Mechanistic And Organizational Organizations

What's the difference between a marketing and a mechanistic organization? Basically, they're both bureaucratic organizations. Mechanistic organizations function best in relatively calm, stable environments. Organic style is more adaptable and the staff must discover for themselves just what they're supposed to do. There's no clear hierarchy of authority to supervise. Organizational capital formation is an important process.

Structural Differences 

Organic organizational structures have a strong sense of uniformity and accountability. They also have a sense of loyalty and community involvement. On the other hand, most mechanistic structures are not built to last. They tend to fall apart after just a few years. Businesses nowadays rely on a variety of shifting strategies, such as marketing and promotional methods. 

Marketing often seems like a more natural organizational structure. Some businesses use websites to buy YouTube likes and similar engagements to boost their social media marketing. People know they should go out and shop. Yet, there's little sense of incentive or motivation within most retail environments. Most stores don't even sell much. They're more like places where people go to avoid the inconvenience of driving all over town. As a result, marketing can appear more mechanical than organic.

Adaptive Systems

Organizational capital formation requires that firms develop a highly adaptive system for identifying, deploying, and monitoring the most appropriate marketing mix. Organizational capital needs to be highly flexible and adaptive as market conditions change. Market changes tend to be highly random and highly non-cyclical. Thus, traditional business practice has been inadequate for meeting organizational objectives in recent decades.

Marketing has been a problem throughout history. Market problems are typically worse in non-organic organizations. The traditional business practice has been to form what are called mechanical and organic organizations. (Mechanical refers to those organizations that have a more formal organizational structure, including hierarchy, delegation of power, and highly adaptive organizational design.) Organic organizations are built on highly adaptive organizational design principles.

Differentiating Between The Two

So, what is the difference between a mechanistic organization and an organic organization? Organizational capital formation depends largely on the extent and depth of organizational flexibility. Organizational capital consists of several elements, such as structure, culture, strategy, people, and networks. In most cases, the key defining characteristic of an organizational culture is its flexibility. A mechanistic structure cannot be flexible. Therefore, the key defining characteristic of an organizational strategy is adaptability.

The key defining characteristic of an organization that has a centralized, bureaucratic structure is the organization's ability to follow best described mechanistic principles. A centralized organization has little room for adaptation. It also has the constraint of being able to control its internal processes. Therefore, a bureaucratic organization can not adapt to changing external circumstances. On the other hand, a decentralized organization's ability to adapt is absolutely possible, provided the organizational culture is robust enough to resist the pressures of changing external circumstances.

Thus, both organic and mechanistic organization have their own benefits and drawbacks. Organic organizations, as we have seen above, are flexible. Organizational capital formation is largely determined by the extent and depth of organizational flexibility. On the other hand, it is also true that most mechanistic structures are highly restrictive in terms of their internal mechanisms. But the key benefit of mechanistic organization is that it allows organizations to adapt to changing external circumstances. Thus, we argue that while organic organizations are highly flexible, highly diffuse, and generally subject to external constraint, a properly motivated and well-organized mechanistic structure can provide a highly adaptive organizational advantage.

Adaptation To External Constraints

We suggest that proper mechanistic organization design may allow organizations to adapt to external constraints, while avoiding the danger of excessive centralization and bureaucracy. To this end, the key to successful work specialization requires an understanding of three important concepts. First, work specialization requires an integration of core and non-core functions. Second, in a truly flexible organization, core functions are typically assigned to functional divisions, while non-core functions are usually developed within functional divisions or specialize in a unique way.

Third, a truly flexible organization must also allow for an appropriate degree of centralization and decentralized supervision. Centralization is especially important in a modern organization where organizational capital needs to be centrally located to facilitate the deployment of resources and to avoid significant cost penalty when doing so. Organic organizations, on the other hand, must avoid the risk of excessive departmentalization, which can seriously impede the organizational process and result in excessive over-all organization overhead. In particular, a truly flexible organizational design will permit an appropriate degree of centralization relative to the size of the company and the range of activities.

Components Of Successful Organizational Design

These concepts - integration, agency, and flexibility - are at the heart of successful organizational design and implementation. While these concepts are most vital to the success of organizational endeavors, formalization remains a necessary second step. A well-implemented work specialization program can accomplish many of these important objectives by addressing deficiencies in prior organizational designs. In particular, a properly implemented program can ensure that internal and external factors do not inhibit organizational effectiveness.