Mechanistic vs Organic Structure

10 Key excerpts on "Mechanistic vs Organic Structure"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  A Primer on Organizational Behavior

  • James L. Bowditch, Anthony F. Buono, Marcus M. Stewart(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  Organic structures, in contrast, are more loosely structured, with more decentralized decision making and lateral information flows. In general, mechanistic organizations tend to be effective under relatively stable environmental conditions (low complexity), while organizations with organic structures tend to fare better in rapidly changing, more unpredictable environments. A mechanistic organizational structure reflects the traditional description of a bu- reaucracy (Chapter 1), where (1) there is a clear definition of jobs (high formalization); (2) senior administrators have more knowledge of problems facing an organization than those at lower levels (a condition conducive to centralization); (3) standardized policies and procedures govern organizational decision making (indirect integrative mechanisms, standardized work processes); and (4) rewards are determined by adher- ence to instructions from (direct) supervisors. Organic organizational structures, sometimes referred to as adhocracies, are designed to be flexible and to cope with rapidly changing environments. 29 Adhocracies are characterized by: (1) decreased emphasis on formal job descriptions and specialization (low formalization); (2) there is no assumption that people in higher MECHANISTIC ORGANIZATIONS Characteristics ● Tall structure, many levels of management ● Information flows up and down the hierarchy ● Decision making centralized at upper levels ● Emphasis on standardized policies and procedures and indirect integration ORGANIC ORGANIZATIONS Characteristics ● Flat structure, few levels of management ● Information flows horizontally across departments ● Decision making decentralized to point where work is done ● Emphasis on mutual adjustment and direct integration Figure 9-2 Characteristics of Mechanistic and Organic Organizations

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Service Leadership

  Leading with Competence, Character and Care in the Service Economy

  • A. Reza Hoshmand, Po Chung(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Mechanistic organizations are often seen in hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations. This form of organization is characterized by its highly centralized authority, formalized procedures and practices, and specialized functions. Because of the nature of mechanistic organization, it is relatively easier and simpler to organize, but in contrast to the organic organizations, there are more rapid change. The issue of change will be discussed later.

  What differentiates mechanistic organizations from organic ones is that employees in these firms work separately and on their own assigned tasks. Specifically, there is a definite chain of command, and decisions are kept as high up the chain as possible. Furthermore, regular communication does not occur between the members of the organization, and minimal interaction takes place with employees. Procedurally, there are strict company policies or operating standards with an abundance of documentation. This structural organization has had its appeal in the manufacturing sector.

  In contrast to mechanistic organizations, organic organizations have the following characteristics:

  1. 1 Lack of hierarchy in the organization that allows for communications and interactions to be horizontal. Employees are often found working in groups and share input on tasks. Communication is open between employees, managers, and executives. As such, greater participation among employees and managers is noted.
  2. 2 Low specialization of tasks, as it is understood that knowledge resides wherever it is most useful. This creates an environment that is more adaptable and flexible to changes.
  3. 3

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Management

  • John R. Schermerhorn, Jr., Daniel G. Bachrach(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  29 A more bureaucratic form, called “mechanistic,” thrives in stable environments but has problems in uncertain and rapidly changing ones. In dynamic environments a much less bureaucratic form, called “organic,” per- forms best. Figure 11.9 shows the mechanistic and organic approaches as opposite extremes on a continuum of organizational design alternatives. Organizations with more mechanistic designs are highly bureaucratic. As shown in the figure, they are vertical structures that typically operate with centralized authority, many rules and procedures, a precise division of labor, narrow spans of control, and formal coordination. They can be described as “tight” structures of the traditional pyramid form. 30 Such mechanis- tic designs work best for organizations doing routine tasks in stable environments. Organizations with more organic designs are able to change forms in dynamic and uncer- tain environments in order to adapt quickly to changing times. The figure depicts them as agile, horizontal structures with decentralized authority, fewer rules and procedures, shared tasks, wide spans of control, and emphasizing personal means of coordination. 31 Trends in Organizational Designs The complexity, uncertainty, and change inherent in today’s environment are prompting more organizations to shift toward horizontal structures and agile organic designs. We see this in the matrix, team, virtual, and network structures discussed previously. And more generally, a number of trends are evident as structures and practices are adjusted to add teams, fit new technologies, and deal with challenging conditions. More Delegation and Empowerment All managers must decide what work they should do themselves and what should be left for others. At issue here is delegation—entrusting work to others by giving them the right to make decisions and take action.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Organisational Behaviour

  • Gert Alblas, Ella Wijsman(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Due to their slight horizontal and vertical differentiation, limited standardisation and formalisation and the independence of the organisational units (decentralisation), these organisations are loosely connected systems. Loosely connected Disruptions in one part of the organisation consequently have less impact systems on other parts of the organisation. Because tasks are less standardised and employees have greater opportunity to vary their approach to their work, it is possible to respond more quickly and effectively to different circumstances. An organic structure therefore provides more opportunities to respond flexibly to changed requirements of an internal or external nature. The characteristics of a mechanistic and an organic structure are shown in Figure 7.16. FIGURE 7.16 Dimensions of organic and mechanical organisational structures Organic structure Slight horizontal and vertical differentiation Limited standardisation and formalisation Selective decentralisation Horizontal and lateral information channels Organisation A: more organic structure Mechanistic structure Strong horizontal and vertical differentiation Strong standardisation and formalisation Centralisation Vertical information channels Organisation B: more mechanistic structure § 7.10 Developments in structural design The structural form of an organisation is largely determined by the following factors: • Size. The size of an organisation is a function of the number of its employees, the number of services and/or products it supplies and the number of markets and geographical areas it services. • Complexity. The complexity of an organisation is a function of the complexity of its environment. • Dynamics. Dynamics are the speed at which the environment in which the organisation is functioning changes.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Organizational Learning Approach to Process Innovations

  The Extent and Scope of Diffusion and Adoption in Management Accounting Systems

  • Seleshi Sisaye, Jacob J. Birnberg, Seleshi Sisaye, Jacob J. Birnberg, Marc J. Epstein(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Emerald Group Publishing Limited

    (Publisher)

  4.1.1. Organizational Structural Arrangements The size, work structure, and task complexity of an organization determines the form and structural arrangements of that organization. Burns and Stalker (1961) defined the two types of organizational structures as described below: Mechanistic structures are large in size. They process non-complex, routine, and repetitive large-scale tasks that do not require specialized technical experts to handle work assignments. They exhibit hierarchical differentiation with several chain-of-command levels. Power is concentrated in top management that leads to centralized decision making. Mechanistic organizations are characterized by formalization, differentia-tion, and several layers of management hierarchy. When there are large-scale, non-complex tasks, many employees are required to handle these tasks. There is the need for vertical and horizontal hierarchical arrange-ments as well as task differentiation to process the workflow. Differentiation ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND PROCESS INNOVATIONS 52 minimizes frequency of contact and exchange of information among units. As these hierarchies separate workflow, face-to-face communication becomes difficult ( Hull & Hage, 1982, p. 572 ). All these characteristics of the organization’s work arrangements and control systems can have inhibit process innovation and innovative behavior. Organic structures , on the contrary, are usually small or medium in size. They usually are associated with organizations performing complex tasks, which require specialists, and handle a relatively small amount of work. They have flexible organizational arrangements that are amenable and are more readily adaptable to changes in their institutional environments than mechanistic organizations. When the administrative structure exhibits decentralized structures, there is less differentiation with limited chain-of-command, and minimal bureaucratic features.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Organizational Behavior 2

  Essential Theories of Process and Structure

  • John B. Miner(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  and dependent upon the concerns and the point of view of the observer. (Turner 1995, 283)

  What research has been conducted on mechanistic and organic systems concepts in the past couple of decades has dealt with the theory in a piecemeal fashion. Thus, a study by Russell and Russell (1992) has looked at the relation between innovation and organic structure—considered to be represented by decentralization, informality, and complexity of work. What it found, however, was that innovation (as represented by two separate measures) was related only to decentralization, not at all to informality or complexity. This suggests that the total organic system may not be required for innovation to occur, a result that is not what one would have expected from a reading of mechanistic and organic systems theory. In view of the fact that mechanistic systems are clearly capable of certain types of innovation on occasion (Daft 1982), the conceptual foundation of the organic type system as a distinct purveyor of innovation is brought into doubt.

