Obvious or not true after all?

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 Burns and Stalker thought... I wonder what?

		Alex Lowy
	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
	Mixture of both Well in my opinion not many organization are optin (...)

		Hein
	Mix of organic and mechanistic Thanks Bwana for your correction, of course in rea (...)

		Brendan Dunphy
	Fast Changing world? The world as a whole may be changing more quickly (...)

		Cameron
	Creating an organic organization Many people (employees) have difficulty or dislike (...)

		Holmes
	Mechanistic vs Organic Systems Why are there so many mechanistic organisations? T (...)

		ullhas Pagey
	Burns & Stalkers Typology Though Burns and Stalker typology provides a compr (...)

		John
	Burns and Stalker right or wrong? I believe that Hein makes a fair comment. However (...)