cter. Such internal organizational structures were termed mechanistic in character; and (2) organizations functioning within a dynamic external environment frequently were found to chaotic in character defined by Daft (1991, p. 71) as "much looser, free flowing, and adaptive. Rules and regulations were not written down, or if written down were ignored. People had to find their own way through the system to figure out what to do. The hierarchy of authority was not clear. Decision making authority was decentralized." Such internal organizational structures were termed organic in character.
Daft (1991, p. 74) holds that the organic organizational structure is associated with change and that such a structure is preferable when functioning within a dynamic external environment. Researchers also tend to think that innovation is fostered by an organic organizational structure, while it tends to be stifled by a mechanistic organizational structure. The conclusion, thus, is that organizations requiring innovation should adopt an organic structure.
Researchers have also observed, however, that, while organic structures tend to foster innovation, they are often somewhat ineffective for the implementation of that innovation (Wilson, 1966, pp. 193 218). In such instances, Robert Duncan (1976, pp.
167 188) suggested the adoption of a composite organizational structure that incorporates characteristics of both the organic and the mechanistic organizational concepts. The ambidextrous organizational structure would permit a shifting emphasis as required by a changing situation.
The Relevancy of the Contingency Theor
...