Essays on Effectiveness of Mechanistic versus Organic Communication Structures in Relation to Contemporary Society Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Effectiveness of Mechanistic versus Organic Communication Structures in Relation to Contemporary Society" is a perfect example of business coursework.     Communication is a very important aspect of any success of a business. In definition, communication can be defined as a process of sharing information. Business communication is a goal-oriented and it needs to be very effective to ensure effectiveness in the business. Organizational structure is the way in which a firm distributes its labor in specific tasks and thus achieving coordination among distributed tasks. An organizational structure tends to intervene between the organizational achievement and the goals of the firm and thus influencing the effectiveness of the organization (Brown, 1984, p 577).

The functions of management can never be performed better if there is no effective communication. For an organization to be said to have effective communication, there should be both vertical and horizontal communication in the organization. Horizontal communication is communication at the departmental level while vertical communication is the communication from top to bottom level in the organizational structure. It is evident that both managerial skills and behavioral skills influence organizational effectiveness. This paper will basically distinguish the difference between organic and mechanistic organizational structure basing majorly on theorist T.

Burns and Stalker’ s works. According to theorists’ arguments, they are of the opinion that organizations always need a different type of structure in order to control the activities in their organization (Simonson, 2004, p 361). To determine the organization environment, PESTEL analysis is used to ensure the environment is either stabilized or destabilized (Lewis, 2000, p 478). Other factors as much as they may be considered, important factors that are always influential in the running of an organization include the technological, political, sociological, economical, legal, and technological.

An organic structure is used by organizations that are facing a dynamic and environment that are uncertain. The mechanistic structure, on the other hand, is used by the organizations that are in a stable operational environment. Mechanistic versus Organic Communication structure Mechanistic structure Organizations working with these structures must have some characteristics that will make them survive. The company must have a stable environment- The organization with this structure works better when the environment is stable.

They must also have low tasks differentiation- There is no big difference in the task as the subtask as seen to be stable and easy to manage. The departmental integration must be lower. Due to stability in their tasks, the integration within departments and other functional areas is relatively lower. This is so because the functional areas mostly do not depend on each other while the stability of tasks remains the same. The decision-making under this structure must be centralized. By being centralized means, all important decisions are made from one point (Johnson, 1973, p 597). When an environment is seen to be stable, there is always no need for making complex decisions.

Environmental uncertainty and change and company size are always identified as the environmental factors have an impact on the effectiveness of organizational structures. According to some theorist, they tend to link the performance of the organization and suggest the best structure for them to the ape. The decisions that are made are therefore always centralized at the top of the managerial level without really involving the lower managerial level.

Having stable tasks, there is a need to standardize all the tasks taking place in the organizational structure and formalizing them so as to avoid future breakdowns.



Adlam, R. 2003. Police leadership in the twenty-first century: philosophy, doctrine and

developments. Oxford: Waterside Press.

Brown, O. 1984. Human factors in organizational design and management: proceedings of

first symposium held in Honolulu. Texas: North- Holland.

Chall, P. 1993. Sociological abstracts. New Jersey: Sociological abstract

Cherrington, D. 1994. Organizational behavior: the management of individual and

organizational Performance. Texas: Allyn and Bacon.

Gumucio, A. 2006. Communication for social change anthology: historical and contemporary

readings. Chicago: Consortium, Inc.

Johnson, D. 1973. Contemporary social psychology. Texas: Lippincott

Lewis, p. 2000. Management Challenges in the 21st Century. New York: Thomson Learning.

Rosenzweig, J. 1974. Organizational and management: a systems approach. Chicago:


Simonson, P. 2004. Mass communication and American social thought: key texts, 1919-1968.

Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hauschildt, T. 2009. Effectiveness of Mechanistic versus Organic structures. Harvard:


Psychology comps Review, 2005. Organizational theory. Oxford: Cengage

Eileen, Z. 2004. Management control system design within its organizational context. Texas: Cengage

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us