Mechanistic and Organic Organizations

As opposed to some classical theories of organizations, contingency theories posit that there is no one best way to lead, and propose that the structure and management of an organization should be a reflection of the conditions in which it must operate. One of the more well-known of these theories regards the continuum between mechanistic and organic organizations. Mechanistic organizations have highly centralized decision making authority, narrow spans of control, formal procedures and practices, and specialization of functions. Organic organizations have flat structure, relatively less formalized practices and procedures, low levels of specialization, and decentralized decision-making authority. The distinctions between mechanistic and organic organizations can occur not only between organizations but within them, with different departments or groups within a single organization often needing different structures and management approaches. Far from being a theory of interest only from a historical perspective, the theory of mechanistic and organic organizations has great applicability in the twenty-first century as postindustrial societies find themselves continuing to rely on scientific advancements and technological innovations to be competitive in a global marketplace.

Keywords Centralization; Contingency Theories; Industrialization; Innovation; Management; Mechanistic Organization; Organic Organization; Organizational Structure; Postindustrial; Span of Control; Survey; Turnover

Social Interaction in Groups & Organizations > Mechanistic & Organic Organizations

Overview

Organizational Structure

Every year, Fortune magazine publishes as list of the top 100 best companies to work for in the United States. The criteria on which this classification is made range from the perquisites ("perks") offered, history of job growth, pay rates, turnover rates, and treatment of women and minorities. Indeed, there are any number of characteristics of an organization that can make it a better or worse place to work depending on one's personality type and work style. Some organizations are very formal, requiring one to strictly adhere to an extensive set of rules, while other organizations are informal, allowing one to perform one's job within broad parameters as long as the job gets done well and on time and within budget. Some organizations empower their employees and give them the authority to make decisions when the problem occurs, while other organizations are more hierarchical in nature and require employees to refer a decision up the chain of command for consideration.

Each of these approaches to running an organization—and the innumerable variations in between—are based on different underlying assumptions and each of these approaches to running an organization are more appropriately applied in some situations than in others. For example, fast food chains are well-known for the detailed ways in which they specify how employees should perform their jobs. Tasks are analyzed and mechanized whenever possible, and procedures for tasks performed by humans are described in minute detail including the length of time (often down to the level of seconds) it should take to perform each task. Employees are not allowed to deviate from the prescribed pattern, but must refer any exceptions or decisions up the line to management. This approach makes for a smooth running fast food restaurant where the emphasis is on fast rather than on food (or its quality). As a result, fast food restaurants meet their organizational goals of serving consistent food quickly to customers. Such an approach is more likely to work well with employees that have less education, are not used to making decisions, or prefer to be told what to do. On the other hand, scientific "think tanks" are, in many ways, the organizational opposite of fast food restaurants. The goal of these organizations is to encourage the creative process in their employees. As a result, they tend to be much less structured and rigid in their approach to management and give their employees great latitude in how they do their jobs as well as allow them to make many of the decisions that need to be made. Using this approach in the fast food restaurant would lead to chaos and the inability of the organization to meet its goals. Similarly, applying the principles of management used in a fast food restaurant in the think tank would slow down the research process if not bring it entirely to a grinding halt.

Contingency Theories

Many theorists have observed the differences in organizations and have tried to articulate the general differences between organizations and in which types of organizations each pattern of organizational structure and management style is best applied. Many classical theories of organizations posit that there is one best way to structure an organization. On the other hand, contingency theories posit that the appropriate design of an organization must take into account the organization's circumstances. Some contingency theories, for example, posit that organizations that produce small batches of specialty products one at a time are typically better managed differently than organizations that mass produce large batches of products (e.g., assembly line manufacturing organizations) or those that are in continuous production (e.g., petroleum refineries, distilleries).

One of the best known of the contingency approaches was articulated in the 1960s by Burns and Stalker (1961) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967). This approach to organizational theory looks at organizations as being either mechanistic or organic. A mechanistic organization is highly structured with centralized decision-making authority (with decisions typically being made at higher levels in the organization), narrow spans of control, formal procedures and practices, and specialization of functions. An organic organization, on the other hand, has a flat organizational structure (i.e., wide span of control), relatively less formalized practices and procedures, low levels of specialization, and decentralized decision-making authority (with decisions typically being made at middle levels).