  A second relevant piece of research looked at communication patterns in two plants of the same company, one said to be mechanistic and the other organic (Courtright, Fairhurst, and Rogers 1989). In this instance the mechanistic plant was without question operating with a bureaucratic, hierarchic structure. The organic plant utilized self-managed teams and participatory decision making extensively. The focus on communication patterns seems entirely appropriate given Burns’s prior interest in this matter and the attention given to it in the Burns and Stalker book. There organic communications are said to be horizontal or lateral, consultative, focused on information and advice, and to be rejecting of the exercise of authority over the individual.

  In the study competitiveness and evidence of manager dominance were less pronounced in the organic context, as were disagreements, conflict, order giving, and attempts at control. The interactions appear to have been more frequently consultative in the organic plant. Overall, these findings seem to have much in common with what Burns and Stalker (1994) describe. However, conflict over the exercise of authority seems to be less, rather than more, prevalent in the organic plant. There is just enough disagreement inherent in the findings from the two sources to suggest that the two were not defining organic in quite the same way. The fact that teams and group decision making, as well as participation, were not part of the Burns and Stalker description of organic systems reinforces this conclusion. Yet, in other studies, the mechanistic-organic distinction has been found to differentiate distinct relationships that exist with regard to factors such as perceived justice (Ambrose and Schminke 2003). The two systems do appear to represent meaningful structural entities.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Introduction to Business

  • Lawrence J. Gitman, Carl McDaniel, Amit Shah, Monique Reece, Linda Koffel, Bethann Talsma, James C. Hyatt(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Openstax

    (Publisher)

  This combination of elements results in what is called a flat organizational structure. Colleges and universities tend to have flat organizational structures, with only two or three levels of administration between the faculty and the president. Exhibit 7.9 shows examples of flat and tall organizational structures. Factors Influencing the Choice between Mechanistic and Organic Structures Although few organizations are purely mechanistic or purely organic, most organizations tend more toward one type or the other. The decision to create a more mechanistic or a more organic structural design is based on factors such as the firm’s overall strategy, the size of the organization, and the stability of its external environment, among others. 266 Chapter 7 Designing Organizational Structures This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col25734/1.7 A company’s organizational structure should enable it to achieve its goals, and because setting corporate goals is part of a firm’s overall strategy-making process, it follows that a company’s structure depends on its strategy. That alignment can be challenging for struggling companies trying to accomplish multiple goals. For example, a company with an innovation strategy will need the flexibility and fluid movement of information that an organic organization provides. But a company using a cost-control strategy will require the efficiency and tight control of a mechanistic organization. Often, struggling companies try to simultaneously increase innovation and rein in costs, which can be organizational challenges for managers. Such is the case at Microsoft, where CEO Satya Nadella cut more than 18,000 jobs in 2014 after taking the helm at the technology giant. Most of the cuts were the result of the company’s failed acquisition of Nokia’s mobile phone business.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Wiley Pathways Healthcare Management

