Examining Organic and Mechanistic Structures: Do We Know as Much as We Thought?

• Author: Walter R. Nord,Ashley E. Nixon,Stacey R. Kessler
• Published date: 01 October 2017
• Date: 01 October 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12109

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 19, 531–555 (2017)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12109

Examining Organic and Mechanistic

Structures: Do We Know as Much

as We Thought?

Stacey R. Kessler, Ashley E. Nixon1and Walter R. Nord2

Department of Management, Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, SBUS 456, 1 Normal Avenue,

Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, USA, 1Atkinson Graduate School of Management, Willamette University, Salem,

OR 97301, USA, and 2Muma College of Business, University of South Florida, Tampa,Florida 33620, USA

Corresponding author email: kesslers@mail.montclair.edu

Burns and Stalker’stheory of organic/mechanistic structures (1961, The Management of

Innovation. London: Tavistock) has been widely used. However, review of the empirical

literature revealedinconsistencies in how the concepts have been operationalized. These

inconsistencies may interfere with the ability to consolidate knowledge. This paper

reviews the various ways in which researchers have operationalized the concepts, and

summarizes the empirical findings derived from these operationalizations. In doing

so, it highlights gaps and opportunities for future empirical and methodological work,

suggesting the need to further our theoretical conceptualization of the concepts and to

drawattention to Burns and Stalker’s (1961) largely neglected corollary of the employee

experience. As such, this review provides a road map for future exploration of the wide-

ranging implications associated with organic and mechanistic structures.

Introduction

Burns and Stalker’s (1961) contingency theory of

organic/mechanistic structures is one of the most

widely cited management theories and arguably

one of the most successful constructs in modern

organizational studies. It has stimulated research for

over half a century, is widely known by practitioners,

and is included in most organizational studies

textbooks. Researchers have also operationalized the

theory in order to examine empirically the effects of

these structures on a variety of outcomes. This has

occurred despite the opinions of some researchers

(e.g. Spender and Kessler 1995) that Burns and

Stalker (1961) intended these structures to serve

as abstract models. The goal of this review is to

present the various ways in which researchers have

The authors would like to thank OswaldJones, Tim Edwards

and the anonymous reviewers for their instrumental support

during this process, and Jasmine James for her assistance

with earlier versions of the manuscript.

operationalized this theory and to summarize the

empirical findings derived from these operationaliza-

tions. We begin with a broad review of contingency

theory, highlighting Burns and Stalker’s (1961)

seminal theory. Following this section, we review the

existing empirical literature examining the theory,

using the model in Figure 1 as a conceptual frame-

work. We then discuss Burns and Stalker’s (1961)

observations of the theory, highlighting the role of

the employee experience within organic structures.

Next, we review the research on the relationships

between organic/mechanistic structure and depen-

dent variables. We organize this literature review

using five broad categories of dependent variables:

performance, innovation/change, satisfaction and

relationships, ethics, influence and leadership, and

learning and communication. We begin with the per-

formance and innovation/change management sec-

tions, given Burns and Stalker’s (1961) focus on how

organizational structures can facilitate or impede or-

ganizational outcomes. Although innovation is some-

times considered a qualitative type of performance

C2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

532 S.R. Kessler et al.

Operationalizing

and Assessing

Structure

Satisfaction and

Relationships

Ethics, Influence,

and Leadership

Learning and

Communication

Performance

Innovation/Change

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

(Mayer-Huag et al. 2013), given the significant vol-

ume of research in each of the areas, we present these

findings in two sections. Following the innova-

tion/change management sections, we review the

remainder of the literature, organizing it round three

central themes: satisfaction and relationships, ethics

and influence, and learning and communication. As

such, this review should act as a road map for future

researchers to explore the wide-ranging implications

associated with organic and mechanistic structures.

Contingency theory: Burns and

Stalker’s (1961) theory

During the first half of the 20th century, organiza-

tional theory was dominated by the classical theorists,

who were heavily influenced by the industrial revo-

lution and the advent of the factory system. These

theorists focused on universal principles of organi-

zations intended to optimize productivity. Taylor’s

(1911) focus on scientific management was the most

famous example of this ‘one best way’ approach. By

the 1960s, scholars questioning this ‘one best way’

paradigm gave rise to the contingency approach to

organizations. Contingency theory, or structural con-

tingency theory, refers to a set of theories suggesting

that there is not one best way to structure an orga-

nization. Rather, appropriate structures depend on a

variety of situational factors (Donaldson 2001; Don-

aldson and Luo 2014). In addition to Burns and

Stalker’s (1961) theory, several popular contingency

theories emerged, including Lawrence and Lorsch’s

(1967) focus on differentiation and integration1as

a function of the external environment, Thompson’s

(1967) model focusing on handling uncertainty, and

Woodward’s (1965) notion that structure was con-

tingent on production technologies. These theorists

sought to unravel complexities between organiza-

tional structure and situational factors.

Within this context, Burns and Stalker (1961) in-

troduced their theory, directly challenging the ‘one

best way’ viewpoint. Much of their legacy stems

from two lists of organizationalcharacteristics, repro-

duced in Table 1, used to define organic/mechanistic

structures. They advised treating these characteristics

1Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) defined differentiation as ‘the

state of segmentation of the organizational system into sub-

systems, each of which tends to develop particular attributes

in relation to the requirements posed by its relevant exter-

nal environment. Differentiation, as used here, includes the

behavioral attributes of members of organizational subsys-

tems; this represents a break with the classical definition of

the term as simply the formal division of labor’ (Lawrence

and Lorsch 1967, pp. 3–4). They defined integration as ‘the

process of achieving unity of effort among the various sub-

systems in the accomplishment of the organization’s task’

(Lawrence and Lorsch 1967, p. 4).

C2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.