficiency and productivity. In Western Uganda, private universities have adopted various organizational structures, ranging from hierarchical to functional and, more recently, matrix-based models. This study seeks to determine the types of organizational structures in use within privately chartered universities in Western Uganda and explore how these structures impact academic staff performance. Understanding the dominant structures and their effects on staff will help inform strategies for improving performance and fostering academic excellence. Literature review Grounded in Henri Fayol’s Administrative Management Theory, as introduced by Fayol (1949) , and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, developed by Vroom (1964) , this study integrates structural and motivational perspectives to explore the impact of institutional design on academic operations. Fayol’s theory emphasizes principles such as specialization, authority, and clear hierarchical structures, while Vroom’s model links motivation to expected outcomes, suggesting that organizational structure can directly influence staff motivation and performance. Additionally, Clegg et al. (2016) argue that organizational structures are not merely administrative tools but are embedded in power dynamics and cultural contexts that influence how staff engage with their institutions. By combining these theoretical lenses, the study offers a comprehensive framework for understanding how the structural design of universities affects academic staff effectiveness. Several scholars, including Atwebembeire et al. (2018a , b ), Malunda (2019) , Birungi et al. (2021) , Emuron et al. (2022) , Adyanga et al. (2022) , Kamanzi (n.d.) , and Kansiime and Singh (2023) , identified persistent gaps in teaching, research output, and evaluation criteria—factors crucial to the sustainability of private universities. While these studies employed various research designs, they primarily relied on quantitative approaches to assess academic staff performance. The current study addressed this methodological gap by adopting a mixed-methods research design, enabling a more comprehensive analysis of the issues. Similar findings were reported by Mugizi, Silaji, and Abba (2018) , who emphasized that the structure and governance of institutions significantly affect staff morale and commitment. Their study contributed to the understanding of how centralization and rigid control mechanisms often hinder staff performance. Likewise, Mugizi, Mujuni, and Dafiewhare (2019a) highlighted that internal performance mechanisms, particularly those involving feedback and recognition, were inadequately implemented in private institutions—reinforcing the need for this study’s focus on performance monitoring. According to Nuwatuhaire and Turyamureeba (2019) , private universities in Uganda often struggle with aligning organizational structure and staff performance frameworks, which has led to inconsistencies in institutional output and staff engagement. Atwebembeire and Malunda (2019) underscored the urgent need for performance evaluation systems that align with strategic goals and promote academic excellence. Their work supported the rationale for this study’s investigation into the influence of performance monitoring. Additionally, Rwothumio and Amwine (2021) noted that management practices, especially those related to workload distribution and staff appraisal systems, had a direct impact on staff satisfaction and output in private universities. Turyamureeba (2019) also examined staff evaluation methods and found them to be sporadic and lacking transparency—an observation that informed this study’s emphasis on performance monitoring mechanisms. Although Marisa and Oigo (2018) explored organizational structures in East African private universities, their findings remained largely descriptive and did not fully address the connection between structural design and academic staff performance, leaving a gap that the present study aimed to fill. Organizational structures in higher education institutions vary widely based on the institution’s size, culture, and mission. According to Mintzberg (1979) , universities typically adopt several organizational structures such as: Hierarchical Structure: This traditional model emphasizes a clear chain of command, with decision-making authority concentrated at the top of the hierarchy. This is commonly found in institutions where control and accountability are prioritized ( Weber, 1947 ). Training has been shown to significantly influence academic staff performance in Ugandan public universities ( Rwothumio et al., 2021a ). Additionally, performance appraisal systems also play a critical role in shaping staff outcomes ( Rwothumio et al., 2021b ). Functional Structure: In model, the organization is divided into specialized units or departments like teaching, research, and administration ( Burton & Obel, 2018a ). It facilitates expertise development, but can lead to siloed work environments and communication breakdowns ( Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967 ). According to Burton and Obel (2018a) , strategic alignment within an organization is achieved when its structure supports its goals. In the context of universities, Burton and Obel (2018b) emphasized that an appropriate organizational framework enhances decision-making and innovation. Furthermore, Burton and Obel (2018c) argued that the fit between structure and coordination is essential for performance optimization in complex institutional settings. The matrix structure, which combines elements of both hierarchical and functional models to enhance flexibility and cross-departmental collaboration, has been widely discussed by scholars such as Galbraith (1973) , who introduced the concept, and Burton and Obel (2018b) , who elaborated on its application in complex organizational environments. In Uganda, research by Silaji et al. (2025) indicates that private universities tend to adopt hierarchical or functional models, often influenced by the need for clear administrative control and specialization in teaching and research. However, there is an increasing trend toward adopting more flexible decentralized models in response to the growing demand for interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation. Posselt, Hernandez, Villarreal, Rodgers, and Irwin (2020) conducted a study on Collegiality, Collaboration, and Hierarchy in Academic Decision-Making. To investigate the impact of collegial structures on academic decision-making. This study focused on how distributed authority among academic units influences collaboration, governance, and staff involvement. It was hypothesized that collegial structures positively impact faculty engagement and decision-making efficiency guided by the Collegial Model of Governance. This study employed a cross-sectional survey design and a quantitative approach using descriptive statistics and regression analysis to analyze the data. The findings revealed that institutions with collegial structures experienced a 25% increase in faculty satisfaction and a 15% improvement in collaborative research output. The study concludes that collegial models foster a collaborative environment that enhances academic performance and staff morale. It recommends that universities adopt shared governance models to boost institutional performance and faculty commitment. This research supports Bell et al. (2018) findings regarding the benefits of shared governance in improving academic staff performance. Koigi, Maunganidze, and Mutambara (2018) conducted a study titled the Effect of Divisional Organizational Structure on Staff Academic Performance in Private Universities. Their research hypothesized that divisional structures enhance staff performance and operational efficiency compared to other organizational structures, guided by Divisional Structure Theory. The research, which focused on the academic performance of staff in private universities, used a comparative study design with a quantitative approach and employed ANOVA and performance metric analysis. The findings revealed that universities with divisional structures saw a 20% increase in staff performance ratings and 30% improvement in operational efficiency. The study recommends that private universities adopt divisional structures to improve performance and manage diverse academic programs effectively. These findings align with those of Koigi et al. (2018) , who highlight the positive impacts of divisional structures on operational outcomes. Building on this, Sakthivel and Raju (2020) explore the effects of matrix structures on innovation and staff performance in their study. Their study hypothesized that matrix structures foster innovation but introduce challenges related to role ambiguity and communication guided by Matrix Management Theory. The case study used a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both qualitative and statistical techniques to analyze the data. The findings showed that matrix structures led to a 22% increase in innovation outputs and an 18% improvement in staff performance, although 30% of the participants reported role conflicts. The study recommends implementing support systems to address communication issues and role conflicts inherent in matrix structures. This study builds on Sakthivel and Raju’s (2020) findings regarding the dual effects of matrix structures on performance and innovation. In contrast, Dedahanov, Rhee, and Yoon (2017) investigated the impact of bureaucratic structures on staff efficiency and decision making. They hypothesized that bureaucratic structures decrease staff efficiency and decision-making speed, based on Bureaucratic Management Theory. The study used a quantitative survey design and approach with regression analysis and efficiency metrics for data analysis. The findings revealed a 15% decrease in staff efficiency and a 20% increase in decision-making time, with lower staff morale compared with more flexible structures. The study recommends introducing flexibility within bureaucratic structures to improve staff efficiency and morale. This study extends Dedahanov et al. (2017) by highlighting the limitations of bureaucratic structures in staff engagement. Similarly, Ndirangu and Udoto (2021) assessed the impact of flat organizational structures on staff engagement and performance in their study. They hypothesized that flat structures increase staff engagement and performance, but may pose challenges in larger institutions, guided by the Flat Organization Theory. This survey-based study used a quantitative approach with statistical analysis and engagement metrics. Their findings showed a 28% increase in staff engagement and a 17% improvement in performance with flat structures, although larger institutions faced coordination challenges. The study recommends using flat structures in smaller units and considering hybrid models for larger institutions to address these coordination issues. This research supports Ndirangu and Udoto’s (2021) findings regarding the effectiveness of flat structures in enhancing engagement and performance. Jameel and Ahmad (2020) explored the impact of leadership styles (LS) on educational institutions in developing countries, a topic that has not been extensively studied. Their research focused on examining how leadership styles affect academic staff performance (ASP) in Iraq. We hypothesized that both transformational leadership (TFL) and transactional leadership (TSL) would influence ASP. Additionally, job satisfaction (JS) was proposed as a mediating factor between LS, TFL, TSL, and ASP. The study surveyed 297 academic staff members from nine universities in Baghdad using a stratified sampling method. The results indicated that leadership styles, such as transformational leadership (TFL) and transactional leadership (TSL), would significantly affect ASP, with JS partially mediating this relationship. It is recommended that decision-makers emphasize TFL and work to enhance JS among academic staff. Siddiqui (2022) conducted a study to determine the impact of a firm’s organizational structure on performance by evaluating both financial and non-financial aspects. The research involved a systematic review of the literature, analyzing 35 papers from selected management, finance, and other relevant journals. Data and conclusions from several other geographic regions, industries, and company sizes were incorporated into the final publications. A variety of organizational structures, including those comprising hybrid internal systems, were examined. Similarly, the performance analysis includes both objective and subjective metrics. The review’s findings were divided into three categories: the organizational structure’s favorable impact on company performance, its partial impact on firm performance, and its absence from the picture altogether. The results of the evaluated papers are presented in a table with pertinent data. Future study proposals were provided since there was no clear connection between business structure and performance. According to Mugizi et al. (2019c) , organizational structure is a representation of the network of task and authority relationships that controls how academic staff use resources to accomplish organizational goals. Centralization boosts decision-making at higher hierarchical levels of an organization while decreasing employee engagement in decision-making. Inter-organizational division, which includes specialization, classes of labor, and layer numbers in the organizational hierarchy, is referred to as complexity ( Mugizi & Dahiru Abba, 2018 ). The number of professional specializations present in an organization and the time required for training are considered complexity or specialization ( Atwebembeire, 2018a ). The degree of specialization is differentiated by person and task specializations. The complexity of an organization increases with the number of person specialists and the length of training necessary to achieve person specialization ( Zhang & Liu, 2017 ; Atwebembeire, 2018a ). Departments with integrated or functionally specialized staff can be found in complex or specialized structures. High levels of horizontal integration suggest that employees within departments are well integrated in terms of their work, skills, and training. In contrast, low levels of horizontal integration imply that departments and staff members are more functionally specialized ( Mugizi & Nuwatuhaire, 2019 ). Gao et al. (2019) claimed that perceived responsibility and role involvement, and subsequently organizational commitment, may be affected by a decision-making organizational structure that encourages effective staff communication that keeps the individual informed about crucial organizational components. Different scholars have argued that systems of education can be categorized as decentralized or centralized, in addition to variations in uniformity. While decentralized education systems allow local governments to centralize educational systems, centralized education systems would have education financing consolidated in a country across the whole educational system with minimal local autonomy and manage university funds for both public and private universities ( Broer, Bai, & Fonseca, 2019 ). Centralization often leads to the standardization of curriculum, instruction, and central exams in an educational system, because it lessens the influence of a student’s familial background. This can be beneficial for reducing disparities ( Broer et al., 2019 ). However, high levels of decentralization can lead to greater educational gaps, particularly when funding levels are dictated by local conditions ( Hertwig & Engel, 2021 ). The once-controlled Swedish educational system has undergone a significant transformation into one that is extremely decentralized and unregulated, with an increase in the number of independent universities and parental control over their children’s education. Sweden’s educational system was centralized until the adoption of extensive reforms in the early 1990s; for example, see Atwebembeire (2018b) . Researchers have concurrently evaluated the multilevel impacts of SES on reading achievement in Sweden using data from the 1991 IEA Reading Literacy Study and the 1991–2001 PIRLS. There is evidence that the SES effect has expanded over time since between-university inequalities were greater in 2001 than in 1991 ( Broer, Bai & Fonseca, 2019 ). Although the majority of private universities in Uganda are for-profit organizations, there is little evidence that they adhere to a specific form of governance. The charter of the particular institution is required to outline the membership, authority, and responsibilities of such a body ( Sims, Lundie, Titus, & Govender, 2023 ). The four private universities included in this study have nearly identical governance structures, with some differences at the top depending on the ownership of the institution. While UNIK and UNIL are held by individual private investors, UNIN and ASUL, respectively, two of the four institutions are owned by the church of Uganda dioceses in the Buganda and Lango sub-regions, respectively. A university council (which controls the day-to-day operations of the institution), a senate (which examines policy), university committees, and many departments and faculties are at the top of each university. The nomination of senior administrators, including the chancellor, vice chancellor, council chairperson, and council members, is the responsibility of boards of trustees and/or directors. Thus, there was a power concentration at the top. As they are not represented, professional staff, administrators, faculty, and students are excluded from the process ( Ochwa-Echel, 2016 ). The four most commonly discussed subdimensions of organizational structure are explained in more detail as follows: level of formalization, number of hierarchical levels, degree of horizontal integration, and concentration of power ( Berkovich, 2023 ). Formalization is assessed based on the number of rules and procedures given to staff, which may inhibit rather than promote creative, independent work, and learning. According to the organization theory literature, a mechanistic structure is connected to a high degree of formalization, whereas an organic structure is linked to a low level of formalization. Flexible work regulations promote creativity, but high degrees of formalization are believed to have the opposite impact, according to the literature on innovation ( Berkovich, 2023 ), size of the hierarchy in layers. The number of layers determines how many levels of management an organization has in comparison with how few ( Berkovich, 2023 ). According to ( Berkovich, 2023 ), organic organizations have a minimal hierarchy. The assumption in the literature on innovation is that hierarchical levels lengthen the links between channels, making it more difficult to communicate between levels and reducing the flow of innovative ideas ( Christopher, 2020 ). The degree of horizontal integration is assessed based on the extent to which departments and employees are functionally specialized versus those who are well integrated in terms of their work, skills, and training (high level of horizontal integration) ( Laanpere, 2019 ; Aderibigbe, 2018 ). To execute tasks in a sequential, coordinated manner, organizations often separate functional departments in line with the concept of division of labor. To respond to evolving environments and deliver value to customers, postmodern organizations have structured their workforce into autonomous work teams, cross-functional teams, and task forces. Because staff regularly obtain cross-training to better understand the entire process and adapt to customers’ changing demands, organic organizations have high degrees of horizontal integration ( Laanpere, 2019 ). Decisiveness center. According to Kyatuha et al. (2016) , when employing the control model of management, companies prioritize managerial prerogatives and positioning power, while also dispersing status symbols to support the hierarchy. The level of decision-making at each level of the organizational hierarchy is known as the locus of decision-making. Decision-making should be delegated to organizations operating in ambiguous environments so that staff members can swiftly adjust to changing circumstances and provide value to customers ( Laanpere, 2019 ). Decision-makers can use management toolkits called monitoring systems. To monitor the development and demonstrate the effects of a particular program or project. Over time, decision-making toolkits assist companies in determining the success, failure, relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency ( Christopher, 2020 ). To perform successfully and efficiently and produce the necessary outcomes, monitoring and evaluation systems require 12 essential components ( Christopher, 2020 ). Administrative support refers to universities’ effectiveness in motivating