The wealth and variety of management models can certainly be confusing. From mechanistic management process to organic management process, each system has its own strengths and weaknesses in competition with each other. According to Burns and Stalker, when the external environment was stable, the internal organization was characterized by rules, procedures, and a clear hierarchy of authority. Organizations were formalized. They were also centralized with most decisions made at the top. This is called mechanistic culture (Daft, 2001). Also according to Burns and Stalker, in rapidly changing environment, the internal organization was much looser, free-flowing, and adaptive. Rules and regulations often 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. This is called organic culture (Daft, 2001). One good way to analyze the effectiveness of such theories is to match two competing management styles, and see which is more effective. For instance, it is clear that although Acme's mechanic structure may have some problems with communication, its overall management style is far superior to that of Omega's organic structured organization, in its ability to change and its effectiveness.
Certainly, Omega seems to have an edge in communications, as they demonstrated in the final outcome of the photocopier firm's contract. They discovered a flaw in the connector cable design as they were building their prototype. The mechanical and electrical engineers then redesigned the blueprints to come up with a solution, which shows an important component of an organic culture. Organizations have reputations for being innovative, flexible, and having loose organizational structures (Reigle, 2001). Which Omega clearly showed its innovation in coming up with a new and improved blueprint which change d the design for both companies.
