Theory of Mechanistic and Organic Systems
(Burns, Stalker)

12manage reaches 100.000 members

Adjusting organization forms to appropriate conditions. Explanation of Theory of Mechanistic and Organic Systems of Burns and Stalker. ('61)


  

Join our management communities

Register a Free Membership


Full Name:*
Company:  
Street + nr:*
City:*
State:  
Postal Code:*
Country:*
E-mail:* (This will be your username)
I agree to the Terms of Service.

Through their Theory of Mechanistic and Organic Systems, Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker have provided a way to understand which organization forms fit to specific circumstances of change or stability. In their highly influential work "The Management of Innovation", they provide the following characteristics of Mechanistic vs. Organic Systems:

 

 

Mechanistic Organization Form and Management System

Organic Organization Form and Management System

Appropriate Conditions

Stable.

Changing.

Distribution of tasks

Specialized differentiation of functional tasks into which the problems and tasks facing a concern as a whole are broken down

Contributive nature of special knowledge and experience to the common task of the concern.

Nature of Individual task

The abstract nature of each individual task, which is pursued with techniques and purposes more or less distinct from those of the concern as a whole: i.e., the functionaries tend to pursue the technical improvements of means, rather than the accomplishment of the ends of the concern.

The "realistic" nature of the individual task, which is seen as set by the total situation of the concern.

Who defines tasks or refines tasks

The reconciliation, for each level in the hierarchy, of these distinct performances by the immediate superiors, who are also, in turn, responsible for seeing that each is relevant in his own special part of the main task.

The adjustment and continual redefinition of individual tasks through interaction with others.

Task scope

The precise definition of rights and obligations and technical methods attached to each functional role.

The shedding of "responsibility" as a limited field of rights, obligations and methods (problems may not be posted upwards, downwards or sideways as being someone else's responsibility).

How is task conformance ensured

The translation of rights and obligations and methods into the responsibilities of a functional position.

The spread of commitment to the concern beyond any technical definition.

Structure of control, authority and communication

Hierarchic, Contractual.

Network, Presumed Community of Interest.

Locating of knowledge

Reinforcement of the hierarchic structure by the location of knowledge of actualities exclusively at the top of the hierarchy, where the final reconciliation of distinct tasks and assessment of relevance is made.

Omniscience no longer imputed to the head of the concern; knowledge about the technical or commercial nature of the here and now may be located anywhere in the network.

Communication between members of concern

Vertical communication; i.e., between superior and subordinate.

Lateral communication; i.e., between people of different rank, resembling consultation rather than command.

Governance for operations and working behavior

Instructions and decisions issued by superiors.

Information and advice rather than instructions and decisions.

Values

 Insistence on loyalty to the concern and obedience to superiors as a condition of membership. Commitment to the concern's task and to the "technological ethos" of material progress and expansion is more highly valued than loyalty and obedience.

Prestige

Greater importance and prestige attaching to internal (local) rather than to general (cosmopolitan) knowledge, experience, and skill.

Importance and prestige attach to affiliations and expertise valid in the industrial and technical and commercial milieux external to the firm.

 

Book: Tom Burns, G.M. Stalker - The Management of Innovation -

 

Theory of Mechanistic and Organic Systems Special Interest Group


Visit the Special Interest Group

Theory of Mechanistic and Organic Systems Forum

Recent User Comments
Haslina - Malaysia Mechanistic and Organic Examples "What are examples of companies that practice mechanistic and organic systems (in Malaysia)?"    0
Hitesh. M. Pipariya - India Aspects of Organizational Philosphy (Dimensions) "Design a method for measuring the organizational philosophy of an organization. What would the various dimensions in it be?"    0
 - China A way of guiding thinking "Any theory is a way of guiding thinking. It is not totally the same with the down-to-earth. It is the abstract of realities. An organization in the real worid is always a combination."    -2
Severin Mallya - Tanzania No stationary organization "There is no 'stationary' organization; they are all changing in terms of technology, people and professions, market and products, but most importantly, we are all (organizations) changing as the world is moving. The organic system is suitable for small organizations, but even big organizations are striving to maintain their stability... by changing! One can agree that both are applicable to all, although the organic system is more suitable for small organizations. I'm personally complimenting Burns and Salkers' work, and I rather call it a 'science' because it provides us with an open room to test, and come up with either agreement (in common) or another new idea! Good job!"    2
Stephen - US Mechanistic Variant: Reduce the Variables "Just because the mechanistic form is widespread that does not mean it is the most effective form for our environment. I suggest another dynamic, equally powerful: people strive to reduce the variables in their environment to constants. They do this by creating mental models that explain everything, whether those models are accurate or not. Managers strive for stability--if they can just solve A, B, and C, their world of work would be stable and they could relax. But that's a holy grail, of course, since there will always be a "next problem." So by creating mechanistic structures and processes, managers are just trying to stabilize their world of work, whether that's the best fit or not. For me, at least, this helps explain the management fad cycle: managers try the new fad approach, find it does not solve A, B, and C forever, and rather than adopting the approach for what it DOES solve, they throw it out as having not worked at all and move on to the next. Sad. "    4
Best User Comments
Hein - Belgium Obvious or not true after all? "I was reading over this summary of the organic-mechanistic typology of Burns and Stalker, and at first sight it seems simple and logical: the best way to organize a company is contingent upon its environment in the following way:
If the environment of the firms is stable, go for the mechanistic organization type.
If the environment is changing (quickly), the organic organization form is preferable.
HOWEVER, assuming we all live in a fast-changing world (who would disagree with that), how come that we still find so many mechanistic organizations??? Maybe there's more to it than B+S thought... I wonder what?"		    16
Comment on this Page

