Lopp (2019) introduces two orthogonal problem-solving styles in Chapter 36 of Managing Humans. Organics approach problems intuitively — through exploration, conversation, and emergent pattern recognition. Mechanics approach problems analytically — through structured decomposition, systematic analysis, and process design.
The distinction is not about intelligence or rigour. Both styles produce excellent work; each excels in different phases of problem-solving.
How Each Style Operates
Organics:
- Comfortable with ambiguity and underspecification
- Discover what the problem is through iterative conversation and exploration
- Generate insight through analogy, lateral connection, and emergent pattern recognition
- Excel in discovery phases: requirements exploration, root-cause investigation, creative ideation
Mechanics:
- Prefer a well-defined problem statement before acting
- Decompose problems into trackable components; prefer process and checklists
- Reduce uncertainty systematically before committing to a solution direction
- Excel in execution phases: architecture design, project planning, rigorous implementation
The Natural Conflict
Organics frustrate Mechanics by appearing undisciplined — they talk before they have understood, explore before they define, and resist premature closure. Mechanics frustrate Organics by appearing rigid — they want a specification before thinking freely, and may collapse the problem space too early.
This mirrors March’s (1991) exploration-exploitation tension: organisations need both search (Organic) and refinement (Mechanic), but the two modes compete for time and authority. It also maps to Kirton’s (1976) Adaption-Innovation continuum: Adaptors (within-paradigm problem-solving) correspond to Mechanics; Innovators (beyond-paradigm) correspond to Organics.
Phase-Dependent Value
| Phase | Dominant Value |
|---|---|
| Problem discovery | Organic |
| Requirements definition | Mechanic |
| Solution ideation | Organic |
| Architecture / planning | Mechanic |
| Implementation | Mechanic |
| Retrospective / learning | Organic |
Management Implications
- Name the phase: Explicitly declare whether the team is in exploration or execution mode — this reframes style conflict as a phase mismatch rather than a personality clash
- Sequence the styles: Let Organics frame the problem before Mechanics structure the solution
- Protect both modes: Engineering cultures often over-index on Mechanic norms; Organic contributions in early problem phases must be preserved
Organics and Mechanics are orthogonal to Incrementalists-and-Completionists. A Completionist-Mechanic is the rarest and most effective profile for deep technical architecture; an Incrementalist-Organic is the classic exploratory product thinker.
Future Connection
Feedback-Orientation-Model will relate to these styles: Organics may experience critical/evaluative feedback as premature closure; Mechanics may experience exploratory feedback as insufficiently actionable.
Related Concepts
Sources
-
Lopp, Michael. (2019). Managing Humans: Biting and Humorous Tales of a Software Engineering Manager. 3rd ed. Apress. ISBN: 978-1-484-23712-4. Chapter 36: “Organics and Mechanics.”
- Primary source; defines both styles, describes their characteristic conflict, and frames management guidance
-
Kirton, Michael J. (1976). “Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61, No. 5, pp. 622–629. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622
- Foundational empirical framework showing cognitive style as a stable individual trait on a continuum from Adaptor (systematic, within-paradigm) to Innovator (rule-bending, beyond-paradigm); Adaptors map to Mechanics, Innovators to Organics
-
March, James G. (1991). “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 71–87. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
- Exploration (search, discovery, variation) vs. exploitation (refinement, efficiency, execution) as structurally competing organisational modes; provides the macro-level basis for the Organic/Mechanic phase-dependency argument
-
Epstein, Seymour, Rosemary Pacini, Veronika Denes-Raj, and Harriet Heier. (1996). “Individual Differences in Intuitive–Experiential and Analytical–Rational Thinking Styles.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 390–405. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
- Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI) confirms that intuitive and analytical processing are orthogonal dimensions, not opposites — both can be high in the same individual; complicates any strict Organic/Mechanic binary
-
Basadur, Min, Mark A. Runco, and Louana Vega. (2000). “Understanding How Creative Thinking Skills, Attitudes and Behaviors Work Together: A Causal Process Model.” Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 77–100.
- Creative problem-solving styles include divergent-generation (Organic-like ideation) and convergent-evaluation (Mechanic-like structuring) phases; empirically validates phase-dependent value of each cognitive mode in team problem-solving
Note
This content was drafted with assistance from AI tools for research, organization, and initial content generation. All final content has been reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with the author’s intentions and perspective.