Daft (1992, p. 142) held that the organic organizational structure is associated with change and that such a structure is preferable when functioning within a dynamic external environment. Another widely held contention is that innovation is fostered by an organic organizational structure, while innovation tends to be stifled by a mechanistic organizational structure. A phenomenon also observed, however, is that while organic structures tend to foster innovation they are often somewhat ineffective for the implementation of that innovation. In such instances, suggestions have been made for the adoption of a composite organizational structure that incorporates characteristics of both the organic and the mechanistic organizational concepts. This ambidextrous organizational structure would permit a shifting emphasis as required by a changing situation. The different level of emphasis on structural characteristics for innovation and implementation are presented in Exhibit 2, which may be found below on this page.
--------------------- -------------------- --------------------
Formalization Low High
1. Organizations functioning within a stable external environment typically had formal internal organizational structures with clearly established and observed operating procedures and rules, and a well defined hierarchy of authority. Within such organizations, decision making was typically top-down in character. This type of internal organizational structure was termed mechanistic in character.
Task definition Rigid Adjustable and redefinable through
Organizational integration refers to the quality of collaboration between organizational subunits. Dynamic environments and organic organizational structures tend to cause communications between organizational subunits to become more difficult and uncertain. Daft (1992, p. 143) sug