.png)
Both mechanistic and organic organizations are general approaches to structure and control. They both incorporate the bureaucratic dimensions identified by Weber (including hierarchy of authority, centralization, rules, procedural specifications, impersonality, chain of command, span of control). The major difference between mechanistic and organic organizations is the relative degree of emphasis on these eight bureaucratic dimensions.
Mechanistic organizations (e.g., IRS, car registration) tend to place high emphasis on these dimensions. They are characterized by reliance on formal rules and regulations, centralization of decision making, narrowly defined job responsibilities, a rigid hierarchy of authority, and a narrow span of control. Organic organizations (e.g., SAS, Electronic Arts), on the other hand, tend to place low emphasis on these dimensions. Consequently they tend to be more flexible and adaptable. An organic organization is characterized by low to moderate use of formal rules and regulations, decentralized and shared decision making, broadly defined job responsibilities, a flexible authority structure with fewer levels in the hierarchy, and a wider span of control.
Mechanistic organizations are effective in stable environments, whereas organic organizations are more effective in unstable environments. The reason for this is that changes in environmental forces and technological factors are increasingly rapid. These changes will require swift adaptation by organizations if those organizations are to continue to succeed in an evolving global business environment. The organic organization allows much more rapid adaptation to environmental changes than the mechanistic organization does.
Particularly astute students might argue that a contingency approach is a better answer than a simple, blanket statement that the organic approach will always be better. While there has been a tendency for mechanistic organizations to move toward more organic structures, as pointed out in the text, there is still an appropriate place for the traditional mechanistic bureaucracy under certain specific circumstances. It seems reasonable to believe that some organizations will always face a uniform, stable environment, where a mechanistic structure might be appropriate. Thus, an answer specifying a combination of organic and mechanistic as the ideal, to be fitted to the specific task environment confronting the organization, is also a quite appropriate answer.
Particularly astute students might argue that a contingency approach is a better answer than a simple, blanket statement that the organic approach will always be better. While there has been a tendency for mechanistic organizations to move toward more organic structures, as pointed out in the text, there is still an appropriate place for the traditional mechanistic bureaucracy under certain specific circumstances. It seems reasonable to believe that some organizations will always face a uniform, stable environment, where a mechanistic structure might be appropriate. Thus, an answer specifying a combination of organic and mechanistic as the ideal, to be fitted to the specific task environment confronting the organization, is also a quite appropriate answer.