Further Insights

Mechanistic Organizations

According to Burns and Stalker (1978), mechanistic management systems are most appropriately used when the conditions of the organization are stable. Mechanistic organizations tend to break down the tasks facing the organization as a whole into differentiated specializations. Each of the individual tasks tends to be abstract in nature, and is approached with techniques and purposes that are typically less distinct than those of the organization as a whole. Within mechanistic organizations, immediate supervisors tend to reconcile the distinct performances and ensure that each task is relevant within the larger task of the department or organization. The immediate supervisors also are responsible for precisely defining the rights and obligations as well as the technical methods for each functional role and position. Mechanistic organizations are also characterized by hierarchical structures of control, authority, and communication (i.e., authority and control vested in the upper levels of the organization and communication tending to flow downwards). The hierarchical structure of mechanistic organizations is reinforced by the fact that the knowledge of the actualities of the organization are located exclusively at the top of the hierarchy (i.e., with upper-level management). Interactions and communication within mechanistic organizations tend to be vertical, between supervisors subordinates rather than between peers. There is also a tendency in mechanistic organizations for work practices and operations to be regulated by the decisions made by and instructions issued from higher levels within the organization. Mechanistic organizations also typically insist on loyalty to the organization and obedience to one's superiors (e.g., insubordination may be punishable by termination). Finally, mechanistic organizations tend to attach a greater importance and prestige to internal knowledge, experience, and skills related to the organization rather than to knowledge, experience, and skills in general.

Organic Organizations

Burns and Stalker (1978) propose that the organic form of management is more appropriate to organizations that are characterized by changing conditions that result in a continuing need for ongoing problem solving and flexibility to adapt to unforeseen requirements for action that cannot be articulated or solved a priori. In organic organizations, all members contribute their special knowledge and experience to the common tasks of the organization. The individual tasks tend to be realistic in nature, and are set by the total situation of the organization rather than by individuals higher up on the organizational hierarchy who are insulated from the everyday problems and tasks of the organization. Organic organizations also support the continual adjustment and redefinition of individual tasks through the interaction of the employees. This allows organic organizations to be flexible in meeting the changing needs of the marketplace. All members with inorganic organizations share responsibility, and problems are typically not shifted within the organization as being someone else's responsibility. Because of these factors, commitment to organic organizations tends to arise naturally rather than by fiat through adherence to a technical definition as is done in mechanistic organizations. In addition, control, authority, and communication in organic organizations occur through a network structure rather than through a hierarchical structure. Further, the sanctions that an individual employee may incur within an organic structure tend to be based not on absolute rules as in mechanistic structures, but on the presumed interests of the entire organization, particularly regarding survival and growth.

Within organic organizations, upper-level management is not assumed to be omniscient (as is often the case in mechanistic organizations). Knowledge relevant to the organization can exist anywhere within the entity, with the location of such knowledge becoming the ad hoc center of control, authority, and communication. Further, in organic organizations, communication tends to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communication infrequently happening on a consulting basis between individuals of different rank rather than in a paramilitary, top-down flow from upper-level management. Similarly, communication within organic organizations tends to be concerned with the sharing of information rather than the relaying of instructions and decisions made elsewhere within the organization. Further, organic organizations tend to highly value an individual's commitment to his/her task within the overarching goals of the organization, as well as to the fundamental values of the organization as a whole. Finally, organic organizations tend to place importance and attach prestige to expertise from outside the organization that is valid for the organization's mission, not from specific knowledge and expertise in the organization itself.

Stable organizational environments (e.g., the fast food industry where the same products are produced repeatedly with few exceptions and little or no decision making is necessary) lend themselves well to mechanistic structures that are based on routine behaviors that require efficiency rather than creativity. However, increasing numbers of organizations today operate in an environment of constant change. Advances in technology, improvements in communication methods, and rapidly changing global marketplaces are just some of the reasons that many organizations today need to be able to react quickly to the demands of the marketplace and to remain competitive. Similarly, many employees today are more likely to change jobs frequently than were employees in previous generations who often stayed with the same company for a lifetime. Mechanistic structures do not support this degree of flexibility by such factors. Organic structures, on the other hand, are more appropriate for today's rapidly changing organizational situations because they allow employees the freedom to do what is necessary to get their jobs done and make the organization successful. Communication in organic structures flows in all directions (e.g., employees are welcomed to make suggestions and managers seek their input) and decisions are made as close as possible to the problem. Further, without rigid regulations and practices to which employees must adhere, the organization has greater flexibility to meet today's rapidly changing environment.

