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?