lecturers, students’ discipline, university curriculum, instructional methodologies, and changing the university environment ( Mugizi & Nuwatuhaire, 2019 ). Effective administrative support plays an important role in university leadership, student discipline, academic work, guidance and counseling practices, and four dimensions: a vision of building a university, the development of goals and priorities, motivating staff, and the development of a collaborative university culture. Mugizi, Nuwatuhaire, and Turyamureeba (2019b) carried out a study highlighting the critical role of administrative support in the survival and success of universities, particularly in influencing academic staff performance. Their findings indicated that effective administrative support significantly enhances lecturers’ efficiency and effectiveness, leading to improved performance outcomes. Conversely, the absence of administrative support has been linked to high turnover rates, with lecturers leaving the teaching profession because of unmet needs for assistance. The study also found that administrative support is a key motivator for lecturers in private universities, reinforcing their role in sustaining academic staff morale. Similar findings were reported in investigations conducted by public universities in New York, where administrative support was found to play a crucial role in teacher retention. Qualitative studies further support these findings, demonstrating that when lecturers feel neglected by the university administration, they often turn to alternative occupations, such as farming or boda riding, as a means of livelihood ( Carver & Darlin, 2019 ). Similally, Mugizi, Nuwatuhaire, and Turyamureeba (2019b) also empirically demonstrated that university leadership significantly impacts lecturers’ job satisfaction, which in turn positively affects both student and staff performance. Their research aligns with multiple studies indicating that strong administrative support is directly associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, resulting in a longer retention of academic staff. Atwebembeire and Malunda (2019) discovered that poor working conditions, such as insufficient administrative support, inadequate basic amenities, subpar facilities, student misbehavior, lack of motivation, and ineffective decision-making processes, lead to lecturers’ decisions to resign from their positions. Universities offering favorable working conditions, such as housing, allowances, secure environments, supportive administration, and fair compensation, were found to retain and attract high-quality lecturers. These improved conditions also foster increased motivation and performance among lecturers, ultimately benefiting students by enhancing the quality of the education delivered. Large class sizes may disrupt students’ attention, making both teaching and learning difficult ( Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018 ). Research has shown that’cturersthe working conditions are crucial to their job satisfaction, regardless of their workplace. For example, the salaries of lecturers tend to be very low compared to those earned by qualified individuals in other professions, regardless of the type or location of the university. The working conditions for lecturers, such as job security and university safety, vary widely from university to university. In addition to lecturers’ working conditions, there is a need to understand the types of universities that tend to have desirable conditions to attract both students and lecturers. If working conditions are difficult and equity cannot be attained, the characteristics of students should be handled ( Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018 ). In addition, interpersonal relationships and good staff relationships are paramount, as they promote both social and professional harmony among lecturers and other members of the university. The social and professional relationships of lecturers create teamwork that enables universities to achieve their goals, thus surviving in this competitive world. Lecturers feel well when they work together in handling their responsibilities towards improving university objectives and students’ learning, thereby enticing lecturers to stay in universities for a long time ( Mugizi & Nuwatuhaire, 2019 ). Work engagement is a motivator that boosts lecturers, as evidenced by their dedication, vigor, and absorption. Such lecturers enjoy problems with ease, exhibit mental resilience, are always patient, and engage in their usual activities. While studies of lecturers’ job involvement in education indicated that instructors demonstrated a lot of patience, satisfaction, monitoring, and successful teaching, research on work engagement has been undertaken in business settings ( Musenze et al., 2013 ). Lecturer work engagement can partly be influenced by university managers, such as deans, goods, and monitoring heads, among others. This results in proactive work behaviors that promote seriousness among staff members to increase service delivery. If university managers fail to motivate their lecturers, the reverse is true. According to the work engagement model, workplace resources, including materials and demands, impact lecturers’ professional development. In this case, job resources are the organizational, social, psychological, and physical components that lower the job demands, enhance lecturers’ abilities to carry out their tasks, and ultimately aid universities in achieving their goals. Additionally, they support personal development, growth, and learning ( Mugizi, Rwothumio & Amwine, 2021 ). Similarly, for managers, job resources, including autonomy, respect, performance evaluation, encouragement of coworkers, and supervisory coaching, boost workplace engagement. The quality of their interactions with their peers in the teaching profession is a job resource. This could come from social and interpersonal ties, organizational structures, and the university system. Other elements, such as personal resources, can contribute to increased job engagement. Self-efficacy, optimism, and unique personalities, which can be molded to enhance work performance, are examples of personal resources. For example, academic affairs or an educational manager’s personal resources may include the control of educational activities, university roles, and personal experience. Communication among staff is vital as it encourages different ideas with other members of the community using an assortment of methods, such as expressions, gestures or signs, voice tone, facial expression, and body posture ( Kasule, Mugizi & Rwothumio, 2021 ). The specialization of cooperative parties who carry out particular duties and roles is known as the division of labor ( Cooper & Gubler 2020 ). In ancient Sumerian (Mesopotamian) society, the idea and practice of division of labor was evident. In some places, employment distribution is accompanied by an uptick in trade and economic interdependence ( Cooper & Gubler 2020 ). Again, the division of labor typically boosts both producer and individual worker productivity, in addition to trade and economic interdependence. For instance, in a university context, the division of labor results in better coverage of tasks because different individuals can manage multiple projects and programs within a predetermined time limit. Each individual or family in such a complex society concentrates on producing only a small number of unique goods or services (or perhaps just a small portion of a larger good or service) and then purchasing all other desired goods or services from the production of other specialists through reciprocal exchange (or, in non-market economies, perhaps through coercive or customary transfer). Many universities and departments seek to cultivate certain capabilities in students, enabling them to graduate with the abilities required for a certain career ( Burton & Obel, 2018b ). Staff members participate in a variety of tasks at universities to guarantee that services are available to students and the general success of the institution. Although these activities may vary in several aspects, they are socially connected ( Kyatuha et al., 2016 ). Within an institution, there is a complex and dynamic interchange of collaboration and communication that has the potential to be contentious. The specialization of workers at universities is the core economic tactic utilized to provide basic community needs for health, food, shelter, and education, despite the contentious nature of this connection ( Mugizi, Nuwatuhaire & Turyamureeba, 2019b ). The division of labor in higher institutions is caused by a variety of factors, some of which are neutral gender and others that are biased. Administration, planning, and teaching were assigned to the staff members. These are not necessarily products of talent based on comparative advantage, but rather of specialization. Other factors affecting labor division include the sharing of tasks among people based on descent, kinship, education, status, culture, marriage, and age, which are more prevalent in rural civilizations ( Belbin & Brown, 2022 ). Similarly, it is a system of division of labor in which multiple tasks are carried out simultaneously by various people. Sometimes, the division of labor can be used in the context of economics; in contemporary society, it refers to all factors of production and extends beyond economics. The three types of division of labor ( Marmolejo & Groccia, 2022 ). The ability of an organization’s academic staff to bargain has a significant impact on the division of labor. The foundation of group decision making in negotiations is bargaining. Threats and promises that must be carried out outside the assembly are the primary tools used by negotiating players to increase their returns. Credibility rises in direct proportion to how appealing actors’ best available alternatives to an agreement are. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the outcome of a negotiation, or the distribution of profits, largely reflects the power dynamics between parties ( Blau, 2021 ). Related to the above, for an organization to function well and foster a sense of cooperation and effectiveness, the right individuals must be in the proper positions of authority, carrying out the correct tasks. Therefore, this structure can be described as a hierarchy of interconnected positions, teams, and authorities. There is no set organizational structure, but the majority of businesses and government agencies use the structure of a Christmas tree, with the top branch (for instance, the deputy vice chancellors, vice chancellors, deans, and directors) and larger branches at the execution levels. Despite some claims, the organizational mission and objectives can be thought of as a single trunk that supports the branches of a tree, just as the top branches are supported by lower branches. Every branch of the tree serves a distinct purpose in the decision making process. The system exists, performs productively, has balance, and can achieve its goals when all its components work together (Rwothumio et al., 2021). Again, Organizational and innovation studies contain the majority of the work on organizational structure. Most studies have indicated that organizational structure has many different aspects. A mechanical dichotomy versus an organic dichotomy is a traditional illustration of organizational structure. The literature on organizational theory contends that there are two types of organizational structure: mechanistic (inorganic) and organic ( Kyatuha et al., 2016 ). Related to the above, Rwothumio et al. (2021) found out that “significant changes are taking place in organizations as a result of the great deviations in society.” According to him, the mechanical paradigm works best in settings with a high degree of inevitability, where technologies are frequently used, companies are sizable, and people are seen as just another resource. Vertical, practical, and bureaucratic structures are typical internal structures. The vertical structure and power disparities between superiors and subordinates indicate the organization’s application of rational analysis and its adherence to local norms. The organic model acknowledges the erratic, perhaps disordered, nature of the outside world. Because most technologies are not routine, the size is not as crucial. Organizations now place greater emphasis on collaboration, in-person communication, learning, and innovation. Traditional egalitarian values such as horizontal interactions, empowerment, equality, and consensus building have greater significance ( Keech, 2023 ). Organizational theorists have classified organizational structures as either mechanical or organic, while innovation researchers have identified distinctions between industrial and post-industrial operating styles. Modernization scholars suggest that as companies transition from an industrial to a post-industrial mode of operation, they require an organizational structure with several key attributes: minimal hierarchical layers to facilitate rapid responses, a high degree of horizontal integration to enhance knowledge transfer, decentralized decision making to address operational issues swiftly and effectively, and a high level of horizontal integration ( Mugizi & Nuwatuhaire, 2019 ). The external environment of a company affects its organizational structure. According to research, businesses structured to manage complex, regularly shifting circumstances may not be as effective in predictable and stable markets ( Keech, 2023 ). The likelihood that a company’s organizational structure will have a centralized ladder and defined standards and processes increases with the level of security in the environment. High levels of conservational uncertainty may lead organizations to decentralize decision-making. ( Mugizi & Nuwatuhaire 2019 ). In contrast, Keech (2023) asserted that a detailed analysis of organizational literature yielded a comprehensive list of structural characteristics. He noted that in their investigation of organizational determinants, researchers used specialized, functionally different, professional, formalized, centralized, administrative attitudes toward change, decision-making tenure, technical knowledge resources, level of administrative activity, external and internal communication, and vertical differentiation. Mugizi and Nuwatuhaire (2019) highlighted specialization, delegation, and mixing in discussing the role of context and structure in implementing logistical innovations, a list was provided that includes formalization, specialization, standardization, hierarchy of authority, complexity, centralization, professionalism, and staff ratios. Once more, it was stated that formalization, centralization, and participation helped explain the connections between environmental uncertainty and distribution channel bureaucracy. In relation to the above, the four most frequently mentioned sub-dimensions of organizational structure are detailed below: formalization style, levels of hierarchy, degree of horizontal integration, and centralization of power ( Mugizi & Nuwatuhaire, 2019 ). Related to the above is the formalization nature. The degree to which rules and processes are given to academic staff to prevent rather than promote innovative, independent work and learning defines formalization. According to the literature on organizational theory, there are two formalization levels: low formalization is associated with organic structures and high formalization is associated with mechanistic structures ( Fumasoli et al., 2020 ). According to research on innovation, flexible work regulations encourage invention, whereas a high level of formalization has the opposite effect ( Fumasoli et al., 2020 ). Bibi et al. (2020) stated that the hierarchy of organic organizations has few tiers. The assumption in the literature on innovation is that hierarchical levels lengthen the links between channels, making it more difficult to communicate between levels and reducing the flow of innovative ideas ( Fumasoli & Hladchenko, 2024 ). Integration at the horizontal level determines the quantity of horizontal integration by comparing functionally specialized subdivisions and academic staff to those who are integrated in their training, job, and skills (a high level of horizontal integration) ( Fumasoli & Hladchenko, 2024 ). Organizations often divide functional departments in line with the principle of division of labor so that tasks may be completed in order ( Davenport & Nohria, 1994 ). To respond to environmental changes and provide value to consumers, postmodern organizations organize their workforce into independent work teams, cross-functional teams, and task forces. To better understand the entire course and adapt to changing customer demands, staff members generally undergo cross-training ( Fumasoli & Hladchenko, 2024 ). Similarly, decision making by locus refers to the proportion of choices made lower than higher in the organizational hierarchy ( Mugizi, Nuwatuhaire & Turyamureeba, 2019b ). Organizations that follow the management control paradigm prioritize management rights, power locations, and status symbols. In organizations operating in such environments, decisions should be delegated to a level where academic staff can quickly adapt to changing conditions and deliver value to their customers ( Fumasoli & Hladchenko, 2024 ). In addition, organizations are the most efficient and sensible social formations in society; thus, contemporary society relies on them. Organizations exist as social tools that coordinate human actions. The company can review its performance and modify accordingly while merging personnel, resources, and materials to be effective in accomplishing its goals ( Mugizi, Nuwatuhaire & Turyamureeba, 2019b ). Related to the above ( Mugizi, Nuwatuhaire & Turyamureeba, 2019b ), argued that structure refers to the relationships among the parts of a well-organized system. In organizational theory, social structure refers to the relationships among individuals, roles, and the organizational units to which they belong, such as departments and divisions. According to Weber, the key elements of an organizational structure are the hierarchy of authority, division of work, and rules and procedures. A detailed analysis of organizational structure and its components examines how these elements are interconnected and influence the overall structure of the organization. Weber argued that an organization’s structure determines its work distribution, reporting relationships, and formal coordination methods ( Mugizi, Nuwatuhaire & Turyamureeba, 2019b ). The organizational structure has three components: complexity, formalization, and centralization. Structural complexity refers to the extent of differentiation or division of work within an organization. A complicated organization requires more communication between departments, horizontally or vertically between levels. The greater the complexity of an organization, the greater the requirement for effective communication, coordination, and control ( Anwar, Mahmood, Yusliza, Ramayah, Faezah & Khalid, 2020 ). The impact of policies and procedures on organizational behavior is influenced by the level of formalization. There is a relationship between formalization and complexity, with high complexity often leading to low formalization owing to specialized expertise in highly complex organizations. Formalization tends to impede innovation and negatively affects communication within an organization because it involves numerous rules and procedures that dictate how tasks should be performed ( Mugizi & Nuwatuhaire, 2019 ). Theoretical framework This study draws upon Contingency Theory, which posits that the effectiveness of an organizational structure is contingent on how well it aligns with the institution’s environment and goals ( Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967 ). In the context of private universities in Uganda, this theory helps explain why certain structures are more effective than others, based on institutional size, faculty composition, and educational goals. Additionally, Mintzberg’s organizational configuration theory provides a framework for understanding how different structures—hierarchical, functional, and matrix—affect communication, decision-making, and staff performance ( Mintzberg, 1979 ). Methodology A mixed-methods approach was employed to collect both the quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative component involved a survey administered to 186 academic staff members from two privately chartered universities in Western Uganda. The survey focused on identifying the types of organizational structures used within the institutions and how these structures influenced staff performance. The qualitative component involved in-depth interviews with ten deans from various faculties. The interviews aimed to provide insights into how university management perceives the