Using the Appropriate Approach

The differences between mechanistic and organic organizations exist not only between organizations but within them as well. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) proposed that managers of different departments within the same organization might of necessity manage differently. For example, the manager of a research and development department would be much more likely to be successful when using an organic approach to management than when using a mechanistic approach. This is because the research and development department is operating in a rapidly changing environment that requires creativity and flexibility in order to be successful. Similarly, a production line manager would be much more likely to be successful using a mechanistic approach because the department is operating in a stable environment that performs repetitive tasks that can be regulated by set procedures and practices (Landy & Conte, 2004). It is important for upper level management to understand such differences. For example, if the research and development manager is forced to use a mechanistic approach because the overall approach of the organization is mechanistic rather than organic, the research and development department is much less likely to be successful in its efforts and more likely to experience negative human relations consequences such as low rates of job satisfaction and high levels of turnover. The fact that different subgroups within the organization may require different approaches to management means that the organization needs to develop an architecture that accommodates that needs of all subgroups (e.g., the research and development department and the manufacturing department) individually rather than forcing one type of subgroup to operate under inappropriate conditions or developing a compromise that serves none of them well.

Applying the Theory

In many ways, the management of organizations of scientists or other highly creative, highly skilled personnel presents organizations and managers with a unique set of challenges. As scientific knowledge and technology continues to advance in today's postindustrial era at rates unprecedented during industrialization, this is likely to become a more important issue rather than a less important one. The advancement of science and the technological innovations that result from it rely on individuals who are able to think outside the box. Such people tend to be nonconformists and chafe at rules and regulations that hamper their ability to be creative. However, this is not merely a matter of personality or preference; the very nature of scientific work and innovation depends on the ability of scientists and engineers to be able to set aside established practice and try new things.

Harrison (1974) performed an empirical study in three large research laboratories to examine the efficacy of the organic system of management as described by Burns and Stalker for this population. Based on their work, Harrison hypothesized that the more organic a management system is, the higher the level of perceived role performance on the individual scientist within the organization. To test this hypothesis, Harrison developed a comprehensive survey instrument to collect data from scientists working in three large laboratories working primarily in the area of physics. The first of these laboratories (Alpha) worked primarily doing contract work developing a variety of products for the US Navy. The second laboratory's (Beta) work primarily related to basic research for the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Science Foundation. The third laboratory (Gamma) performed wholly on work from the Atomic Energy Commission. Eighty percent of the research scientists asked to participate in the study (n = 95) returned their completed questionnaires.

There was wide variation among the three laboratories on various organizational characteristics. For example, in Laboratory Alpha, scientists seldom were able to determine which projects they were assigned whereas in Laboratory Beta, they almost always did. Scientists in Laboratory Gamma occasionally were allowed to choose the projects on which they worked. Scientists in Laboratory Beta regularly and actively participated in the establishment of organizational goals. However, the exclusion of participatory goal setting in Laboratory Alpha was extreme enough that the organization could not be considered organic in nature, but was designated as a mechanistic organization in the context of this study. Laboratory Gamma once again fell between these two extremes. Similar differences were found for the other variables in Burns and Stalker's taxonomy, resulting in Laboratory Alpha being designated as a mechanistic organization, Laboratory Beta of being designated as an organic organization, and Laboratory Gamma falling in the continuum between these two extremes.

Just as there was wide variation on among the three laboratories for organizational characteristics, there was also variation among them for perceived performance. In general, the scientists in Laboratory Beta tended to perceive themselves as performing at a higher level within their role than did the scientists in Laboratory Alpha or Gamma. Further, the results of the study also supported Burns and Stalker's hypothesis that individuals in organic systems tend to be more strongly committed to their organizations than are individuals in mechanistic organizations. In general, the study findings supported the hypothesis that the more organic the nature of an organization, the higher the perceived role performance of the scientists within the organization. The researcher extrapolated this finding to conclude that the performance of research scientists within organizations can be improved if they are encouraged to actively and regularly participate in setting of objectives and making of decisions. In support of Burns and Stalker's theory, it was also concluded that organic organizations are more supportive of scientific research.

