One of the key differences between a mechanical and an organic organization is its relationship with the natural world. Both mechanistic and organic organizations are bureaucratic organizations operating through a set of rules and regulations. Essentially, they function well in stable, easy-to-manage environments. Organic organizations tend to be more flexible, however, and their employees must learn themselves how they’re expected to perform.
A key difference between these two organizational structures is their relationship with the natural world. Organic structures are built on the land and use the natural environment as their primary material support. They have little dependence on technology, since everything is built on site, in accordance with local building codes. mechanistic structures, on the other hand, are built outside of the home, frequently on industrial or agricultural land that is not managed by local governments. A website such as StreamOZ is considered mechanistic as well.
Since they rely on external sources for their support, they’re more prone to economic crises. In fact, the instability of the economy has contributed to the increased frequency and severity of organizational collapse. This is most apparent in the case of mechanistic job specialty. When a department needs to expand, move to another location, or begin a new project, the usual method for doing so is by hiring additional staff from within the department to take over part-time or full-time positions. The problem with this type of staffing strategy is that while the current employees are happy with their position, they may not be as productive as they were before; a good number of them may actually prefer a different job specialty. For this reason, departments that specialize in a particular area begin to run into recruitment problems: only those applicants with a specific skill set can consistently gain employment.
Organic structures, on the other hand, provide an environment where members can enjoy the same remuneration regardless of whether their position changes. Job specialization is not an issue: a job description will suffice. Consequently, organic organizations enjoy a much higher rate of turnover than their mechanical counterparts. Because it is much easier to re-train and re-appoint an individual to a mechanical organization than it is to move a member of an organic structure, members are far less likely to accept a job transfer. This is both good and bad news for the organization’s organizational structure.
On one hand, moving jobs from mechanistic and organic organizations to Google, the giant search engine, might cause some resentment. Yet on the other, Google’s revenue streams and business model are such that the revenue generated by moving jobs to Google by organic organizations will far outweigh any resentment that might be caused by having to move to another geographic location. This is why many large mechanical firms have decided to outsource jobs to Yahoo! Search and Marketing and Microsoft Advertising.
The other reason why moving your jobs to Google might be advantageous for the organizational structure is that Google’s core competencies are much better suited to the organizational design needs of the human mind than are the organizational designs that are more geared towards machines. Humans are better able to grasp the distinction between the abstract concepts that many of the abstract building blocks of the technological world are based on. Human beings are capable of designing products that function according to human needs. Google’s core competency is search engine optimization. This means optimizing websites so that they rank highly in the major search engines like Google and Yahoo! Google would obviously prefer that its users visit websites that meet its own internal organizational design.
Finally, it must be noted that while moving jobs to Google might solve some organizational problems that the current organizational structure is unable to solve, Google’s core competency of search engine optimization does not necessarily translate into organizational success. Many mechanistic organizations and industrial conglomerates run through the same structural design issues that divide them into units with employees working in a variety of geographic locations. Even if Google was able to solve this organizational problem by having all of its employees work from centralized locations across the globe, Google’s core competency of search engine optimization would not itself make Google successful. The competency of human beings is what leads Google to become successful.
Organizational systems such as these can be effective if they follow best described organizational behavior. They are good at making the correct decisions, but are not immune from problems of internal management. These problems arise because humans are far from perfect, and we are prone to error. But even if we were perfect, we could not expect our human managers to run every aspect of a business efficiently from a centralized location without any help. Therefore, while Google might be able to solve some organizational problems, the efficiency of human managers, who are trained and disciplined to follow best described organizational behavior, will still usually win out in the long term.