There is debate about whether writers should write organically or traditionally. Of course, there is also debate on what exactly those two things are.
In a generalized sense, traditional writing is coming up with a story, knowing the direction the plot is going, and how everything from plot to specific characters, will be resolved. That doesn’t mean the writer can’t change their mind and kill off a character they originally meant to save, or save a character they were going to kill off. [Or a thousand other examples of plot.] It doesn’t mean the writer can’t go in a different direction, either. It simply means the writer knows in advance down which road he’s traveling. If he makes a change, he knows how that will affect other things and changes those accordingly. The traditional writer usually maps out the story and arcs.
Organic writing is more impromptu or spontaneous. They understand their own backstory and have a general idea where things are headed. But they are keen for plot and character development to happen as naturally as possible, not planned out. For example, instead of plotting to kill off a character in advancement of the plot, they wait and see if a death is even needed, and if so, the writer typically “finds out” who the victim will be shortly before it needs to be added. It’s more instinctual where traditional or more organizational.
That doesn’t mean both types won’t keep a spreadsheet or notations of who is who, names, descriptions, etc. so they don’t make continuity mistakes. It simply means that a traditionalist knows where she’s going and how to get there (knowing there may be detours but not planning for them yet), while the organic writer knows where she’s going, but expects many detours between beginning and end.
Defining such terms also doesn’t mean a single writer can’t be a mixture of both. I expect most, even ones that strictly align one way or the other, are in fact a mixture of both.
To be clear, I don’t think anyone should concern themselves with the mechanics of how the story unfolds. Work out what you can in advance (more traditionalist) and then keep an open mind (organic) as you go. Everyone has their schtick. The popular Dragonlance novels originated through role-playing Dungeons & Dragons. Dragonlance was a specific D&D campaign. The writers of the original series of books, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, played out the campaign with friends, with the novels unfolding based on the outcomes during the game campaign. You can’t get more organic than that! Characters in the story literally lived or died by the roll of dice (and a clever dungeon master to lead the way). The books were wildly popular and there are now dozens of books in the series, some about the original characters, and many more are new characters in the same world. I’ve always been fascinated with how Weis and Hickman did it. It’s certainly one way to remove one’s own preferences from the equation; on the other hand, if the story is ours, its outcome should be ours, too.
I’m not a big fan of flying by the seat of your pants. Especially if academic or non-fiction. But I don’t care for it that much in fiction, either. I think the less overall direction you have, the more likely weak plot, plot holes, uneven character development, or other bad things will result. But if you believe that is the best way to write, do it. Just make sure you (and a trusted editor) are going back through it with a fine-tooth comb. Don’t kill off someone organically (I seem to be in a blood-thirsty mood for this post) if your story has telegraphed someone else dying (unless it is meant as a red herring, in which case, it needs to read as such after the fact).
Above all have fun. Labelling yourself serves no purpose, nor does it provide you with a Writing 101 set of rules for that particular type of writing. Just create.