Although it was developed in the mid-twentieth century, Burns and Stalker's theory of mechanistic and organic organizations still has great applicability to the organizations of the twenty-first century. As postindustrial societies continue to rely on scientific advancements and technological innovations to be competitive in a global marketplace, the lessons of organic organizations in particular will be well applied to creating an organizational environment conducive to such activities.

Terms & Concepts

Centralization: The degree to which formal power in the organization is consolidated or distributed throughout the organization. In a centralized organization, the power is held by a small group of people, usually at the top of the organization. In a decentralized organization, power is distributed throughout out the organization so that decisions can be made by those who best understand the situation.

Contingency Theories: Organizational theories that posit that there is no one best way to structure or lead an organization and that the appropriate design of an organization must take into account the organization's circumstances.

Industrialization: The use of mechanization to produce the economic goods and services within a society. Historically, industrialization is a society's transition between farm production and manufacturing production. Industrialization is associated with factory production, division of labor, and the concentration of industries and populations within certain geographical areas and concomitant urbanization.

Innovation: Products or processes that are new or have significant improvements over previous products or processes that have been introduced in the marketplace or used in production.

Management: The process of efficiently and effectively accomplishing work through the coordination and supervision of others.

Mechanistic Organization: An organization with a highly centralized decision making authority (with decisions typically being made at higher levels in the organization), narrow spans of control, formal procedures and practices, and specialization of functions.

Organic Organization: An organization with a flat structure (i.e., wide span of control), relatively less formalized practices and procedures, low levels of specialization, and decentralized decision-making authority (with decisions typically being made at middle levels). Also called an "open organization."

Organizational Structure: The design of an organization including its division of labor, delegation of authority, and span of control.

Postindustrial: The nature of a society whose economy is no longer dependent on the manufacture of goods (i.e., industrial), but is primarily based upon the processing and control of information and the provision of services.

Span of Control: The number of people who directly work for a person on the next level of the organizational hierarchy.

Survey: (a) A data collection instrument used to acquire information on the opinions, attitudes, or reactions of people; (b) a research study in which members of a selected sample are asked questions concerning their opinions, attitudes, or reactions are gathered using a survey instrument or questionnaire for purposes of scientific analysis; typically the results of this analysis are used to extrapolate the findings from the sample to the underlying population; (c) to conduct a survey on a sample.

Turnover: The number of new employees that an organization must hire in order to replace those that have left the company in a given period of time.

Bibliography

12Manage.com (2009). Accessed August 20, 2008. http://www.12manage.com/methods%5fburns%5fmechanistic%5forganic%5fsystems.html

Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1978). Mechanistic and organic systems. In J. M. Shafritz & P. H. Whitbeck (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory. 207-211. Oak Park, IL: Moore Publishing Company.

Grandori, A., & Furnari, S. (2013). Configurational analysis and organization design: Towards a theory of structural heterogeneity. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 38, 77-105. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87715383

Harrison, F. (1974). The management of scientists: Determinants of perceived role performance. Academy of Management Journal, 17 , 234-241. Retrieved 20 August 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4297372&site=ehost-live

Hodson, R., Roscigno, V., Martin, A., & Lopez, S. (2013). The ascension of Kafkaesque bureaucracy in private sector organizations. Human Relations, 66, 1249-1273. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89975652

Ketchen Jr., D. J. (2013). We try harder: Some reflections on configurational theory and methods. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 38, 303-309. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87715392

Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2004). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

McShane, S. L. & Von Glinow, M. A. (2000). Organizational behavior. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Suggested Reading

Burns, T & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Makariosa, M. D., McCafferty, J., Steiner, B., & Travis III, L. F. (2012). The effects of parole officers' perceptions of the organizational control structure and satisfaction with management on their attitudes toward policy change. Journal Of Crime & Justice, 35, 296-316. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77983087

Marshall, G. (1990). Managing the new technology. In G. Marshall, In Praise of Sociology. 78-99. Retrieved 20 August 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17098662&site=ehost-live

SHAWKI, N. (2011). Organizational structure and strength and transnational campaign outcomes: a comparison of two transnational advocacy networks. Global Networks, 11, 97-117. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=55677336

Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49 , 121-132. Retrieved 20 August 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=20785590&site=ehost-live

Sollund, R. (2006). Mechanistic versus organic organizations' impact on immigrant women's work satisfaction and occupational mobility. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6 , 287-307. Retrieved 20 August 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier