"for gaining competitive edge by way of innovation (Van de Van, 1986). Thus,entrepreneurial strategies’ success relies upon the effective supervision andcontrol of the innovation procedures. However, innovation procedures areaffected by the environmental factors, therefore, there is neither any certaintyof the methods to be followed nor results can be predicted (Zaltman, et al.,1973). Further, Mintzberg noted that innovation strategies are frequently facedwith the muddled procedure of trial and error (Mintzberg, 1980).Thus, the entrepreneurial strategies cannot be guided or controlled by therational and tried and tested practices as organizational innovation is found tobe positively correlated to the uncertainty in the environment (McGinnis &Ackelsberg, 1983).Adhocracy Organization Structure & EntrepreneurialStrategyFrom the above discussion, it can be seen that entrepreneurial innovationstrategy process is quite ambiguous and uncertain; however, theorganizations must design the structure in such a manner which is able tocater to the dynamic nature of the innovation strategy (Van de Van, 1986). Thus, adhocracy provides the right structure to the entrepreneurial scenarioas discussed below. DecentralizationAdvantageThis characteristic of adhocracy structure would provide the autonomyrequired to successfully implement the entrepreneurial strategy. For example,the managers would have more control and an authority for decision makingwhich would provide for an organizational culture of initiating and testing newideas feasible (Thompson, 1961). DisadvantageHowever, it was noted that this autonomy has the potential to causemisinterpretations, confusion, ambiguity thus resulting in inefficiency(Mintzberg, 1980). Therefore, caution must be exercised while granting theflexibility to the people within the structure.Non-FormalizationAdvantageIt has been argued that since uncertainty is coherent with innovation processtherefore, informal exchange of information expedites the problem solvingprocess in such scenarios through mutual working (Kanter, 1983). Thus,adhocracy provides for informal relationships resulting in the flexibility ofstructure requires for entrepreneurial strategy. This is due to the innovationstrategies move through trial and error process requiring such a flexibility which cannot be provided by formal structuresDisadvantageHowever, due to lack of clearly defined relationships, there might ariseconfusion and ambiguity regarding communication leading to the inefficiencyand slowing of the strategy implementation(Lister, 2016).Lister, furthernoted, due to lack of clear communication relationships, sometimesreactionary response is triggered which might harm the progress of strategycompletely.The above discussion can be summed up as demonstrated below:OrganizationStructure Entrepreneurial InnovationStrategy EnvironmentUncertainty Figure III: Influences on Entrepreneurial Innovation StrategiesEntrepreneurship and Greiner's Growth Model From the above discussion, it can be concluded that organization structuresupports the successful implementation of strategy. However, it was identified by Greiner, that at times it is the structure which needs an overhauling, thus,affecting the strategy of the organization. Thus, he argued that as theorganization transitions from small to medium to a large organization, thereoccur various evolution and revolution phases as depicted below (Greiner,1972).Figure 4: Greiner Growth ModelThus, the creativity and innovation is the first stage in Greiner’s model whichwill later lead to the crisis for leadership. As discussed earlier, in such a stagethere is an informal communication structure where ideas are invited fromeveryone. However, this adhocracy cannot be maintained for long owing tothe reason that as organization grows, the complexity of managing the samealso increases thus, requiring a more formal structure defining the lines ofcommunication and a strong leadership(Greiner, 1972). In the absence of astrong leadership at this stage, according to Greiner, the organization will notsurvive. Thus, structures need overhauling after each stage of evolution, thus,impacting strategy. Thus, it can be reiterated that strategy follows structureswhile structures support strategies (Shapiro, 2016). "