Theory of Mechanistic and Organic Systems Education & Events


 

Compare with Mechanistic and Organic Systems:   Change Phases  |  Organization Chart  |  Contingency Theory  |  Five Disciplines  |  Six Change Approaches  |  Core Group Theory  |  Business Process Reengineering  |  Kaizen  |  Change Management  |  Dimensions of Change  |  Organizational Learning  |  Gestalt Theory  |  System Dynamics  |  Intellectual Capital Rating  |  OODA Loop  | Levels of Culture  |  Organizational Memory

 

Return to Management Hub: Change & Organization  |  Human Resources  |  Knowledge & Intangibles

 

More Management Methods, Models and Theory

12manage for:

 

 
Copyright 2009 12manage - The Executive Fast Track. V10.4 - Last updated: 11/7/2009. All names tm by their owners.


  ●  (Netherlands) Organizational DImensions "Consider the 7S Model and the Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change for your answer."

  ●  (Romania) Theories in the real world "Fully agreed with the distinction between black & white (as presented in theories) and the palette of shades existent in the real world. Yet it's highly important where you start defining your world boundaries from, right?
I believe 40 yrs of experiments with bits and pieces of management & business approaches have managed to prove one thing: that the systemic approach of organisations (which obviously relates to the organic approach) is closer to the reality than the other option. People don't live in mechanical order - they are living systems which through social interactions create supra-systems, and we'd better start thinking organisations this way if we want to get rid of the organisational pathology around. Your thoughts?"


  ●  (Libya) Organic organization form "Eventhough, it seems logical to use the organic form for certain organizations, i have yet to see a chart of this kind that describes processes and interactions the way traditional charts do."

  ● Alex Lowy (Canada) Resistance to Change "Countering Burns and Stalker's observation is the natural tendency of systems and those within them to resist change. Incumbents tend to hold onto outmoded structures, processes and methods well past their prime and suitability for a host of understandable yet unhelpful reasons."
  ● Bhawna (India) Mixture of both "Well in my opinion not many organization are opting for a typical mechanistic of organic structure. Both the systems have there own advantages and disadvantages so the organizations prefer to adopt a mixture of both."
  ● Hein (Belgium) Mix of organic and mechanistic "Thanks Bwana for your correction, of course in reality we see mixtures of organic and mechanistic. But still my question remains relevant: how come that we still find so many (predominantly) mechanistic organizations?"
  ● Brendan Dunphy (France) Fast Changing world? "The world as a whole may be changing more quickly but individual industries have different 'clock speeds' when it comes to change. I would suggest that Industries with slower or stable clock speed e.g. nuclear power or defence, will tend towards mechanistic and those with accelerating clock speeds organic. I also think there may be other factors such as risk, security, regulation etc that are relevant and where dominant will push organisations towrds the mechanistic."
  ● Cameron (US) Creating an organic organization "Many people (employees) have difficulty or dislike adapting to change. This makes it hard to setup an organic organization."
  ● Holmes (UK) Mechanistic vs Organic Systems "Why are there so many mechanistic organisations? The answers, are as ever, money, time and faith. The organic organisation by its very nature relies upon the benevolence of those supporting the "common task" and "concern" and the belief of all those involved that everyone will in some way eventually contribute to achieving the end goal. There is no certainty that anything will be achieved on time, more that the time will come when the "concern" has been fully resolved or overtaken by events. The mechanistic system provides financial control mechanismes and the persuit of a "concern" can be halted even if the desire to resolve it is still there. However, even in a mechanistic organisation, some form of "organic" change is to be found, though often discouraged by the system benevolence and faith sometimes take over - but only if there is the cash to fund it."
  ● ullhas Pagey (India) Burns & Stalkers Typology "Though Burns and Stalker typology provides a comprehensive framework to understand the difference between a bureaucratic and an organic organisation, in today's fast changing environment , it appears that this typology has lost its relevenece. For today no organisation can afford to have a hierarchical & stable structure. Today's organsiation, if it has to grow at a faster pace, has to be nimble footed and hence needs to be flat, ever evolving without much of hierarchy."
  ● John (England) Burns and Stalker right or wrong? "I believe that Hein makes a fair comment. However what Burns and Stalker have done dates back to late 60's and not only is the market constantly changing, but theories would also need adjusting too."