"ConclusionThus, from the above discussion it can be seen that the organizationstructures do act as an influence for the successful implementation of thestrategy, however, it cannot guarantee the success of it. Further, it wasdiscussed, in the context of entrepreneurial innovation; the strategy is majorlyaffected by the environment uncertainty and there exists no ‘right’ way ofinnovation as it muddles through the chaotic process of trial and error asnoted by Mintzberg (1980). However, it has been argued that innovation strategy is not completelydependent upon the environmental stimulus rather also requires thestructure’s receptivity to change in order to be successfully implemented(Kimberly, 1981). Thus, adhocracy structure provides a context to overcomethe internal resistance to innovation strategy by providing informalrelationships, flexibility which inculcates a culture of belief and mutual trust.Nevertheless, there are inherent limitations of this model to the appliedcontext indicating that structure supports the new strategy and is altered withthe change in the strategy (Amburgey & Dacin, 1994).BibliographyAmburgey, T. & Dacin, T., 1994. As the left foot follows the right? Thedynamics of strategic and structural change. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37(6), pp. 1427-1452..Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M., 1994. The Management of Innovation, Oxford:Oxford University Press.Fellin, T. & Powell, T., 2016. Designing Organizations for DynamicCapabilities. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 58(4).Greiner, L., 1972. Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. HarvardBusiness Review, Issue July-August.Kackson, J. & Morgan, C., 1982. Organization Theory. 2nd Edition ed.s.l.:Prentice Hall.Kanter, R., 1983. The change masters: Innovations for productivity in theAmerican corporation. New York: University of Illinois.Kimberly, J., 1981. Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual,Organizational, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technologicaland Administrative Innovations. The Academy of Management Journal,December, 24(4), pp. 689-713.Kipley, D. & Lewis, A., 2011. Strategic Management Incorporating Ansoff. 1stEdition ed. s.l.:Pearson Custom Publishing.Lister, J., 2016. http://smallbusiness.chron.com. [Online] Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-adhocracies-within-organization-37791.html[Accessed 9 November 2016].McGinnis, M. & Ackelsberg, M., 1983. Effective Innovation Management:Missing link in strategic planning. Journal of Business Strategy, Volume 4, pp.59-66.Miles, R., Snow, C., Meyer, A. & Coleman, H., 1978. Organizational strategy,structure, and process. Academy of management review, 3(3), pp. 46-562..Mintzberg, H., 1980. Structure in 5's:A Synthesis of the research onorganization design. Management Science, March.26(3).Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J., 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents,outcomes, and moderators.. Journal of Management, 34(3), pp. 375-409.Rumelt, R., D., S. & Teece, D., 1994. Fundamental Issues in Strategy: AResearch Agenda. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Shapiro, D., 2016. Strategy Follows Structure, Structure Supports Strategy.[Online] Available at: http://www.firstconcepts.com/strategy-follows-structure/[Accessed 3 Novemeber 2016].Thompson, J., 1966. Organization in Action. s.l.:McGraw Hill.Thompson, V., 1961. Modern Organizations. New York: University of AlbamaPress.Van de Van, A., 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation.Management Science, 32(1), pp. 590-607. Walton, R., 1986. A Vision-Led Approach to Management Restructuring.Organizational Dynamics, 14(4), pp. 5-17.Wolf, D., 2002. Execution and Structure. [Online] Available at: http://www.dewarsloan.com/workin%20papers-execution%20and20%structure.html[Accessed 4 November 2016].Zaltman, J., Duncan, R. & Holbeck, J., 1973. Innovations and organizations.New York: Wiley and Sons. "