Obvious or not true after all?

Please register now to read all responses and to join this discussion yourself. It's easy and 100% free.     Log in

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 Burns and Stalker thought... I wonder what? (...) Read more? Sign up for free

Please register now to read all responses and to join this discussion yourself. It's easy and 100% free. Sign up for free     Log in

		Resistance to Change Alex Lowy
	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.

		Mixture of both Bhawna
	(...)

		Mix of organic and mechanistic Hein
	(...)

		Fast Changing world? Brendan Dunphy
	(...)

		Creating an organic organization Cameron
	(...)

		Mechanistic vs Organic Systems Holmes
	(...)

		Burns & Stalkers Typology ullhas Pagey
	(...)

		Burns and Stalker right or wrong? John
	(...)