Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms

293

Impact of Uncertainty and Complexity on Formal Structures and Systems Another way of thinking about structural alignment is to begin by reflecting on the environment they operate in. Beginning with the work of Thompson in the 1960s,9 researchers have explored the impact of uncertainty and complexity on why organizations structure their systems and processes as they do and the impact these configurations have on their capacity to successfully adapt to the environment over time.10 When examining the structural dimensions, organizations have often been classified into two types: (1) those that are more formal, more differentiated, more centralized, and more standardized; and (2) those that are less formal, less differentiated, more decentralized, and less standardized. The terms that are applied to this organizational typology are mechanistic and organic. Table 5.1 outlines the characteristics of mechanistic and organic organizational forms as opposite ends of a continuum.11

Table 5.1 Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms Table 5.1 Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms

More Mechanistic → More Organic

Tasks are broken down into separate parts and rigidly defined and assigned

Flexible tasks that are adjusted and redefined through teamwork and participation

294

More Mechanistic → More Organic

High degree of formalization, strict hierarchy of authority and control, many rules

Relatively little formalization, less reliance on a hierarchy of authority and control, few rules, greater participation and decentralization

Narrow span of control with reliance on hierarchies of people in specialized roles

Wide span of control

Knowledge and control of tasks are centralized at the top of the organization, limited decision making at lower levels

Knowledge and control of tasks are decentralized and located throughout the organization; highly decentralized decision making

Communication is vertical Communication is horizontal and free flowing, with many integrating roles

Simple, straightforward planning processes

Sophisticated environmental scanning, planning, and forecasting, including the use of scenarios and contingency thinking

Source: Adapted from Daft, R. I. (2007). Organization theory and design (9th ed., p. 152). Mason, OH: South-Western.

Mechanistic organizations rely on formal hierarchies with centralized decision making and a clear division of labor. Rules and procedures are clearly defined and employees are expected to follow them. Work is specialized and routine. Mechanistic organizations tend to be concentrated in industries where the risk of getting it wrong is high. For example, nuclear power suppliers

295

or pharmacy industries will be extremely mechanistic in order to manage the high risk and detailed logistics of their business.

Organic organizations are more flexible. They have fewer rules and procedures, and there is less reliance on the hierarchy of authority for centralized decision making. The structure is flexible and not as well defined. Jobs are less specialized. Communication is more informal, and lateral communications are more accepted. Many start-up companies and companies in creative fields will be more organic, allowing increased communication and flexibility in day-to-day tasks. While it may appear that one structural form is more appealing than the other, both can be effective depending upon their fit with the environment. When efficiency is critical to success and ambiguity and uncertainty are low to moderate, a more mechanistic structure will fit best. However, when an organization’s ability to respond to its environment with flexibility and adaptiveness is critical to its success, a more organic structure will make more sense.12