In their classic book The Management of Innovation, sociologist Tom Burns and psychologist George Stalker show organizations that are innovative and responsive to changing market situations rely on structures that differ from those designed for organizations operating in stable environments. The findings of their landmark study conducted in the early 1960’s is just as relevant today as they were back then. Specifically, they identify and describe two “polar extremities” of organizational design: mechanistic and organic.

​

Mechanistic organizational designs, like bureaucracies, are intended to maximize efficiency in highly stable external environments.

They do so by relying heavily on:

• Hierarchical structures of control, authority, and communication that emphasize vertical linkages and relationships;

• Highly specialized knowledge, tasks, roles, and functions that emphasize local competencies over general competencies; and

• Strict definitions of roles, responsibilities, rights, and methods that emphasize obedience and loyalty.

  

Organic organizational designs feature characteristics that are better suited for innovation and adaptability in complex and changing environments.

These characteristics include:

• Network structures of control, authority, and communication that emphasize lateral linkages and relationships;

• Continual redefinition of tasks, roles, and functions through lateral (as well as vertical) interactions and communications that emphasize knowledge  sharing, collaboration, and consultation; and

• The ‘shedding’ of narrowly defined and limiting responsibilities, rights, and methods so that problem solving and contribution to the broader common tasks of concern are emphasized.

 

Building on this and more recent research, it has been proven that the characteristics of mechanistic organizational designs interfere with innovation and adaptation, at least in part because of the defensive norms these designs promote and reinforce. Specially, as suggested by the expectations of both passive/defensive and aggressive/defensive behaviors are stronger in organizations in which decision-making authority and influence are centralized, the involvement of employees in organizational improvements is low, and employee empowerment is not sufficient.

In addition, experiences confirm that defensive cultures are maintained through micromanagement, extensive rules and procedures, and narrowly defined jobs and functions - all attributes of mechanistic systems.

​

In contrast, constructive cultural norms are communicated and reinforced in organizations that decentralize authority and influence, sufficiently empower people at levels to solve problems and make decisions and involve employees in improving the organization. These norms support personal styles - such as thinking ahead and planning, approaching things in creative ways, and sharing ideas - that are critical in carrying out the various activities required for effective change and adaptation. Thus, organic structures lead to those outcomes at least in part as a function of the constructive norms they promote.

 

Experience shows that some organizations seek to combine the best of both worlds by creating ambidextrous structures, with some departments or divisions designed for exploration and innovation and others for exploitation and efficiency. However, for this differentiation to work, the subunits must be effectively integrated. Other organizations may seek to achieve ambidexterity within departments, with subunit members switching between organic and mechanistic structures as dictated by the demands of the situation. This within-unit approach requires, among other things, that members are prepared not only to carry out the decisions of superiors but also to take on responsibility and implement decisions that they make on their own. While more research is needed, it appears that both the cross-unit and within-unit approaches to ambidexterity are facilitated by constructive norms.

This is expected, given that such norms have been shown to lead to interunit coordination (which would enable the first type of ambidexterity) and to motivation and adaptability (which would enable the second type). The challenge inherent in ambidextrous structures is accentuating and capitalizing on organic culture-shaping forces rather than mechanistic design characteristics.

​

The impact of structure on culture also comes into play with respect to the leaders approach change.  Rather than structuring a change team made-up only of top leaders, which would have been the norm, the company formed a diverse group that represented a diagonal slice of the organization. The approach must be consistent with the kind of inclusive, open-minded, and constructive norms that the leaders wanted to strengthen in the organization. In turn, the group should be able to effectively identify changes that are accepted and supported throughout the organization and, importantly, that position the organization to expand.

 

Culture change initiatives that are driven by mechanistic structures and defensive norms send the wrong message, are viewed as disingenuous, and end up reinforcing those norms rather than moving the culture in a more effective direction. Again, the existing culture is often the greatest obstacle to culture change! In this regard, the organizational culture determines the organizational structure, and the organizational structure confirms the organizational culture. So, the ways in which structural variables shape cultural norm can be changed so that they modify those norms. A multifaceted approach to change, guided by and reflecting the culture toward which the organization aspires, is most likely to succeed.

 

Source: ‘Creating Constructive Cultures; Leading People and Organizations to Effectively Solve Problems and achieve Goals, by J. L. Szumal and

R.A. Cooke.