  Tools and Techniques for Managing in a Health Care Environment

  • Donald N. Lombardi, John R. Schermerhorn, Jr., Tere Stouffer(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  Figure 3-8 A continuum of organizational alternatives, from bureaucratic to adaptive organizations. Bureaucratic Organizations mechanistic designs Centralized Authority Adaptive Organizations organic designs Decentralized Many Rules and procedures Few Narrow Spans of control Wide Specialized Tasks Shared Few Teams and task forces Many Formal and impersonal Informal and personal Coordination 3.4.2 MAKING DESIGN DECISIONS 71 3.4.2 Making Design Decisions Good organizational design decisions satisfy situational demands and allow all resources to be used to best advantage. The notion that “structure follows strategy” is an important premise of orga- nizational design. 14 ▲ When your strategy is stability oriented, the premise is that little signifi- cant change will be occurring in the external environment. The supporting organization’s structure should be well defined and predictable, as found in bureaucratic organizations using more mechanistic design alternatives. ▲ When your strategy is growth oriented, operating objectives are likely to include the need for innovation and flexible responses to changing competition in the environment. The most supportive structure is likely to be one that is more decentralized and empowered, as found in adap- tive organizations using more organic design alternatives. Size is another factor that plays a role in organizational design. Although research indicates that larger organizations tend to have more mechanistic struc- tures than smaller ones, it is clear that this is not always best for them. In fact, a perplexing managerial concern is that organizations tend to become more bureaucratic as they grow in size and consequently have difficulty adapting to changing environments. Good managers constantly search for unique ways to overcome the disadvan- tages of large size. They are creative in forming teams and smaller units, and allow- ing them to operate with considerable autonomy within the larger organizational framework.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Organizational Innovation

  • Gerald Hage(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Organization design should match environmental requirements. Inflexible forms, such as the mechanistic type, fail to survive in dynamic, high technology markets. But adaptive forms, such as the organic type, also fail to survive in maturing markets unless they become more structured as they grow (Child 1974). This principle that design should fit market niche helped lay the groundwork not only for contingency theory, but also for population ecology models of organizational adaptation (Hannan and Freeman 1977; Aldrich 1979). Yet the extent to which the success of industrial organizations depends upon the appropriateness of their design for specified market niches has seldom been tested. Thus, one purpose of this paper is to show that efficient performance is partly a function of the match between organization design and type of work performed. TH E O R E TIC A L F R A M E W O R K A System s Approach According to a systems perspective on manufacturing, throughput operations consist of technologies for transforming things, and a structure for organizing the employees necessary to accomplish this transformation. Technologies not only include machines, but also the scientific know-how used by R & D staff and the skills of trained professionals (Collins et al. 1988). Different types of organization design are optimal for transforming different types of input into outputs. A mechanistic-bureaucratic type of system is best for transforming a large quantity of similar qualities per unit of time, as in a mass production and/or process plant. In contrast, the organic-professional type is best for transforming a small number of qualitatively different qualities per unit of time. These contrasting systems, M and O respectively, are illustrated in Figure 1 for contrasting work inputs, technologies, organization structures and outputs as well as the environmental context in which they compete.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Introduction to Theory of Control in Organizations

  • Vladimir N. Burkov, Mikhail Goubko, Nikolay Korgin, Dmitry Novikov(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • CRC Press

    (Publisher)

  233 Chapter 6 Mechanisms of Organizational Structure Design I n the present chapter we investigate the mathematical models of organizational structure design. In Section 6.1 we illustrate the basic ideas, aspects, and trade-offs of organizational hier-archy design using a simple model of control hierarchy over a technological network. In Section 6.2 we survey the economical literature on optimization models of hierarchical organization. In Section 6.3 we introduce the universal framework of organiza-tional hierarchy optimization and provide some general results on the shape of the optimal hierarchy. Section 6.4 describes the efficient methods for optimization of tree-shaped structures. 6.1 Problems of Organizational Hierarchy Design How Should Organizations Be Studied? At first sight, the question seems simple and even strange (as organizations are analyzed since ancients times). However, the detailed consideration shows that the answer is not trivial. 234 ◾ Introduction to Theory of Control in Organizations Perhaps the matter is that organizations represent the most complicated, diversified, volatile, and, consequently, least investigated form of life. The existing variety of types, classes, and forms of orga-nizations inflates with a growing rate, thus not allowing for development of a somewhat general concept or a theory. Actually, the most permanent and well-known types of orga-nizations (e.g., family, ethnos, or country) have undergone sig-nificant changes during recent decades; the theories providing description to these organizations are often contrary. Concerning organizations related to production activity, one should emphasize that changes in them are a direct conse-quence of their existence (more specifically, consequence of extended reproduction).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book