In this way, the organization is able to develop as needed or warranted by the plethora of external and internal circumstances that affect it daily. There is often a negative connotation associated with Burns and Stalker's assessment of mechanistic organizations, and there is some truth in this qualitative perspective. This does not mean that all aspects of mechanistic organizations are too be seen as primarily detrimental or less-than-satisfactory, however; stability is a good thing, and in certain times and situations a very necessary thing. Stability and innovation, however, are not often mutual partners in an organization's growth and progression, and it was this issue that Burns and Stalker tackled. Their theory is improved upon only by a better understanding, provided by a longer view from the end (rather than the middle) of a century of great innovation and change, of the larger organizational influences and cycles that form the pattern of global culture and society today, which shows that not all mechanistic tendencies are unwanted (Sine et al. 2006).

Conclusion

No theories exist in a vacuum, and management/organizational theories...

The theories that develop in the business world, and in the academic world concerning business, cannot help but be a direct response to the observations of the time. Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker's theory of mechanistic and organic organizations, as describe din their book The Management of Innovation, is no different from any other theory in this regard, These two collaborators, through careful observation and analysis of real-world circumstances and organizations, developed a revolutionary way of thinking about organizations.