reply to my classmates Managing Dynamic Environment


NOTE: Reply with Reference.

Note: each reply should be separated** 

** 100 words for each reply**

Reply to my first classmate: AHMED

From my experience I see many organizations decide to be between organic and mechanistic. Each organization designs its structure to enable its mission, vision, goals, and strategy. If the structure fits with other contextual elements, it has a better chance of being effective in supporting the organization.

SABIC is global company and one of the biggest petrochemical companies in the world having many affiliates companies around the world, Affiliates companies located in many regions in Europe, Asia , America and Middle East. The culture of the organization is flexible and each regions having their own culture with all respect from others, if we took an example of accounting department in SABIC the management are centralized in Saudi Arabia but each region have their own roles in respect to all governments requirements and country culture, the management make the high level roles and structures to make sure the work ethics not impacted and all employees working for one goal and they let the leaders in region doing their tasks with exchanging the knowledge and best practice between them locally and globally to improve the work process and enhancing it, the adjustment and redefine usually conducted through teamwork and participation with other teams in other region.

I believe SABIC company is more organic because management dealing with all regions based on their roles and culture and they let the all teams engaged with each other's to learn and reflect the experience and best knowledge among all regions. Also, they let each region to deal and control of tasks based on the culture and government roles.

If the company will go with other type which is mechanistic it will face many challenges such as complicated governments roles in each region has to be managed, for example in accounting department if the company decade to centralized the tasks in one country the team there has to deal with each region differently and it will be complicated and risky if they broke the governments roles but when they make it flexible and more organic they will success as they did now by ranking the SABIC as 3rd biggest petrochemical company in the world.



-           Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

-           SABIC website Link


Reply to my Second classmate: MOHANNAD 

Modern discussion on types of organizational structure oppose traditional bureaucratic, mechanistic structures to flexible, agile, adaptive and organic ones that are considered as those better fitting today’s business environments. But concepts of flexible, agile, adaptive and organic structure can actually have different meaning. consider 5 aspects (“trademarks”) of agile organization: strategy; structure; process; people; technology. The flexibility is manifested in the reaction to changes not only in external but also in internal conditions. After all, certain elements of the internal environment of the enterprise (goals, strategy, equipment, personnel, etc.) may change and require changes in other elements and subsystems of the enterprise, which, in turn, requires flexibility of the enterprise’s structure.

Since I’m employee of Saudi Basic Industry Corporate SABIC I can see the company is rigid or mechanistic in some tasks and flexible or organic on some other tasks for example the communication between the employees to management or employee to employee is horizontal and free flowing the top management middle management are very reachable and easy to communicate the. But in term of formalization and authority approval or control the company is very rigid and process need to be taken through formal situation and movement. As SABIC is one of well structured company around the word, changing the company structure is not prefer as SABIC has good combinations between both rigid characteristics and flexible characteristics which give them the reason of sustaining the same structure.     

 The hypothesis of organization as machine shifting in the face of new challenges, such as quickly evolving environment, continuous introduction of disruptive technologies, accelerated digitization, democratization of information, and the new war for talents. Such changes lead to the paradigm of considering organizations as living organisms. In this case, organizations are first of all considered as those able to adapt to environment. But it’s clear that the structure of such organization can possess all the features of flexible, agile of adaptive structures discussed above as association with living organism makes all those features possible. So organic structure can be considered the widest concept out of the mentioned in this paper. To conclude, flexible, agile, adaptive and organic organizational structure have some differences in their meaning, while today a lot of authors consider these concepts interchangeable.




Does Flexible, Agile, Adaptive and Organic Organizational Structure Mean the Same

Andrii Kotlyk,  Georgiy Gres


Organization Change an Action Oriented Toolkit

4e, Gene Deszca, Cynthia Ingols, Tupper F. Cawsey


The Effect of Organizational Structure on Employees’ Job Performance in Private Hospitals of Ahvaz

Hadis Alipoor, Keyvan Ahmadi,  Salah Pouya, Khabat Ahmadi, Soran Mowlaie


Employer's Review

Employer didn't leave any reviews


There are currently no comments

New Comment

Please fill all non-optional fields, thanks