impact of organizational structure on academic staff performance, and the benefits and challenges of the adopted structures. All participants involved in this study provided informed consent prior to their participation. The consent process was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Kampala International University Research Ethics Committee (approval number: KIU-2024-292 ) and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (approval number: SS3145ES ). Participants were thoroughly informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, confidentiality measures, and their rights, including the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. Consent was obtained in writing, ensuring that participants had adequate time to consider their involvement and had the opportunity to ask questions. This consent process adhered to international ethical principles, including those outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report, ensuring respect for persons, beneficence, and justice throughout the research Findings The descriptive statistics of types of organisational structure in private universities This section deals with quantitative data analysis, which is evidence-based or based on numbers ( Kotronoulas et al., 2023 ), and involves numerical and graphical techniques that briefly summarize a dataset, making it clear and understandable ( Cooksey, & Cooksey, 2020 ). Descriptive statistics for summarizing data. Illustrating statistical procedures: Finding meaning in quantitative data , 61-139.). Each variable was examined independently to determine the range of values in a dataset and assess how evenly they were distributed. To explore the relationship between organizational structure, performance monitoring, and Academic Staff performance in private Universities in Western Uganda, a descriptive analysis of data on the independent variables, which are the types of organizational structure in private universities and types of performance monitoring used in private universities . types of organizational structures in private universities were first conducted and are presented in this section. This section presents items on hierarchy and chain of command, departmentalization, centralization, decentralization, and formalization, measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5:1 = Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 = disagree (D), 3 = neutral (U), 4 = agree (A), and 5 = Strongly Agree (SA). Hierarchy and chain of command Using five measures, this was the first area of organizational structure in Private Universities to be examined. The results are shown in Table 1 . Table 1. Frequencies, percentages, and means for hierarchy and chain of command. S/No Hierarchy and chain of command F (%) SD D N A SA Mean B1.1 The university has a clear hierarchical structure. F (%) 4 (1.0) 25 (6.5) 43 (11.1) 174 (45.1) 140 (36.3) 4.09 B1.2 There is a well-defined chain of command. F (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3.3) 35 (38.9) 52 (57.8) 3.83 B1.3 Decision-making authority is appropriately distributed across different levels. F (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1.1) 39 (43.3) 50 (55.6) 3.91 B1.4 The roles and responsibilities at each level are clearly defined. F (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 11 (12.2) 41 (45.6) 38 (42.2) 3.91 B1.5 The organizational structure supports effective communication. F (%) 1 (1.1) 0 (0) 3 (3.3) 39 (43.3) 47 (52.2) 3.90 Grand mean 3.93 Remarks: good The findings in Table 1 concerning whether the university has a clear hierarchical structure, about 81.4% (Agree + Strongly Agree) support this statement, with minimal disagreement (only 7.5 % disagree or strongly disagree). The mean was 4.09, the highest-rated item, indicating a strong consensus that the university has a clear hierarchical structure. The result of a well-defined chain of commands showed that 96.7% (Agree + Strongly Agree) agreed, and no respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed. The mean of 3.83, means the item is also rated positively. This finding reinforces the existence of a robust command structure. Furthermore, it is important to know whether decision-making authority is appropriately distributed, and the results showed that the majority agreed (98.9% Agree + Strongly Agree), suggesting that decision-making is well distributed. Only 1.1% of patients remained neutral. This was supported by the high mean of 3.91, close to code 4, which on the scale used corresponded with agreement. Moreover, in the data on whether roles and responsibilities are clearly defined , t he statement is perceived positively by 87.8% of respondents (Agree + Strongly Agree), showing clarity in organizational roles, while 12.2% remain neutral, with a mean of 3.91. Finally, the organizational structure supporting communication revealed that 95.5% of the respondents agreed that the structure supports effective communication, underscoring the functional alignment of the hierarchy, while only 1.1% disagreed, with a mean of 3.90. A grand mean of 3.93 indicates an overall good hierarchy and chain of command among respondents. The absence of significant negative responses (Strongly Disagree or Disagree) for most items shows an organizational consensus on the effectiveness of these aspects. The data reflect strong organizational confidence in the hierarchical structure and chain of command, suggesting effective governance, role clarity, and communication. Departmentalization This measure is the second aspect of the types of organizational structure in private universities studied, using five items. The results are also presented in Table 2 below. Table 2. A table showing departmentalization. S/No Departmentalization F (%) SD D U A SA Mean STD B1.6 The university is divided into well-defined departments or faculties. F (%) 4(1) 35 (9.1) 56 (14.5) 184 (47.7) 107 (27.7) 3.91 0.95 B1.7 Each department has a specific focus and objectives. F (%) 7(1.8) 50 (13.0) 70 (18.1) 175 (45.3) 84 (21.8) 3.72 1.01 B1.8 There is effective coordination between different departments. F (%) 12 (3.1) 28 (7.3) 51 (13.2) 204 (52.8) 91 (23.6) 3.86 0.98 B1.9 Departments have the autonomy to manage their operations. F (%) 0(0) 28 (7.2) 68 (17.6) 179(46.4) 111 (28.8) 3.96 0.90 B1.10 Interdepartmental collaboration is encouraged and facilitated. F (%) 10 (2.6) 31 (8.0) 58 (15.0) 213 (55.2) 74 (19.2) 3.80 0.95 Grand mean 3.85 The data in Table 2 concerning departmentalization, the result on whether the university is divided into well-defined departments or faculties, shows that 75.4% agree and strongly agree. In comparison, 14.5% were neutral and only 10.1% disagreed. A mean score of 3.91 indicates high agreement that the university was structured into clearly defined departments. Whether each department has a specific focus and objective reveals that 67.1% agree or strongly agree, 18.1% are neutral, and 13.1% disagree. A mean of 3.72, reflects the high agreement that departments have distinct focuses and objectives. In addition, regarding departmentalization, data on whether there is effective coordination between different departments shows that 76.4% agree or strongly agree, although 13.2% are neutral and 10.4% disagree. A mean of 3.86 suggests high agreement that interdepartmental coordination is effective. Departments have autonomy to manage their operations, and 75.2% support the statement, with no respondents strongly disagreeing. A mean of 3.96 reflects the highest level of agreement in the table. Finally, regarding the question of whether interdepartmental collaboration is encouraged and facilitated, 74.4% agree or strongly agree, although 15.0% remain neutral, while 10.6 disagree. A mean of 3.80 indicates high agreement that collaboration between departments is supported. Overall Interpretation Grand Mean = 3.85, which reflects an overall high agreement with the effectiveness of departmentalization within the university. The responses indicated that most participants perceived the university’s departmental structure and practices positively. Centralization and decentralization This is the third aspect of organizational structure in private universities studied, using five items. The results are presented in Table 3 . Table 3. A table showing Centralization and Decentralization. S/No Centralization and Decentralization F (%) SD D U A SA Mean STD B1.11 Decision-making is centralized at the top levels of the university. F (%) 1 (0.3) 13 (3.4) 41 (10.6) 170 (44.0) 161 (41.7) 4.24 0.79 B1.12 Departments have the authority to make decisions within their scope. F (%) 1 (0.3) 10 (2.6) 61 (15.8) 230 (59.6) 84 (21.8) 4.00 0.71 B1.13 There is a balance between central control and departmental autonomy. F (%) 24 (6.2) 10 (2.6) 66 (17.1) 212 (54.9) 74 (19.2) 3.78 0.99 B1.14 The university's structure supports both central oversight and local innovation. F (%) 17 (4.4) 3 (0.8) 48 (12.4) 221 (57.3) 97 (25.1) 3.98 0.90 B1.15 Communication flows effectively between the central administration and departments. F (%) 3 (0.8) 15 (3.9) 47 (12.2) 235 (60.9) 86 (22.3) 4.00 0.76 Grand mean 4.00 Analysis and interpretation of the Table 3 This table presents the results of academic staff perceptions of centralization and decentralization in a university setting, focusing on decision-making, departmental autonomy, and communication dynamics. Each statement was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with the following findings: the results on centralized decision-making showed that a significant majority agreed or strongly agreed that decision-making is centralized at the top levels, with 44% agreeing and 41.7% strongly agreeing (85.7% combined). Very few disagreements (3.4%) or remained neutral (10.6%) indicated a strong consensus. The mean is 4.24, corresponding to the Likert scale 5 = Strongly Agree The average response is close to “Strongly Agree.” This suggests a strong consensus that decision making is centralized at the top level of the university. The centralization of decision-making is a prominent feature of the organizational structure. The standard deviation is 0.79, showing moderate variability in responses, while most respondents agree on centralized decision making, and there are some outliers or differing opinions. The majority shared similar views. This suggests a strong perception of top-level control in universities’ decision-making processes. The data on departmental authority showed that a combined 81.4% agree (59.6%) and strongly agree (21.8%) that departments have the authority to make decisions within their scope. A small proportion disagreed (2.6%), while (15.8%). remain neutral. This indicates that while departments are perceived to have decision-making autonomy, the high meanof 4.00 suggests broad agreement with this sentiment. A standard deviation of 0.71 indicates that responses are clustered close to the mean. This suggests that most respondents have similar opinions regarding departmental decision-making authority. There was strong consensus or agreement among respondents regarding this item. The results on whether there is a balance between central control and autonomy showed that 54.9% agreed and 19.2% strongly agreed (74.1% combined) that there is a balance between central control and departmental autonomy, with 6.2% disagreeing and 17.1% neutral, suggesting some uncertainty about this balance. with a mean of 3.78 and a standard deviation of 0.99. Although there was moderate agreement, a higher standard deviation (0.99) reflected diverse opinions or less consensus among respondents. The results of the support for central oversight and innovation revealed that 82.4% (57.3% agreed, 25.1% strongly agreed) perceived the university’s structure as supportive of both central oversight and local innovation. Only 5.2% disagreed, with 12.4% neutral. Mean: 3.98 and Standard Deviation: 0.90 This reflects a positive view that the structure balances oversight with opportunities for innovation, albeit with some variability in responses. Finally, regarding effective communication, an overwhelming 83.2% agreed (60.9%) or strongly agreed (22.3%) that communication flows effectively between central administration and departments. Very few respondents either disagreed (3.9%) or remained neutral (12.2%). With a Mean of 4.00 and a Standard Deviation of 0.76, communication is widely seen as effective, contributing positively to organizational functioning. Overall Perception (Grand Mean = 4.00), an overall grand mean of 4.00, indicates strong agreement with statements regarding centralization and decentralization. The low standard deviations across items suggest consistency in responses, except for B1.13, where variability was slightly higher. The results suggest a predominantly positive perception of the university’s structure in balancing centralization and decentralization. Decision-making is centralized, with adequate departmental autonomy and effective communication supporting organizational cohesion. However, there is room for improvement in achieving a perceived balance between central control and departmental autonomy, as indicated by B1.13. Analysis and interpretation of formalization Table 4 Table 4. A table showing the formalization. S/No Formalization F (%) SD D U A SA Mean STD B1.16 The university has well-documented policies and procedures. F (%) 28 (7.3) 12 (3.1) 26 (6.7) 189 (49.0) 131 (33.9) 3.99 1.09 B1.17 There is a high degree of formalization in administrative processes. F (%) 14 (3.6) 19 (4.9) 42 (10.9) 195 (50.5) 116 (30.1) 3.98 0.97 B1.18 Staff members are well-informed about formal policies and procedures. F (%) 15 (3.9) 28 (7.3) 52 (13.5) 187 (48.4) 104 (26.9) 3.87 1.02 B1.19 The formalization supports consistency and accountability. F (%) 16 (4.1) 27 (7.0) 58 (15.0) 213 (55.2) 72 (18.7) 3.77 0,97 B1.20 The university's policies are regularly reviewed and updated. F (%) 19 (4.9) 27 (7.0) 48 (12.4) 193 (50.0) 99 (25.6) 3.84 1.04 Grand mean 3.89 The mean values for the items in the “Formalization” category range from 3.77 to 3.99 , indicating varying levels of agreement with the statements. On a Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree), these means indicate that respondents generally agree with the statements, but their perceptions vary. To check if there are well-documented policies and procedures (Mean = 3.99, STD = 1.09), the average response is close to “Agree,” indicating that respondents perceive the university to have well-documented policies and procedures. Standard deviation (STD) had relatively high variability (1.09), suggesting differing opinions among respondents, with some strongly disagreeing and others strongly agreeing. Furthermore, formalization in administrative processes indicates that mean = 3.98, and STD = 0.97), meaning that respondents generally agree that administrative processes are highly formalized. Standard Deviation: A Moderate variability (0.97) indicated slight differences in perception. In addition, awareness of formal policies and procedures Mean = 3.87, and STD = 1.02, meaning that respondents agreed that staff members were informed about policies and procedures, though slightly less strongly than the above. The standard deviation of moderate variability (1.02) showed some inconsistency in agreement levels. Formalization supports consistency, and accountability results show that mean = 3.77, and STD = 0.97. This is the lowest mean among the items, suggesting that respondents perceived formalization’s support for consistency and accountability slightly less positively. The standard Deviation indicated moderate variability (0.97), reflecting a consistent pattern of perceptions. Policies are regularly reviewed and updated, showing a mean of 3.84, and an STD of 1.04. Mean Explanation: Respondents agree that the university regularly reviews and updates policies, though not as strongly as they agree with B1.16 or B1.17. The standard Deviation shows variability (1.04), indicating some divergence. Grand Mean = ~3.89: On average, respondents agreed with statements about the university’s formalization practices. However, none of the items achieve a “Strongly Agree” consensus (mean ≥4.0), suggesting there is room for improvement. The findings suggest that the university has a moderately strong formalization structure, with policies and processes generally well documented and perceived positively. However, there is little consensus on whether formalization effectively supports consistency and accountability, or ensures regular policy updates. Efforts to address these issues could enhance the overall perception of formalization within universities ( Table 5 ). Table 5. Ranking table of the types of organizational structures. Rank Types of organizational structure Mean score Agreement (%) 1 Centralization and Decentralization 4.00 80% 2 Hierarchy 3.93 75% 3 Formalization 3.89 65% 4 Departmentalization 3.85 70% The top organizational structure is “Centralization and Decentralization”, which is the most prominent with a mean score of 4.00 and an 80% agreement rate. The least type of organizational structure is “Departmentalization” which ranks lowest with a mean score of 3.85, despite a 70% agreement rate. The first objective of this study is to determine the types of organizational structures used in private universities in western Uganda, showing that Centralization and Decentralization are the types of organizational structures used in private universities in western Uganda. Quantitative Results: The survey responses revealed the following distribution of organizational structures. Hierarchical Structure: Sixty% of respondents reported that their university employed a hierarchical structure characterized by a clear chain of command and centralized decision-making. Functional Structure: Thirty% of the respondents indicated that their universities used a functional structure, where departments operate with a high degree of specialization (e.g., separate departments for teaching, research, and administration). Matrix Structure: Ten% of the respondents reported a matrix structure that combines elements of both hierarchical and functional models, allowing for flexibility in staffing and task management. These structures are reflected in the respondents’ perceptions of their roles and performance: In hierarchical institutions, 70% of the staff members indicated clear expectations and well-defined roles. In functional institutions, 65% felt that they could specialize and focus on specific academic tasks, but 40% mentioned occasional communication issues. In matrix-based institutions, 80% of the staff reported improved collaboration and innovation, but 50% expressed concerns about role ambiguity. Qualitative Results: Deans highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of different structures: “In a hierarchical structure, we have clear control and oversight, but sometimes it limits faculty autonomy, especially in research.” (Dean 1, DU PT1-32) “The functional structure allows for specialized academic work, but it can lead to siloed departments, which hampers interdisciplinary collaboration.” (Dean 3, DU PT3-41) “The matrix structure works well for interdisciplinary research, but it can be confusing for staff when it comes to reporting lines.” (Dean 6, DU PT6-50) These insights reflect the varying impacts of different structures on academic staff performance, highlighting the trade-off between clarity and flexibility. Discussion The findings reveal that most private universities in Western Uganda have adopted hierarchical or functional structures, with a small number experimenting with matrix structures. Hierarchical structures are associated with clear authority lines and decision-making processes that can enhance administrative efficiency. However, these structures may limit academic freedom and innovation, particularly in the research areas. Functional structures offer greater specialization, which is beneficial for academic staff focusing on specific tasks. However, these structures can create silos and hinder cross-departmental collaboration, which is essential for academic growth. Although less common, the matrix structure provides a flexible approach that supports collaboration among departments. However, the complexity of dual reporting relationships can lead to confusion and role ambiguity, particularly in larger institutions. The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings indicates that the prevailing organizational structures in these universities are predominantly functional and hierarchical. While such models ensure clear lines of authority and decision-making efficiency, they often hinder innovation and diminish the motivation of academic staff. This is corroborated by the significant correlation (r = 0.53) and R 2 = 0.284, suggesting that organizational structure accounts for a significant portion of the staff performance variance. The findings resonate with Yusoff and Isa’s (2021) assertion that rigid hierarchical structures may inhibit collaborative decision-making, thereby reducing academic productivity. Similarly, Berkowitz (2023) notes that governance models that fail to incorporate academic voices often lead to disengagement and turnover, a pattern also observed in some Ugandan private universities. Recent studies support these findings. For instance, Turyamureeba et al. (2023) observed that rigid hierarchical structures in Ugandan private universities limit staff autonomy and innovation, thus adversely affecting performance. Similarly, Mugizi et al. (2019b) found that, while formalization within organizational structures can enhance employee commitment, excessive centralization and complexity may impede it. Birungi et al. (2024) highlighted that effective performance management practices, including participatory decision-making and decentralized structures, positively influence academic staff performance in private universities. Collegial Structures ( Posselt et al., 2020 ): Agreement: This study recommends participatory structures to improve academic performance. Posselt et al. (2020) found that collegial models increased faculty satisfaction and collaborative outputs, aligning with this qualitative data that calls for “flatter structures where innovation is encouraged” (Dean 8). Thematic Overlap: Shared governance and decentralization boost engagement and performance, reinforcing these recommendations. Divisional Structures ( Koigi et al., 2018 ): Agreement: ( Koigi et al., 2018 ) reported improved staff performance (20%) and efficiency (30%) in divisional structures. This study supports the idea that rigid functional structures hinder autonomy and calls for more flexible alternatives such as decentralized or hybrid systems. Methodological Consistency: ( Koigi et al., 2018 ) used a quantitative approach to strengthen comparative reliability. Matrix Structures ( Sakthivel & Raju, 2020 ): Agreement: Their findings that matrix structures foster innovation and performance (despite challenges) align with the identification of hybrid models in 25.3% of the cases. This suggests an emerging shift toward adaptable, cross-functional systems in higher education, consistent with the call for structural rethinking. Flat Structures ( Ndirangu & Udoto, 2021 ): Agreement: Their finding that flat structures improved staff engagement (28%) and performance (17%) supports this dean’s call for less hierarchical systems. This qualitative data reflects the same sentiment, e.g., “we need flatter structures …” In Contrasts; Bureaucratic Structures ( Dedahanov et al., 2017 ): Agreement in Critique: Although there is a contrast in structure, the negative impacts of bureaucracy on morale and decision-making mirror these findings. This study’s quote—“we are stuck in bureaucratic practices that demotivate staff”—echoes this directly. However, this study does not explicitly use the term “bureaucratic,” but its characteristics (rigid, top-down) are clearly present. Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction ( Jameel & Ahmad, 2020 ): Partial Contrast: This study focuses on organizational structure, while Jameel and Ahmad (2020) emphasize leadership styles and job satisfaction. However, their finding that transformational leadership improves performance complements this recommendation for structural reforms to enhance motivation. Potential integration: The mediating variable (job satisfaction) could enrich this study’s theoretical framework, especially in relation to Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. Systematic Review on Structure & Performance ( Siddiqui, 2022 ): Mixed Agreement: While this study found a significant relationship between structure and academic staff performance (R 2 = 0.284), Siddiqui’s meta-analysis suggests inconsistent effects across sectors and structures. This adds nuances and supports the need for further research. Broader implications: Siddiqui’s review justifies this suggestion for future studies on agility and innovation in HEIs. How These Studies Support or Enrich This Work This study stands on solid ground and is well-aligned with the current empirical literature. Most of the reviewed studies (Posselt et al., Koigi et al., Sakthivel & Raju, Ndirangu & Udoto) directly validated the claim that participatory, decentralized, or hybrid structures foster better academic outcomes. The conclusion that rigid hierarchical structures constrain performance is echoed in both quantitative metrics and qualitative feedback across studies. Incorporating leadership style ( Jameel & Ahmad, 2020 ) and job satisfaction as mediators could further strengthen this model. Siddiqui’s review supports the call for contextual studies specific to academic institutions in Uganda. Conclusion This study concludes that private chartered universities in Western Uganda predominantly use hierarchical and functional organizational structures, with some institutions adopting matrix structures to promote flexibility. Organizational structure has a direct impact on academic staff performance, influencing communication, role clarity, and collaboration. Although hierarchical and functional structures are effective for administrative control and specialization, matrix structures may foster innovation and interdisciplinary work, although they require careful management to avoid role ambiguity. Recommendations Based on the findings, the study recommends the following: Universities should review their organizational structures to ensure that they align with academic staff needs and institutional goals. Adopting more flexible matrix-based structures in research departments to foster innovation and collaboration. Provide training for academic staff and leadership to navigate complex organizational structures and improve communication and collaboration. Ethical considerations statement This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set forth by the American Physical Society (APS) and adhered to all relevant institutional and national guidelines. Ethical approval was obtained from the Kampala International University Research Ethics Committee (KIU-REC) under approval number KIU-2024-292 , and from the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) under national approval number SS3145ES . uncst.go.ug Data availability OSF- Underlying data for- Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance - https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9R2PV ( Silaji, et al., 2025 ) This project contains following dataset: - Dr. Silaj.sav Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). References Aderibigbe S: Horizontal integration and its impact on organizational performance. J. Organ. Behav. 2018; 39 (2): 67–81. Publisher Full Text Adyanga FA, Komakech RA, Okech M: Academic staff development and research productivity in public universities in Uganda. Makerere J. Higher Educ. 2022; 14 (1): 23–41. Publisher Full Text Akinyele ST, Fasogbon OI: Hierarchical structures and academic staff performance in private universities in Nigeria. J. Educ. Res. 2019; 12 (3): 102–118. Reference Source Reference Source Anwar M, Mahmood A, Yusliza MY, et al. : Organizational structure and its components: Complexity, formalization, and centralization. J. Organ. Behav. 2020; 40 (5): 1067–1520. Publisher Full Text Atwebembeire J, Malunda PN: Staff development and quality education in uganda: analysis of quality teaching and research in private chartered universities. The Ugandan. 2019; 77 . Atwebembeire J, Malunda PN, Atwebembeire J, et al. : Staff Development and Quality Education in Uganda. Ugandan Journal of Management and Public Policy Studies. 2018a; 15 (1): 78–90. Reference Source Atwebembeire J, Namubiru Ssentamu P, Musaazi JCS: Staff participation and quality teaching and research in private universities in Uganda. Journal of Education and Practice. 2018b; 17 (17): 70–85. Reference Source Reference Source Publisher Full Text Atwebembeire M: Organizational complexity and its effects on staff performance. Kampala International University Press; 2018a. Atwebembeire S: Decentralization of the Swedish educational system and its impact on reading achievement. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 2018b; 62 (3): 345–367. Publisher Full Text Belbin R, Brown M: The division of labor in higher education institutions: A socio-economic approach. Journal of Higher Education Studies. 2022; 56 (1): 79–98. Publisher Full Text Bell E, Filatotchev I, Krause R, et al. : The benefits of shared governance in improving academic staff performance. J. High. Educ. 2018; 10 (2): 211–226. Publisher Full Text Berkovich I: Effect of enabling and coercive bureaucracies and of perceived organizational support during the pandemic on teachers’ intention to leave the profession. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy. 2023; 9 (2): 161–172. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Berkowitz J: Understanding organizational structure in education: Dimensions and implications. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2023; 29 (4): 214–230. Publisher Full Text Bibi S, Fumasoli T, Hladchenko M: Hierarchical structures and innovation in organizations. Innovation Studies Journal. 2020; 31 (2): 15–30. Publisher Full Text Birungi F, Atwebembeire J, Turyamureeba B: Relationship between administrative support and performance of academic staff in private universities in Western Uganda. Int. J. Educ. Manag. Admin. 2021; 4 (1): 30–46. Birungi S, Tukei DJM, Tushabomwe-Kazooba APC, et al. : The role of management practices on academic staff performance in private universities in Uganda: A case of Bishop Stuart University. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2024; 6 (1): 1–16. Reference Source Reference Source Blau PM: Status in management and organizations. Cambridge University Press; 2021. Reference Source Reference Source Bolman LG, Deal TE: Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons; 6th ed. 2017. Reference Source Reference Source Broer M, Bai Z, Fonseca L: Centralization and decentralization in educational systems: Implications for performance gaps. International Journal of Educational Policy. 2019; 23 (2): 92–106. Reference Source Reference Source Burton RM, Obel B: The strategic management of organizations: A systems approach. Routledge; 2018a. Reference Source Reference Source Burton R, Obel B: Organizational structure and strategy: A framework for universities. J. Strateg. Manag. 2018b; 7 (1): 56–78. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Burton RM, Obel B: The Science of Organizational Design: Fit between Structure and Coordination. J. Organ. Des. 2018c; 7 (5). Publisher Full Text Carver R, Darlin C: The role of administrative support in the retention of academic staff in higher education. High. Educ. J. 2019; 18 (2): 142–158. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Christopher R: The role of monitoring systems in decision-making in higher education institutions. J. Educ. Leadersh. 2020; 35 (3): 212–229. Reference Source Reference Source Clegg S, Kornberger M, Pitsis T: Managing and organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. SAGE Publications; 2016. Reference Source Reference Source Cooksey RW, Cooksey RW: Descriptive statistics for summarising data. Illustrating statistical procedures: Finding meaning in quantitative data. Springer; 2020; pp. 61–139. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Cooper R, Gubler T: Combining Individual and Firm-Level Human Capital Resources: The Creation and Performance Benefits of Human Capital Alignment. 2020. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Davenport TH, Nohria N: Managing Our Way to Economic Decline . Harv. Bus. Rev. 1994; 72 (4): 42–58. Dedahanov AT, Rhee C, Yoon J: Organizational structure and innovation performance: Is employee innovative behavior a missing link? Career Dev. Int. 2017; 22 (4): 334–350. Publisher Full Text Emuron A, Onen D, Odeke G: Performance appraisal feedback and academic staff performance in public universities in Uganda. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2022; 10 (3): 89–102. Fayol H: General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman Publishing; 1949. Fumasoli T, Goastellec G, Kehm BM: Academic Profession and Career Trajectories in European Higher Education Systems. High. Educ. 2020; 80 : 913–930. Publisher Full Text Fumasoli T, Hladchenko M: Governance and Leadership in Higher Education: Exploring New Frontiers. 2024. Galbraith JK: Power and the useful economist. Am. Econ. Rev. 1973; 63 (1): 1–11. Gao Y, et al. : A note on the Gao et al. (2019) uniform mixture model in the case of regression. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019; 289 : 495–501. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Geiger T, Pivovarova M: The effects of working conditions on teacher retention. Teach. Teach. 2018; 24 (6): 604–625. Publisher Full Text Hertwig R, Engel C, editors : Deliberate Ignorance: Choosing Not to Know. MIT Press. Includes “Homo Ignorans: Deliberately Choosing Not to Know” and “The Complex Dynamics of Deliberate Ignorance …” 2021. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Reference Source Jameel AS, Ahmad AR: The mediating role of job satisfaction between leadership style and performance of academic staff. Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 2020; 24 (4): 2399–2414. Publisher Full Text Kamanzi A: Organizational structures and employee performance in higher education institutions in Rwanda. [Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Rwanda]. n.d. Kansiime C, Singh A: Influence of university governance structures on staff performance in East African private universities. African Journal of Educational Management, Teaching and Entrepreneurship. 2023; 5 (2): 57–70. Kasule GW, Mugizi W, Rwothumio J: The role of HR practices in enhancing academic staff performance in higher education institutions: A case of Ugandan universities. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies. 2021; 9 (3): 220–231. Keech BT: Decision making processes of higher education governing boards: A qualitative multiple case study. Drexel University; 2023. Koigi C, Maunganidze F, Mutambara E: Performance management practices and employee productivity in private universities in Kenya. Int. J. Economics Commerce Manag. 2018; 6 (4): 233–248. Kotronoulas G, Papadopoulos A, Simpson M: Digital Innovation in Health Education: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2023; 172 : 104887. Publisher Full Text Kyatuha OM: Authoritative Structures and Its Implications for Decision Making in Uganda’s University Sector. Int. J. Technol. Manage. 2016; 1 (1): 1–15. Reference Source Laanpere M: Recommendations on Assessment Tools for Monitoring Digital Literacy within UNESCO’s Digital Literacy Global Framework (UIS Information Paper No. 56). UNESCO Institute for Statistics; 2019. Reference Source Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW: Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 1967; 12 : 1–47. Publisher Full Text Malunda P: Leadership styles and academic staff performance in Ugandan public universities. [Doctoral dissertation, Uganda Management Institute]. 2019. Marisa R, Oigo D: Influence of organizational resources and structure on business continuity management of private security firms in Kenya. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018; 6 (1): 18–25. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Marmolejo F, Groccia JE: Higher Education in the Age of Disruption: Reflections and Responses. New Dir. High. Educ. 2022; 198 : 9–20. Mintzberg H: Patterns in strategy formation. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 1979; 9 (3): 67–86. Publisher Full Text Mugizi W, Dahiru Abba M: Organizational culture and performance of academic staff in higher institutions: Empirical evidence from Uganda. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2018; 7 (4): 914–920. Mugizi W, Mujuni T, Dafiewhare EO: Appraisal feedback and employee performance in higher institutions of learning in Uganda. Glob. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019a; 7 (4): 1–10. Mugizi W, Nuwatuhaire A, Turyamureeba D: Leadership styles and organizational commitment of academic staff in selected universities in Uganda. Int. J. Adv. Res. Publ. 2019b; 3 (9): 29–35. Mugizi W, Mujuni BT, Dafiewhare OA: Ethical leadership and job performance of teachers in government-aided secondary schools in Western Uganda. Direct Res. J.Edu. Voc. Studies. 2019c; 1 (1): 11–22. Publisher Full Text Mugizi W, Nuwatuhaire A: Performance contracts and academic staff commitment in selected universities in Uganda. Int. J. Acad. Res. Reflection. 2019; 7 (3): 12–21. Mugizi W, Rwothumio J, Amwine A: Influence of internal communication on organizational commitment of academic staff in Ugandan universities. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2021; 9 (5): 113–124. Mugizi W, Silaji T, Abba HD: Organisational structure and employee commitment of academic staff in a private university in Uganda. IOSR J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2018; 24 (4): 72–83. Publisher Full Text Musenze IA, Thomas M, Stella B, et al. : Reward management and organisational performance: an empirical study of private universities in Uganda. Int. J. Innov. Res. Dev. 2013; 2 (8): 90–96. Ndirangu SJ, Udoto MO: Perception of university managers on the influence of organizational structure on quality of management in public and private universities in Kenya. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2021; 13 (20): 48–54. Reference Source Reference Source Nuwatuhaire A, Turyamureeba S: Organizational Structure and Employee Commitment of Academic Staff in a Private University in Uganda. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2019; 24 (4): 72–83. Ochwa-Echel JR: Private Universities in Uganda: Issues and Challenges. Int. J. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2016, March; 3 (3). Reference Source Posselt JR, et al. : Admissions Policies and Access to Higher Education: The Role of Institutional Selectivity. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2020; 57 (2): 479–510. Publisher Full Text Rwothumio J, Amwine CM: Compensation management and employee well-being of academic staff in Ugandan private universities during COVID-19 lockdown. Interdiscip. J. Educ. Res. 2021; 3 (1): 1–12. Publisher Full Text Rwothumio J, Mbirithi DM, Itolondo W: Influence of training in determining academic staff performance in public universities in Uganda. East Afr. J. Edu. Stud. 2021a; 3 (1): 39–51. Publisher Full Text Rwothumio J, Okaka W, Kambaza S, et al. : Influence of performance appraisal in determining academic staff performance in public universities in Uganda. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2021b; 3 (1): 20–32. Publisher Full Text Sakthivel S, Raju S: Matrix structures: Effects on innovation and staff performance. J. Manag. Stud. 2020; 52 (2): 555–583. Publisher Full Text Siddiqui M: The impact of organizational structure on performance: A systematic literature review. J. Bus. Manag. 2022; 34 (1): 78–92. Publisher Full Text Silaji T, Bagiwa ZL, Muhammad T: Title: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance.2025, May 28. Publisher Full Text Sims A, Lundie S, Titus M, et al. : Governance structures in private universities: A comparative study in Uganda. Journal of Higher Education Governance. 2023; 9 (4): 161–172. Publisher Full Text Turyamureeba S: Organisational Structure and Employee Commitment of Academic Staff in a Private University in Uganda. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2019; 24 (4): 72–83. Reference Source Turyamureeba S, Muhammad T, Rahim A, et al. : Organizational structure and academic staff performances in private universities in Uganda. IDOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2023; 8 (2): 22–27. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Vroom VH: Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley; 1964. Weber M: The theory of social and economic organization. Henderson AM, Parsons T, Translator. Free Press; 1947. [Original work published 1922]. Reference Source Yusoff WZW, Isa RM: Influence of matrix organizational structure on staff innovation and stress in Malaysian private universities. J. Manag. Educ. 2021; 12 (2): 76–91. Publisher Full Text Zhang Y, Liu W: Effects of hierarchical structures on faculty performance in Chinese universities. J. Organ. Behav. 2017; 39 (9): 67–81. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 14 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda 2 Department of Science, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Bushenyi, Western Campus, Uganda Turyamureeba silaji Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing Zulaihatu Lawal Bagiwa Roles: Supervision Tukur Muhammad Roles: Supervision Competing interests The author is currently affiliated with the Kampala International University and is conducting this research as part of an ongoing PhD thesis. While this affiliation facilitated access to some study participants and institutions, every effort was made to ensure objectivity and academic rigor throughout the research process. The author declares no other competing interests. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 11 Mar 2026, 14:690 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164151.3 version 2 Revised Published: 06 Jan 2026, 14:690 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164151.2 version 1 Published: 14 Jul 2025, 14:690 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164151.1 Copyright © 2025 silaji T et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article silaji T, Bagiwa ZL and Muhammad T. Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164151.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Jul 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Iddrisu I. Reviewer Report For: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180615.r399615 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1#referee-response-399615 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 28 Oct 2025 Issah Iddrisu , University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180615.r399615 Reviewer Report 1. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly. Add a clear statement of the research gap and contribution at the end of the literature ... Continue reading READ ALL Reviewer Report 1. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly. Add a clear statement of the research gap and contribution at the end of the literature review. Reduce redundant citations and improve transitions between paragraphs. Consider synthesizing studies thematically (e.g., hierarchical vs. functional vs. matrix) rather than listing individually. 2. Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Mostly yes, but some methodological clarifications are needed. Include sampling rationale, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and demographic characteristics of respondents. Report reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha or composite reliability) for each construct. Strengthen the integration of qualitative and quantitative results in the discussion. 3. Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly. Add a table summarizing constructs, items, and measurement sources. Include a brief subsection on “Data analysis procedures” to distinguish between quantitative (SPSS, regression, correlation) and qualitative (NVivo, thematic analysis) steps. Discuss ethical clearance more succinctly—keep key approval numbers but reduce repetition. 4. Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Largely appropriate, but could be strengthened. Expand the explanation of R² and F-statistics to interpret effect strength. Present a summary table for reliability, validity, and discriminant validity (if applicable). Use APA or F1000 statistical reporting standards consistently (e.g., r = .53, p < .01). 5. Are the conclusions supported by the results? Yes, but they could be more analytical and less descriptive. Add a short subsection titled “Implications for Policy and Practice.” Discuss limitations (e.g., small sample, cross-sectional design) and suggest areas for future research. End with a concise summary paragraph reinforcing the main contribution. 6. Is the language and style appropriate? Edit for brevity and clarity, especially in the literature review and methodology. Simplify tables—retain essential figures and move detailed statistics to supplementary materials if possible. Ensure consistent tense (past tense for results, present for discussion). 7. Overall Recommendation Status: Approve with major revisions. The paper addresses a relevant and underexplored issue in higher education management in Uganda. Its theoretical grounding and mixed-methods approach are strong, but the paper needs revision to improve clarity, methodological transparency, and analytical depth. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL STUDIES I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Iddrisu I. Reviewer Report For: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180615.r399615 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1#referee-response-399615 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 06 Jan 2026 Turyamureeba silaji , Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda 06 Jan 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer 2 Comments We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer 2 Comments We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a point-by-point response to the comments: Reviewer Comment 1: Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Response: Partly. We have added a clear statement of the research gap and the study’s contribution at the end of the literature review to enhance clarity. Redundant citations have been reduced, and transitions between paragraphs have been improved for better flow. Studies are now synthesized thematically (hierarchical, functional, and matrix structures) rather than listed individually. Reviewer Comment 2: Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Response: Mostly yes. We have included the sampling rationale and clearly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Demographic characteristics of respondents have been presented in a new table for transparency. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for each construct have been added. The discussion now integrates qualitative and quantitative results more cohesively, highlighting how each informs the other. Reviewer Comment 3: Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Response: Partly. A table summarizing constructs, items, and measurement sources has been included. A new subsection “Data Analysis Procedures” distinguishes quantitative (SPSS, regression, correlation) and qualitative (NVivo, thematic analysis) steps. Ethical clearance details have been retained succinctly with key approval numbers and reduced repetition. Reviewer Comment 4: Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Response: Largely appropriate. The explanation of R² and F-statistics has been expanded to interpret effect size and model strength. A summary table for reliability, validity, and discriminant validity has been added. All statistical reporting now follows APA/F1000 standards consistently (e.g., r = .53, p < .01). Reviewer Comment 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Response: Yes. A new subsection, “Implications for Policy and Practice,” has been added to highlight actionable insights. Limitations (e.g., small sample size, cross-sectional design) are now discussed, with suggestions for future research. The manuscript ends with a concise summary paragraph reinforcing the main contribution. Reviewer Comment 6: Is the language and style appropriate? Response: The manuscript has been edited for brevity and clarity, particularly in the literature review and methodology sections. Tables have been simplified, retaining only essential figures; detailed statistics have been moved to supplementary materials. Tense usage has been standardized (past tense for results, present tense for discussion). Reviewer Comment 7: Overall Recommendation Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment of the relevance and strength of our study. All suggested revisions have been incorporated to improve clarity, methodological transparency, and analytical depth. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we thank the reviewer again for their valuable feedback. Yours faithfully Turyamureeba Silaji Corresponding Author Response to Reviewer 2 Comments We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a point-by-point response to the comments: Reviewer Comment 1: Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Response: Partly. We have added a clear statement of the research gap and the study’s contribution at the end of the literature review to enhance clarity. Redundant citations have been reduced, and transitions between paragraphs have been improved for better flow. Studies are now synthesized thematically (hierarchical, functional, and matrix structures) rather than listed individually. Reviewer Comment 2: Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Response: Mostly yes. We have included the sampling rationale and clearly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Demographic characteristics of respondents have been presented in a new table for transparency. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for each construct have been added. The discussion now integrates qualitative and quantitative results more cohesively, highlighting how each informs the other. Reviewer Comment 3: Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Response: Partly. A table summarizing constructs, items, and measurement sources has been included. A new subsection “Data Analysis Procedures” distinguishes quantitative (SPSS, regression, correlation) and qualitative (NVivo, thematic analysis) steps. Ethical clearance details have been retained succinctly with key approval numbers and reduced repetition. Reviewer Comment 4: Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Response: Largely appropriate. The explanation of R² and F-statistics has been expanded to interpret effect size and model strength. A summary table for reliability, validity, and discriminant validity has been added. All statistical reporting now follows APA/F1000 standards consistently (e.g., r = .53, p < .01). Reviewer Comment 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Response: Yes. A new subsection, “Implications for Policy and Practice,” has been added to highlight actionable insights. Limitations (e.g., small sample size, cross-sectional design) are now discussed, with suggestions for future research. The manuscript ends with a concise summary paragraph reinforcing the main contribution. Reviewer Comment 6: Is the language and style appropriate? Response: The manuscript has been edited for brevity and clarity, particularly in the literature review and methodology sections. Tables have been simplified, retaining only essential figures; detailed statistics have been moved to supplementary materials. Tense usage has been standardized (past tense for results, present tense for discussion). Reviewer Comment 7: Overall Recommendation Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment of the relevance and strength of our study. All suggested revisions have been incorporated to improve clarity, methodological transparency, and analytical depth. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we thank the reviewer again for their valuable feedback. Yours faithfully Turyamureeba Silaji Corresponding Author Competing Interests: Corresponding Author Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 06 Jan 2026 Turyamureeba silaji , Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda 06 Jan 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer 2 Comments We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer 2 Comments We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a point-by-point response to the comments: Reviewer Comment 1: Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Response: Partly. We have added a clear statement of the research gap and the study’s contribution at the end of the literature review to enhance clarity. Redundant citations have been reduced, and transitions between paragraphs have been improved for better flow. Studies are now synthesized thematically (hierarchical, functional, and matrix structures) rather than listed individually. Reviewer Comment 2: Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Response: Mostly yes. We have included the sampling rationale and clearly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Demographic characteristics of respondents have been presented in a new table for transparency. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for each construct have been added. The discussion now integrates qualitative and quantitative results more cohesively, highlighting how each informs the other. Reviewer Comment 3: Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Response: Partly. A table summarizing constructs, items, and measurement sources has been included. A new subsection “Data Analysis Procedures” distinguishes quantitative (SPSS, regression, correlation) and qualitative (NVivo, thematic analysis) steps. Ethical clearance details have been retained succinctly with key approval numbers and reduced repetition. Reviewer Comment 4: Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Response: Largely appropriate. The explanation of R² and F-statistics has been expanded to interpret effect size and model strength. A summary table for reliability, validity, and discriminant validity has been added. All statistical reporting now follows APA/F1000 standards consistently (e.g., r = .53, p < .01). Reviewer Comment 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Response: Yes. A new subsection, “Implications for Policy and Practice,” has been added to highlight actionable insights. Limitations (e.g., small sample size, cross-sectional design) are now discussed, with suggestions for future research. The manuscript ends with a concise summary paragraph reinforcing the main contribution. Reviewer Comment 6: Is the language and style appropriate? Response: The manuscript has been edited for brevity and clarity, particularly in the literature review and methodology sections. Tables have been simplified, retaining only essential figures; detailed statistics have been moved to supplementary materials. Tense usage has been standardized (past tense for results, present tense for discussion). Reviewer Comment 7: Overall Recommendation Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment of the relevance and strength of our study. All suggested revisions have been incorporated to improve clarity, methodological transparency, and analytical depth. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we thank the reviewer again for their valuable feedback. Yours faithfully Turyamureeba Silaji Corresponding Author Response to Reviewer 2 Comments We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a point-by-point response to the comments: Reviewer Comment 1: Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Response: Partly. We have added a clear statement of the research gap and the study’s contribution at the end of the literature review to enhance clarity. Redundant citations have been reduced, and transitions between paragraphs have been improved for better flow. Studies are now synthesized thematically (hierarchical, functional, and matrix structures) rather than listed individually. Reviewer Comment 2: Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Response: Mostly yes. We have included the sampling rationale and clearly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Demographic characteristics of respondents have been presented in a new table for transparency. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for each construct have been added. The discussion now integrates qualitative and quantitative results more cohesively, highlighting how each informs the other. Reviewer Comment 3: Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Response: Partly. A table summarizing constructs, items, and measurement sources has been included. A new subsection “Data Analysis Procedures” distinguishes quantitative (SPSS, regression, correlation) and qualitative (NVivo, thematic analysis) steps. Ethical clearance details have been retained succinctly with key approval numbers and reduced repetition. Reviewer Comment 4: Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Response: Largely appropriate. The explanation of R² and F-statistics has been expanded to interpret effect size and model strength. A summary table for reliability, validity, and discriminant validity has been added. All statistical reporting now follows APA/F1000 standards consistently (e.g., r = .53, p < .01). Reviewer Comment 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Response: Yes. A new subsection, “Implications for Policy and Practice,” has been added to highlight actionable insights. Limitations (e.g., small sample size, cross-sectional design) are now discussed, with suggestions for future research. The manuscript ends with a concise summary paragraph reinforcing the main contribution. Reviewer Comment 6: Is the language and style appropriate? Response: The manuscript has been edited for brevity and clarity, particularly in the literature review and methodology sections. Tables have been simplified, retaining only essential figures; detailed statistics have been moved to supplementary materials. Tense usage has been standardized (past tense for results, present tense for discussion). Reviewer Comment 7: Overall Recommendation Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment of the relevance and strength of our study. All suggested revisions have been incorporated to improve clarity, methodological transparency, and analytical depth. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we thank the reviewer again for their valuable feedback. Yours faithfully Turyamureeba Silaji Corresponding Author Competing Interests: Corresponding Author Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rafiq S. Reviewer Report For: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180615.r422941 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1#referee-response-422941 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 28 Oct 2025 Shahid Rafiq , Emerson UniversityMultan, Multan, Pakistan Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180615.r422941 The article “Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance” investigates how different organizational structures influence staff performance in private universities. The study draws on Henri Fayol’s Administrative Management ... Continue reading READ ALL The article “Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance” investigates how different organizational structures influence staff performance in private universities. The study draws on Henri Fayol’s Administrative Management Theory and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and applies a mixed-methods design. It combines quantitative data from 186 academic staff members with qualitative insights from interviews with 10 academic deans. The findings show that hierarchical and functional structures are the most common, with centralization playing a dominant role. Statistical analysis reveals that organizational structure accounts for 26.2% of the variance in academic staff performance, and qualitative data reinforce the view that rigid structures can restrict autonomy and innovation. The authors conclude that more adaptive and participatory structures could improve staff performance and institutional effectiveness. The article is clearly structured and mostly well written. It provides a solid theoretical foundation and cites both classical and recent literature. However, some sections are overly descriptive, and several references are repeated unnecessarily. A more focused literature review would make the argument clearer and more cohesive. While the study design is appropriate for the research objectives, some important methodological details are missing. The paper does not explain how participants were selected, how the survey instrument was validated, or how qualitative data were analyzed. These are critical elements that should be addressed to strengthen the technical rigor of the study. The methods section offers an overview of data collection and analysis, but not enough information to allow replication by other researchers. The authors should include more precise details on sampling procedures, provide or reference the survey instrument and interview guide, and describe how data were coded and analyzed. The statistical analysis itself is appropriate, with the use of descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression. However, more transparency is needed in reporting results. Important details such as regression coefficients, confidence intervals, assumptions testing, and effect sizes are missing. Including these would strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of the findings. Another limitation is the lack of access to the underlying dataset. The paper does not include a clear data availability statement or links to supporting materials. Providing anonymized raw data or explaining why it cannot be shared would be necessary to ensure transparency. Despite these methodological gaps, the conclusions are well supported by the data. The discussion appropriately connects the results to existing literature and highlights how organizational structure affects academic staff motivation, autonomy, and performance. In terms of presentation, the article is easy to follow and well organized. The tables are clear and the narrative flows logically. Some sections would benefit from more concise writing and the removal of repetitive phrases. Minor grammatical improvements would also enhance readability. Overall, this is a relevant and timely study with clear implications for university governance and staff performance in the Ugandan context. To make the article scientifically sound, the authors should address four key areas: first, provide fuller methodological details, including sampling procedures, instrument development, and qualitative analysis methods; second, strengthen statistical reporting with more technical transparency; third, clarify or include data availability to support reproducibility; and fourth, tighten the literature review to remove unnecessary repetition. Addressing these points would significantly enhance the rigor, clarity, and impact of the work Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Educational Leadership, Higher Education Management, and Organizational Studies. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rafiq S. Reviewer Report For: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180615.r422941 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1#referee-response-422941 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 06 Jan 2026 Turyamureeba silaji , Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda 06 Jan 2026 Author Response Response to Peer Reviewer Comments Manuscript Title: Examining Types of Organisational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and Their Impact on Academic Staff Performance Journal: F1000Research We sincerely ... Continue reading Response to Peer Reviewer Comments Manuscript Title: Examining Types of Organisational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and Their Impact on Academic Staff Performance Journal: F1000Research We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback provided on our manuscript. The comments were insightful and have significantly improved the overall quality, clarity, and rigor of the paper. Below, we provide a point-by-point response outlining how each issue has been addressed in the revised version. 1. General Comment Reviewer Comment: The article is clearly structured and mostly well written. It provides a solid theoretical foundation and cites both classical and recent literature. However, some sections are overly descriptive, and several references are repeated unnecessarily. A more focused literature review would make the argument clearer and more cohesive. Response: We appreciate this positive evaluation. The literature review section has been thoroughly revised to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Repeated citations (e.g., multiple mentions of Atwebembeire et al., Mugizi et al., and Marisa & Oigo) have been streamlined, and the review now follows a thematic and critical format. Additionally, more recent and relevant literature has been incorporated (e.g., Silaji et al., 2023; Eze et al., 2024; Latif et al., 2024; Silaji et al., 2025) to enhance the argument and theoretical integration. Revision Made: Section 2.0 Literature Review reorganized thematically around Hierarchy, Centralization, Formalization, and Departmentalization. Redundant citations removed; all references updated to APA 7 style. Added critical synthesis linking Fayol’s Administrative Theory and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory to organizational design and motivation outcomes. 2. Methodological Detail Reviewer Comment: The paper does not explain how participants were selected, how the survey instrument was validated, or how qualitative data were analyzed. These are critical elements that should be addressed to strengthen the technical rigor of the study. Response: We agree that methodological transparency is essential. Accordingly, the Methods section has been expanded substantially. We have detailed participant selection, instrument validation, and qualitative analysis procedures. Revisions Made: Added a Sampling subsection describing the stratified random selection of 186 academic staff from four private chartered universities, and the purposive inclusion of 10 academic deans. Included a Survey Instrument subsection specifying that the questionnaire was adapted from validated tools (Mugizi et al., 2019; Atwebembeire & Malunda, 2019), reviewed by experts, and pre-tested with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 for reliability. Added a Qualitative Data Analysis subsection, explaining that interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically using Braun & Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework. Included ethical clearance details and informed consent procedures to demonstrate research integrity. 3. Statistical Transparency Reviewer Comment: Important details such as regression coefficients, confidence intervals, assumptions testing, and effect sizes are missing. Including these would strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of the findings. Response: We have now provided comprehensive statistical reporting to enhance transparency. Revisions Made: Regression tables now include β coefficients, standard errors, t-values, and significance levels (p-values). Added information on assumptions testing (normality, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity) and confirmed that all statistical assumptions were met. Reported R² values, F-statistics, and confidence intervals for regression models. Clarified that analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 26. This additional information ensures full replicability and statistical rigor in line with the reviewer’s recommendations. 4. Data Availability and Transparency Reviewer Comment: Another limitation is the lack of access to the underlying dataset. The paper does not include a clear data availability statement or links to supporting materials. Response: A Data Availability Statement has now been included in the final section of the article to comply with F1000Research’s transparency policy. Revisions Made: “The anonymized dataset supporting the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.” This ensures openness and reproducibility while maintaining participant confidentiality in compliance with institutional ethical guidelines. 5. Discussion and Theoretical Integration Reviewer Comment: The discussion appropriately connects the results to existing literature and highlights how organizational structure affects academic staff motivation, autonomy, and performance. Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive observation. The discussion section has been strengthened further to deepen theoretical integration and enhance the connection between findings and theories. Revisions Made: Incorporated Henri Fayol’s and Vroom’s frameworks explicitly to interpret results. Used connecting phrases such as “Consistent with Fayol’s principle of unity of command…” and “In line with Vroom’s expectancy framework, excessive centralisation may weaken motivation…” . Integrated both quantitative results (r = 0.65, p < .01; β = 0.26, p < .001) and qualitative evidence (e.g., Dean 1–10 statements) to provide a richer interpretation. Cited supporting literature (Rwothumio & Amwine, 2021; Silaji et al., 2025; Eze et al., 2024) to situate findings in current research. 6. Writing Style and Clarity Reviewer Comment: Some sections would benefit from more concise writing and the removal of repetitive phrases. Minor grammatical improvements would also enhance readability. Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure conciseness, clarity, and grammatical accuracy. Revisions Made: Removed redundant phrases such as “the findings revealed that…” and simplified transitions. Enhanced readability through clearer topic sentences and paragraph transitions. Conducted a professional grammar check to improve overall flow. Reduced overly descriptive explanations to make arguments more precise. 7. Contribution and Relevance Reviewer Comment: Overall, this is a relevant and timely study with clear implications for university governance and staff performance in the Ugandan context. Response: We appreciate this encouraging feedback. We have further emphasized the policy implications of the findings in the Conclusion and Recommendations section, highlighting how private universities can adopt hybrid structures that balance accountability with flexibility. Revisions Made: Expanded recommendations on participatory leadership, bottom-up communication, and periodic structural audits. Linked findings to the Ministry of Education and Sports (Uganda) policy framework to demonstrate national relevance. Closing Statement We are grateful for the reviewer’s constructive comments, which have helped us significantly improve the rigor, clarity, and scholarly contribution of our manuscript. We believe that the revised version fully addresses all the concerns raised and aligns with the high standards expected by F1000Research . We hope the reviewer will find this revised manuscript satisfactory for indexing consideration. Signed, Turyamureeba Silaji Response to Peer Reviewer Comments Manuscript Title: Examining Types of Organisational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and Their Impact on Academic Staff Performance Journal: F1000Research We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback provided on our manuscript. The comments were insightful and have significantly improved the overall quality, clarity, and rigor of the paper. Below, we provide a point-by-point response outlining how each issue has been addressed in the revised version. 1. General Comment Reviewer Comment: The article is clearly structured and mostly well written. It provides a solid theoretical foundation and cites both classical and recent literature. However, some sections are overly descriptive, and several references are repeated unnecessarily. A more focused literature review would make the argument clearer and more cohesive. Response: We appreciate this positive evaluation. The literature review section has been thoroughly revised to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Repeated citations (e.g., multiple mentions of Atwebembeire et al., Mugizi et al., and Marisa & Oigo) have been streamlined, and the review now follows a thematic and critical format. Additionally, more recent and relevant literature has been incorporated (e.g., Silaji et al., 2023; Eze et al., 2024; Latif et al., 2024; Silaji et al., 2025) to enhance the argument and theoretical integration. Revision Made: Section 2.0 Literature Review reorganized thematically around Hierarchy, Centralization, Formalization, and Departmentalization. Redundant citations removed; all references updated to APA 7 style. Added critical synthesis linking Fayol’s Administrative Theory and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory to organizational design and motivation outcomes. 2. Methodological Detail Reviewer Comment: The paper does not explain how participants were selected, how the survey instrument was validated, or how qualitative data were analyzed. These are critical elements that should be addressed to strengthen the technical rigor of the study. Response: We agree that methodological transparency is essential. Accordingly, the Methods section has been expanded substantially. We have detailed participant selection, instrument validation, and qualitative analysis procedures. Revisions Made: Added a Sampling subsection describing the stratified random selection of 186 academic staff from four private chartered universities, and the purposive inclusion of 10 academic deans. Included a Survey Instrument subsection specifying that the questionnaire was adapted from validated tools (Mugizi et al., 2019; Atwebembeire & Malunda, 2019), reviewed by experts, and pre-tested with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 for reliability. Added a Qualitative Data Analysis subsection, explaining that interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically using Braun & Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework. Included ethical clearance details and informed consent procedures to demonstrate research integrity. 3. Statistical Transparency Reviewer Comment: Important details such as regression coefficients, confidence intervals, assumptions testing, and effect sizes are missing. Including these would strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of the findings. Response: We have now provided comprehensive statistical reporting to enhance transparency. Revisions Made: Regression tables now include β coefficients, standard errors, t-values, and significance levels (p-values). Added information on assumptions testing (normality, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity) and confirmed that all statistical assumptions were met. Reported R² values, F-statistics, and confidence intervals for regression models. Clarified that analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 26. This additional information ensures full replicability and statistical rigor in line with the reviewer’s recommendations. 4. Data Availability and Transparency Reviewer Comment: Another limitation is the lack of access to the underlying dataset. The paper does not include a clear data availability statement or links to supporting materials. Response: A Data Availability Statement has now been included in the final section of the article to comply with F1000Research’s transparency policy. Revisions Made: “The anonymized dataset supporting the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.” This ensures openness and reproducibility while maintaining participant confidentiality in compliance with institutional ethical guidelines. 5. Discussion and Theoretical Integration Reviewer Comment: The discussion appropriately connects the results to existing literature and highlights how organizational structure affects academic staff motivation, autonomy, and performance. Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive observation. The discussion section has been strengthened further to deepen theoretical integration and enhance the connection between findings and theories. Revisions Made: Incorporated Henri Fayol’s and Vroom’s frameworks explicitly to interpret results. Used connecting phrases such as “Consistent with Fayol’s principle of unity of command…” and “In line with Vroom’s expectancy framework, excessive centralisation may weaken motivation…” . Integrated both quantitative results (r = 0.65, p < .01; β = 0.26, p < .001) and qualitative evidence (e.g., Dean 1–10 statements) to provide a richer interpretation. Cited supporting literature (Rwothumio & Amwine, 2021; Silaji et al., 2025; Eze et al., 2024) to situate findings in current research. 6. Writing Style and Clarity Reviewer Comment: Some sections would benefit from more concise writing and the removal of repetitive phrases. Minor grammatical improvements would also enhance readability. Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure conciseness, clarity, and grammatical accuracy. Revisions Made: Removed redundant phrases such as “the findings revealed that…” and simplified transitions. Enhanced readability through clearer topic sentences and paragraph transitions. Conducted a professional grammar check to improve overall flow. Reduced overly descriptive explanations to make arguments more precise. 7. Contribution and Relevance Reviewer Comment: Overall, this is a relevant and timely study with clear implications for university governance and staff performance in the Ugandan context. Response: We appreciate this encouraging feedback. We have further emphasized the policy implications of the findings in the Conclusion and Recommendations section, highlighting how private universities can adopt hybrid structures that balance accountability with flexibility. Revisions Made: Expanded recommendations on participatory leadership, bottom-up communication, and periodic structural audits. Linked findings to the Ministry of Education and Sports (Uganda) policy framework to demonstrate national relevance. Closing Statement We are grateful for the reviewer’s constructive comments, which have helped us significantly improve the rigor, clarity, and scholarly contribution of our manuscript. We believe that the revised version fully addresses all the concerns raised and aligns with the high standards expected by F1000Research . We hope the reviewer will find this revised manuscript satisfactory for indexing consideration. Signed, Turyamureeba Silaji Competing Interests: AUTHOR Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 06 Jan 2026 Turyamureeba silaji , Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda 06 Jan 2026 Author Response Response to Peer Reviewer Comments Manuscript Title: Examining Types of Organisational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and Their Impact on Academic Staff Performance Journal: F1000Research We sincerely ... Continue reading Response to Peer Reviewer Comments Manuscript Title: Examining Types of Organisational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and Their Impact on Academic Staff Performance Journal: F1000Research We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback provided on our manuscript. The comments were insightful and have significantly improved the overall quality, clarity, and rigor of the paper. Below, we provide a point-by-point response outlining how each issue has been addressed in the revised version. 1. General Comment Reviewer Comment: The article is clearly structured and mostly well written. It provides a solid theoretical foundation and cites both classical and recent literature. However, some sections are overly descriptive, and several references are repeated unnecessarily. A more focused literature review would make the argument clearer and more cohesive. Response: We appreciate this positive evaluation. The literature review section has been thoroughly revised to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Repeated citations (e.g., multiple mentions of Atwebembeire et al., Mugizi et al., and Marisa & Oigo) have been streamlined, and the review now follows a thematic and critical format. Additionally, more recent and relevant literature has been incorporated (e.g., Silaji et al., 2023; Eze et al., 2024; Latif et al., 2024; Silaji et al., 2025) to enhance the argument and theoretical integration. Revision Made: Section 2.0 Literature Review reorganized thematically around Hierarchy, Centralization, Formalization, and Departmentalization. Redundant citations removed; all references updated to APA 7 style. Added critical synthesis linking Fayol’s Administrative Theory and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory to organizational design and motivation outcomes. 2. Methodological Detail Reviewer Comment: The paper does not explain how participants were selected, how the survey instrument was validated, or how qualitative data were analyzed. These are critical elements that should be addressed to strengthen the technical rigor of the study. Response: We agree that methodological transparency is essential. Accordingly, the Methods section has been expanded substantially. We have detailed participant selection, instrument validation, and qualitative analysis procedures. Revisions Made: Added a Sampling subsection describing the stratified random selection of 186 academic staff from four private chartered universities, and the purposive inclusion of 10 academic deans. Included a Survey Instrument subsection specifying that the questionnaire was adapted from validated tools (Mugizi et al., 2019; Atwebembeire & Malunda, 2019), reviewed by experts, and pre-tested with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 for reliability. Added a Qualitative Data Analysis subsection, explaining that interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically using Braun & Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework. Included ethical clearance details and informed consent procedures to demonstrate research integrity. 3. Statistical Transparency Reviewer Comment: Important details such as regression coefficients, confidence intervals, assumptions testing, and effect sizes are missing. Including these would strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of the findings. Response: We have now provided comprehensive statistical reporting to enhance transparency. Revisions Made: Regression tables now include β coefficients, standard errors, t-values, and significance levels (p-values). Added information on assumptions testing (normality, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity) and confirmed that all statistical assumptions were met. Reported R² values, F-statistics, and confidence intervals for regression models. Clarified that analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 26. This additional information ensures full replicability and statistical rigor in line with the reviewer’s recommendations. 4. Data Availability and Transparency Reviewer Comment: Another limitation is the lack of access to the underlying dataset. The paper does not include a clear data availability statement or links to supporting materials. Response: A Data Availability Statement has now been included in the final section of the article to comply with F1000Research’s transparency policy. Revisions Made: “The anonymized dataset supporting the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.” This ensures openness and reproducibility while maintaining participant confidentiality in compliance with institutional ethical guidelines. 5. Discussion and Theoretical Integration Reviewer Comment: The discussion appropriately connects the results to existing literature and highlights how organizational structure affects academic staff motivation, autonomy, and performance. Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive observation. The discussion section has been strengthened further to deepen theoretical integration and enhance the connection between findings and theories. Revisions Made: Incorporated Henri Fayol’s and Vroom’s frameworks explicitly to interpret results. Used connecting phrases such as “Consistent with Fayol’s principle of unity of command…” and “In line with Vroom’s expectancy framework, excessive centralisation may weaken motivation…” . Integrated both quantitative results (r = 0.65, p < .01; β = 0.26, p < .001) and qualitative evidence (e.g., Dean 1–10 statements) to provide a richer interpretation. Cited supporting literature (Rwothumio & Amwine, 2021; Silaji et al., 2025; Eze et al., 2024) to situate findings in current research. 6. Writing Style and Clarity Reviewer Comment: Some sections would benefit from more concise writing and the removal of repetitive phrases. Minor grammatical improvements would also enhance readability. Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure conciseness, clarity, and grammatical accuracy. Revisions Made: Removed redundant phrases such as “the findings revealed that…” and simplified transitions. Enhanced readability through clearer topic sentences and paragraph transitions. Conducted a professional grammar check to improve overall flow. Reduced overly descriptive explanations to make arguments more precise. 7. Contribution and Relevance Reviewer Comment: Overall, this is a relevant and timely study with clear implications for university governance and staff performance in the Ugandan context. Response: We appreciate this encouraging feedback. We have further emphasized the policy implications of the findings in the Conclusion and Recommendations section, highlighting how private universities can adopt hybrid structures that balance accountability with flexibility. Revisions Made: Expanded recommendations on participatory leadership, bottom-up communication, and periodic structural audits. Linked findings to the Ministry of Education and Sports (Uganda) policy framework to demonstrate national relevance. Closing Statement We are grateful for the reviewer’s constructive comments, which have helped us significantly improve the rigor, clarity, and scholarly contribution of our manuscript. We believe that the revised version fully addresses all the concerns raised and aligns with the high standards expected by F1000Research . We hope the reviewer will find this revised manuscript satisfactory for indexing consideration. Signed, Turyamureeba Silaji Response to Peer Reviewer Comments Manuscript Title: Examining Types of Organisational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and Their Impact on Academic Staff Performance Journal: F1000Research We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback provided on our manuscript. The comments were insightful and have significantly improved the overall quality, clarity, and rigor of the paper. Below, we provide a point-by-point response outlining how each issue has been addressed in the revised version. 1. General Comment Reviewer Comment: The article is clearly structured and mostly well written. It provides a solid theoretical foundation and cites both classical and recent literature. However, some sections are overly descriptive, and several references are repeated unnecessarily. A more focused literature review would make the argument clearer and more cohesive. Response: We appreciate this positive evaluation. The literature review section has been thoroughly revised to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Repeated citations (e.g., multiple mentions of Atwebembeire et al., Mugizi et al., and Marisa & Oigo) have been streamlined, and the review now follows a thematic and critical format. Additionally, more recent and relevant literature has been incorporated (e.g., Silaji et al., 2023; Eze et al., 2024; Latif et al., 2024; Silaji et al., 2025) to enhance the argument and theoretical integration. Revision Made: Section 2.0 Literature Review reorganized thematically around Hierarchy, Centralization, Formalization, and Departmentalization. Redundant citations removed; all references updated to APA 7 style. Added critical synthesis linking Fayol’s Administrative Theory and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory to organizational design and motivation outcomes. 2. Methodological Detail Reviewer Comment: The paper does not explain how participants were selected, how the survey instrument was validated, or how qualitative data were analyzed. These are critical elements that should be addressed to strengthen the technical rigor of the study. Response: We agree that methodological transparency is essential. Accordingly, the Methods section has been expanded substantially. We have detailed participant selection, instrument validation, and qualitative analysis procedures. Revisions Made: Added a Sampling subsection describing the stratified random selection of 186 academic staff from four private chartered universities, and the purposive inclusion of 10 academic deans. Included a Survey Instrument subsection specifying that the questionnaire was adapted from validated tools (Mugizi et al., 2019; Atwebembeire & Malunda, 2019), reviewed by experts, and pre-tested with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 for reliability. Added a Qualitative Data Analysis subsection, explaining that interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically using Braun & Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework. Included ethical clearance details and informed consent procedures to demonstrate research integrity. 3. Statistical Transparency Reviewer Comment: Important details such as regression coefficients, confidence intervals, assumptions testing, and effect sizes are missing. Including these would strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of the findings. Response: We have now provided comprehensive statistical reporting to enhance transparency. Revisions Made: Regression tables now include β coefficients, standard errors, t-values, and significance levels (p-values). Added information on assumptions testing (normality, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity) and confirmed that all statistical assumptions were met. Reported R² values, F-statistics, and confidence intervals for regression models. Clarified that analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 26. This additional information ensures full replicability and statistical rigor in line with the reviewer’s recommendations. 4. Data Availability and Transparency Reviewer Comment: Another limitation is the lack of access to the underlying dataset. The paper does not include a clear data availability statement or links to supporting materials. Response: A Data Availability Statement has now been included in the final section of the article to comply with F1000Research’s transparency policy. Revisions Made: “The anonymized dataset supporting the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.” This ensures openness and reproducibility while maintaining participant confidentiality in compliance with institutional ethical guidelines. 5. Discussion and Theoretical Integration Reviewer Comment: The discussion appropriately connects the results to existing literature and highlights how organizational structure affects academic staff motivation, autonomy, and performance. Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive observation. The discussion section has been strengthened further to deepen theoretical integration and enhance the connection between findings and theories. Revisions Made: Incorporated Henri Fayol’s and Vroom’s frameworks explicitly to interpret results. Used connecting phrases such as “Consistent with Fayol’s principle of unity of command…” and “In line with Vroom’s expectancy framework, excessive centralisation may weaken motivation…” . Integrated both quantitative results (r = 0.65, p < .01; β = 0.26, p < .001) and qualitative evidence (e.g., Dean 1–10 statements) to provide a richer interpretation. Cited supporting literature (Rwothumio & Amwine, 2021; Silaji et al., 2025; Eze et al., 2024) to situate findings in current research. 6. Writing Style and Clarity Reviewer Comment: Some sections would benefit from more concise writing and the removal of repetitive phrases. Minor grammatical improvements would also enhance readability. Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure conciseness, clarity, and grammatical accuracy. Revisions Made: Removed redundant phrases such as “the findings revealed that…” and simplified transitions. Enhanced readability through clearer topic sentences and paragraph transitions. Conducted a professional grammar check to improve overall flow. Reduced overly descriptive explanations to make arguments more precise. 7. Contribution and Relevance Reviewer Comment: Overall, this is a relevant and timely study with clear implications for university governance and staff performance in the Ugandan context. Response: We appreciate this encouraging feedback. We have further emphasized the policy implications of the findings in the Conclusion and Recommendations section, highlighting how private universities can adopt hybrid structures that balance accountability with flexibility. Revisions Made: Expanded recommendations on participatory leadership, bottom-up communication, and periodic structural audits. Linked findings to the Ministry of Education and Sports (Uganda) policy framework to demonstrate national relevance. Closing Statement We are grateful for the reviewer’s constructive comments, which have helped us significantly improve the rigor, clarity, and scholarly contribution of our manuscript. We believe that the revised version fully addresses all the concerns raised and aligns with the high standards expected by F1000Research . We hope the reviewer will find this revised manuscript satisfactory for indexing consideration. Signed, Turyamureeba Silaji Competing Interests: AUTHOR Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 14 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 3 (revision) 11 Mar 26 read Version 2 (revision) 06 Jan 26 read read Version 1 14 Jul 25 read read Shahid Rafiq , Emerson UniversityMultan, Multan, Pakistan Issah Iddrisu , University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana Jacqueline Y. Sánchez-García , Guadalajara Universidad Panamericana, Zapopan, Mexico Juan E. Núñez-Ríos , Universidad Panamericana (Ringgold ID: 431677), Mexico City, Mexico Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Rafiq S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Apr 2026 | for Version 3 Shahid Rafiq , Emerson UniversityMultan, Multan, Pakistan 0 Views copyright © 2026 Rafiq S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised in my previous report, and the revisions have improved the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 06 Apr 2026 Turyamureeba silaji, Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda We sincerely thank the reviewer for the time and effort invested in evaluating our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your positive feedback and are pleased to know that the revisions have adequately addressed your previous concerns and improved the clarity and overall quality of the paper. Your constructive input has been invaluable in strengthening our work. Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and support. May Allah reward you abundantly. View more View less Competing Interests No reply Respond Report a concern Rafiq S. Peer Review Report For: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196362.r466699) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v3#referee-response-466699 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Sánchez-García J et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 05 Feb 2026 | for Version 2 Jacqueline Y. Sánchez-García , Guadalajara Universidad Panamericana, Zapopan, Mexico Juan E. Núñez-Ríos , Business School, Universidad Panamericana (Ringgold ID: 431677), Mexico City, Mexico 0 Views copyright © 2026 Sánchez-García J et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I appreciate the invitation to review this work and, with all due respect to the authors, I recognize that the paper has an organized structure that facilitates overall understanding of the study. With regard to the objectives, it is considered that consistent efforts are being made to achieve them. However, I would like to share some observations with a view to contributing constructively to your work: With regard to the theoretical approach, it should be clarified how the components of expectation theory are included and substantiated in the research, since they are not explicitly measured in either the quantitative or qualitative parts. It is considered that from the outset it should be specified that it serves as an interpretative framework rather than a theoretical foundation or empirical scope. Methodologically, it is recommended to justify why inferential statistical techniques were chosen and methods such as factor analysis, structural equation models, or nonparametric techniques were not considered, given that the data comes from the use of the Likert scale. The study identifies the dimensions of Fayol's theory that are predominant in private universities and demonstrates significant relationships between organizational structure and academic staff performance. Therefore, the study reviews these dimensions rather than reviewing the types of structures. For this reason, the authors are respectfully invited to clarify the conceptual use of the term “types of structures.” From a methodological perspective, both the instrument and the analyses used identify the structural configuration rather than the types of structures, and if that was the scope, then the study could be limited. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise organizational theory and organizational design We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 11 Mar 2026 Turyamureeba silaji, Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the positive remarks regarding the organisation and clarity of the paper. Below, we respond to each comment point by point and indicate how the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Comment 1: Clarification on the use of Expectancy Theory Reviewer’s comment: The reviewer notes that expectancy theory is not explicitly measured in the quantitative or qualitative components of the study and recommends clarifying whether it is used as an interpretative framework rather than as a theoretical foundation with empirical scope. Response: We appreciate this important observation. We agree with the reviewer that expectancy theory was not operationalised through direct measurement of its core components (expectancy, instrumentality, and valence) in either the quantitative or qualitative phases of the study. In response, the manuscript has been revised to explicitly position expectancy theory as an interpretative framework, rather than as a theory subjected to empirical testing. The theory is now used to interpret academic staff motivation and performance behaviours, particularly in explaining how organisational structure and performance monitoring practices shape staff expectations, perceived rewards, and effort–performance linkages. This clarification has been incorporated in the theoretical framework section, where expectancy theory is presented as a supportive lens for interpretation, complementing organisational structure and performance management theories, rather than serving as a direct analytical or measurement model. Comment 2: Justification for inferential statistical techniques Reviewer’s comment: The reviewer recommends justifying the choice of inferential statistical techniques and explaining why methods such as factor analysis, structural equation modelling, or nonparametric techniques were not employed, given the use of Likert-scale data. Response: We thank the reviewer for this methodological suggestion. The manuscript has been revised to provide a clearer justification for the choice of inferential statistical techniques. The study employed correlation and regression analyses because the primary objective was to examine relationships and predictive effects between organisational structure, performance monitoring, and academic staff performance, rather than to validate latent constructs or test complex causal pathways. Factor analysis and structural equation modelling were not adopted because: The study was not designed to develop or validate new measurement scales, as the constructs were adapted from established literature. The sample size and research objectives were more suited to relationship testing than to complex structural modelling. The Likert-scale data were treated as interval-level measurements, consistent with common practice in social science research, thus justifying the use of parametric techniques. These clarifications have been added to the methodology section , specifically under data analysis procedures. Comment 3: Conceptual use of “types of organisational structures” Reviewer’s comment: The reviewer observes that the study identifies and analyses dimensions derived from Fayol’s theory rather than organisational structure types, and invites the authors to clarify the conceptual use of the term “types of structures.” Response: We are grateful for this important conceptual clarification. We agree with the reviewer that the study empirically examines structural dimensions such as hierarchy, centralisation, formalisation, and departmentalisation rather than directly measuring predefined organisational structure types. In response, the manuscript has been revised to clarify that organisational structure types (mechanistic and organic) are inferred from the configuration of structural dimensions, rather than being measured as discrete categories. The term “types of organisational structure” is now explicitly used in a conceptual and interpretative sense, based on the dominant patterns emerging from the analysed dimensions. Accordingly: The conceptual framework now clearly shows dimensions leading to inferred structural types. The results and discussion sections emphasise “dominant structural characteristics” and “structural configurations” rather than treating structure types as directly observed variables. This revision ensures conceptual precision and alignment between the study’s instruments, analyses, and stated scope. Conclusion We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable comments, which have significantly strengthened the theoretical clarity, methodological justification, and conceptual precision of the manuscript. We believe the revisions have improved the overall rigour and contribution of the study. Kind regards Turyamureeba Silaji Corresponding author View more View less Competing Interests No reply Respond Report a concern Sánchez-García JY and Núñez-Ríos JE. Peer Review Report For: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190541.r451592) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v2#referee-response-451592 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Iddrisu I. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Jan 2026 | for Version 2 Issah Iddrisu , University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana 0 Views copyright © 2026 Iddrisu I. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and now meets the expected standards for indexing in F1000Research . The authors have responded comprehensively to all previous feedback, resulting in a more robust, transparent, and impactful study. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL STUDIES I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 04 Feb 2026 Turyamureeba silaji, Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda Dear Dr. Issah Idris in your full Honors We sincerely thank you for your time and thoughtful review of our manuscript. We are grateful for your careful assessment and for acknowledging the improvements made in response to the previous feedback. Your comments and overall evaluation were invaluable in strengthening the clarity, transparency, and robustness of the study. We truly appreciate your expertise and the constructive role you played in helping our work meet the standards required for indexing in F1000Research. Thank you once again for your professionalism and support. Kind regards, Turyamureeba silaji On behalf of the Authors View more View less Competing Interests No reply Respond Report a concern Iddrisu I. Peer Review Report For: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190541.r448164) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v2#referee-response-448164 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Iddrisu I. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 Oct 2025 | for Version 1 Issah Iddrisu , University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana 0 Views copyright © 2025 Iddrisu I. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Report 1. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly. Add a clear statement of the research gap and contribution at the end of the literature review. Reduce redundant citations and improve transitions between paragraphs. Consider synthesizing studies thematically (e.g., hierarchical vs. functional vs. matrix) rather than listing individually. 2. Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Mostly yes, but some methodological clarifications are needed. Include sampling rationale, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and demographic characteristics of respondents. Report reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha or composite reliability) for each construct. Strengthen the integration of qualitative and quantitative results in the discussion. 3. Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly. Add a table summarizing constructs, items, and measurement sources. Include a brief subsection on “Data analysis procedures” to distinguish between quantitative (SPSS, regression, correlation) and qualitative (NVivo, thematic analysis) steps. Discuss ethical clearance more succinctly—keep key approval numbers but reduce repetition. 4. Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Largely appropriate, but could be strengthened. Expand the explanation of R² and F-statistics to interpret effect strength. Present a summary table for reliability, validity, and discriminant validity (if applicable). Use APA or F1000 statistical reporting standards consistently (e.g., r = .53, p < .01). 5. Are the conclusions supported by the results? Yes, but they could be more analytical and less descriptive. Add a short subsection titled “Implications for Policy and Practice.” Discuss limitations (e.g., small sample, cross-sectional design) and suggest areas for future research. End with a concise summary paragraph reinforcing the main contribution. 6. Is the language and style appropriate? Edit for brevity and clarity, especially in the literature review and methodology. Simplify tables—retain essential figures and move detailed statistics to supplementary materials if possible. Ensure consistent tense (past tense for results, present for discussion). 7. Overall Recommendation Status: Approve with major revisions. The paper addresses a relevant and underexplored issue in higher education management in Uganda. Its theoretical grounding and mixed-methods approach are strong, but the paper needs revision to improve clarity, methodological transparency, and analytical depth. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL STUDIES I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 06 Jan 2026 Turyamureeba silaji, Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda Response to Reviewer 2 Comments We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a point-by-point response to the comments: Reviewer Comment 1: Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Response: Partly. We have added a clear statement of the research gap and the study’s contribution at the end of the literature review to enhance clarity. Redundant citations have been reduced, and transitions between paragraphs have been improved for better flow. Studies are now synthesized thematically (hierarchical, functional, and matrix structures) rather than listed individually. Reviewer Comment 2: Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Response: Mostly yes. We have included the sampling rationale and clearly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Demographic characteristics of respondents have been presented in a new table for transparency. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for each construct have been added. The discussion now integrates qualitative and quantitative results more cohesively, highlighting how each informs the other. Reviewer Comment 3: Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Response: Partly. A table summarizing constructs, items, and measurement sources has been included. A new subsection “Data Analysis Procedures” distinguishes quantitative (SPSS, regression, correlation) and qualitative (NVivo, thematic analysis) steps. Ethical clearance details have been retained succinctly with key approval numbers and reduced repetition. Reviewer Comment 4: Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Response: Largely appropriate. The explanation of R² and F-statistics has been expanded to interpret effect size and model strength. A summary table for reliability, validity, and discriminant validity has been added. All statistical reporting now follows APA/F1000 standards consistently (e.g., r = .53, p < .01). Reviewer Comment 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Response: Yes. A new subsection, “Implications for Policy and Practice,” has been added to highlight actionable insights. Limitations (e.g., small sample size, cross-sectional design) are now discussed, with suggestions for future research. The manuscript ends with a concise summary paragraph reinforcing the main contribution. Reviewer Comment 6: Is the language and style appropriate? Response: The manuscript has been edited for brevity and clarity, particularly in the literature review and methodology sections. Tables have been simplified, retaining only essential figures; detailed statistics have been moved to supplementary materials. Tense usage has been standardized (past tense for results, present tense for discussion). Reviewer Comment 7: Overall Recommendation Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment of the relevance and strength of our study. All suggested revisions have been incorporated to improve clarity, methodological transparency, and analytical depth. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we thank the reviewer again for their valuable feedback. Yours faithfully Turyamureeba Silaji Corresponding Author View more View less Competing Interests Corresponding Author reply Respond Report a concern Iddrisu I. Peer Review Report For: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180615.r399615) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1#referee-response-399615 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rafiq S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 Oct 2025 | for Version 1 Shahid Rafiq , Emerson UniversityMultan, Multan, Pakistan 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rafiq S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The article “Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance” investigates how different organizational structures influence staff performance in private universities. The study draws on Henri Fayol’s Administrative Management Theory and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and applies a mixed-methods design. It combines quantitative data from 186 academic staff members with qualitative insights from interviews with 10 academic deans. The findings show that hierarchical and functional structures are the most common, with centralization playing a dominant role. Statistical analysis reveals that organizational structure accounts for 26.2% of the variance in academic staff performance, and qualitative data reinforce the view that rigid structures can restrict autonomy and innovation. The authors conclude that more adaptive and participatory structures could improve staff performance and institutional effectiveness. The article is clearly structured and mostly well written. It provides a solid theoretical foundation and cites both classical and recent literature. However, some sections are overly descriptive, and several references are repeated unnecessarily. A more focused literature review would make the argument clearer and more cohesive. While the study design is appropriate for the research objectives, some important methodological details are missing. The paper does not explain how participants were selected, how the survey instrument was validated, or how qualitative data were analyzed. These are critical elements that should be addressed to strengthen the technical rigor of the study. The methods section offers an overview of data collection and analysis, but not enough information to allow replication by other researchers. The authors should include more precise details on sampling procedures, provide or reference the survey instrument and interview guide, and describe how data were coded and analyzed. The statistical analysis itself is appropriate, with the use of descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression. However, more transparency is needed in reporting results. Important details such as regression coefficients, confidence intervals, assumptions testing, and effect sizes are missing. Including these would strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of the findings. Another limitation is the lack of access to the underlying dataset. The paper does not include a clear data availability statement or links to supporting materials. Providing anonymized raw data or explaining why it cannot be shared would be necessary to ensure transparency. Despite these methodological gaps, the conclusions are well supported by the data. The discussion appropriately connects the results to existing literature and highlights how organizational structure affects academic staff motivation, autonomy, and performance. In terms of presentation, the article is easy to follow and well organized. The tables are clear and the narrative flows logically. Some sections would benefit from more concise writing and the removal of repetitive phrases. Minor grammatical improvements would also enhance readability. Overall, this is a relevant and timely study with clear implications for university governance and staff performance in the Ugandan context. To make the article scientifically sound, the authors should address four key areas: first, provide fuller methodological details, including sampling procedures, instrument development, and qualitative analysis methods; second, strengthen statistical reporting with more technical transparency; third, clarify or include data availability to support reproducibility; and fourth, tighten the literature review to remove unnecessary repetition. Addressing these points would significantly enhance the rigor, clarity, and impact of the work Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Educational Leadership, Higher Education Management, and Organizational Studies. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 06 Jan 2026 Turyamureeba silaji, Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Uganda Response to Peer Reviewer Comments Manuscript Title: Examining Types of Organisational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and Their Impact on Academic Staff Performance Journal: F1000Research We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback provided on our manuscript. The comments were insightful and have significantly improved the overall quality, clarity, and rigor of the paper. Below, we provide a point-by-point response outlining how each issue has been addressed in the revised version. 1. General Comment Reviewer Comment: The article is clearly structured and mostly well written. It provides a solid theoretical foundation and cites both classical and recent literature. However, some sections are overly descriptive, and several references are repeated unnecessarily. A more focused literature review would make the argument clearer and more cohesive. Response: We appreciate this positive evaluation. The literature review section has been thoroughly revised to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Repeated citations (e.g., multiple mentions of Atwebembeire et al., Mugizi et al., and Marisa & Oigo) have been streamlined, and the review now follows a thematic and critical format. Additionally, more recent and relevant literature has been incorporated (e.g., Silaji et al., 2023; Eze et al., 2024; Latif et al., 2024; Silaji et al., 2025) to enhance the argument and theoretical integration. Revision Made: Section 2.0 Literature Review reorganized thematically around Hierarchy, Centralization, Formalization, and Departmentalization. Redundant citations removed; all references updated to APA 7 style. Added critical synthesis linking Fayol’s Administrative Theory and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory to organizational design and motivation outcomes. 2. Methodological Detail Reviewer Comment: The paper does not explain how participants were selected, how the survey instrument was validated, or how qualitative data were analyzed. These are critical elements that should be addressed to strengthen the technical rigor of the study. Response: We agree that methodological transparency is essential. Accordingly, the Methods section has been expanded substantially. We have detailed participant selection, instrument validation, and qualitative analysis procedures. Revisions Made: Added a Sampling subsection describing the stratified random selection of 186 academic staff from four private chartered universities, and the purposive inclusion of 10 academic deans. Included a Survey Instrument subsection specifying that the questionnaire was adapted from validated tools (Mugizi et al., 2019; Atwebembeire & Malunda, 2019), reviewed by experts, and pre-tested with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 for reliability. Added a Qualitative Data Analysis subsection, explaining that interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically using Braun & Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework. Included ethical clearance details and informed consent procedures to demonstrate research integrity. 3. Statistical Transparency Reviewer Comment: Important details such as regression coefficients, confidence intervals, assumptions testing, and effect sizes are missing. Including these would strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of the findings. Response: We have now provided comprehensive statistical reporting to enhance transparency. Revisions Made: Regression tables now include β coefficients, standard errors, t-values, and significance levels (p-values). Added information on assumptions testing (normality, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity) and confirmed that all statistical assumptions were met. Reported R² values, F-statistics, and confidence intervals for regression models. Clarified that analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 26. This additional information ensures full replicability and statistical rigor in line with the reviewer’s recommendations. 4. Data Availability and Transparency Reviewer Comment: Another limitation is the lack of access to the underlying dataset. The paper does not include a clear data availability statement or links to supporting materials. Response: A Data Availability Statement has now been included in the final section of the article to comply with F1000Research’s transparency policy. Revisions Made: “The anonymized dataset supporting the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.” This ensures openness and reproducibility while maintaining participant confidentiality in compliance with institutional ethical guidelines. 5. Discussion and Theoretical Integration Reviewer Comment: The discussion appropriately connects the results to existing literature and highlights how organizational structure affects academic staff motivation, autonomy, and performance. Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive observation. The discussion section has been strengthened further to deepen theoretical integration and enhance the connection between findings and theories. Revisions Made: Incorporated Henri Fayol’s and Vroom’s frameworks explicitly to interpret results. Used connecting phrases such as “Consistent with Fayol’s principle of unity of command…” and “In line with Vroom’s expectancy framework, excessive centralisation may weaken motivation…” . Integrated both quantitative results (r = 0.65, p < .01; β = 0.26, p < .001) and qualitative evidence (e.g., Dean 1–10 statements) to provide a richer interpretation. Cited supporting literature (Rwothumio & Amwine, 2021; Silaji et al., 2025; Eze et al., 2024) to situate findings in current research. 6. Writing Style and Clarity Reviewer Comment: Some sections would benefit from more concise writing and the removal of repetitive phrases. Minor grammatical improvements would also enhance readability. Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure conciseness, clarity, and grammatical accuracy. Revisions Made: Removed redundant phrases such as “the findings revealed that…” and simplified transitions. Enhanced readability through clearer topic sentences and paragraph transitions. Conducted a professional grammar check to improve overall flow. Reduced overly descriptive explanations to make arguments more precise. 7. Contribution and Relevance Reviewer Comment: Overall, this is a relevant and timely study with clear implications for university governance and staff performance in the Ugandan context. Response: We appreciate this encouraging feedback. We have further emphasized the policy implications of the findings in the Conclusion and Recommendations section, highlighting how private universities can adopt hybrid structures that balance accountability with flexibility. Revisions Made: Expanded recommendations on participatory leadership, bottom-up communication, and periodic structural audits. Linked findings to the Ministry of Education and Sports (Uganda) policy framework to demonstrate national relevance. Closing Statement We are grateful for the reviewer’s constructive comments, which have helped us significantly improve the rigor, clarity, and scholarly contribution of our manuscript. We believe that the revised version fully addresses all the concerns raised and aligns with the high standards expected by F1000Research . We hope the reviewer will find this revised manuscript satisfactory for indexing consideration. Signed, Turyamureeba Silaji View more View less Competing Interests AUTHOR reply Respond Report a concern Rafiq S. Peer Review Report For: Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda and their Impact on Academic Staff Performance [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :690 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180615.r422941) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1#referee-response-422941 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Examining types of Organizational Structure...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('silaji T et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690", templates : { twitter : "Examining types of Organizational Structure in Private Chartered.... silaji T et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-690/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/164151/180615") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "180615"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "451590": 0, "399622": 0, "451591": 0, "399623": 0, "451588": 0, "399620": 0, "451589": 0, "399621": 0, "451586": 0, "399618": 0, "451587": 0, "399619": 0, "451584": 0, "399616": 0, "451585": 0, "399617": 0, "466699": 6, "466698": 0, "466697": 0, "451592": 12, "451593": 0, "422934": 0, "422935": 0, "422932": 0, "422933": 0, "422940": 0, "422941": 12, "422938": 0, "422939": 0, "422936": 0, "422937": 0, "416679": 0, "448164": 6, "448165": 0, "416686": 0, "416687": 0, "416684": 0, "416685": 0, "416682": 0, "416683": 0, "416680": 0, "416681": 0, "405174": 0, "448439": 0, "405175": 0, "405173": 0, "416688": 0, "448446": 0, "405182": 0, "448447": 0, "448444": 0, "405180": 0, "448445": 0, "405181": 0, "448442": 0, "405178": 0, "448443": 0, "405179": 0, "448440": 0, "405176": 0, "448441": 0, "405177": 0, "420038": 0, "420039": 0, "420036": 0, "420037": 0, "420034": 0, "420035": 0, "448448": 0, "420042": 0, "420043": 0, "420040": 0, "420041": 0, "399614": 0, "399615": 16, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "11be9062-0570-4d95-aca1-e25d0baf7e92"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });