I think some are confusing "story content" and/or "format" for "story structure."
Structure is independent of content. Granted, oftentimes the discussion can become confusing, as we talk about story structure (the "hero's journey") and then also talk about genre structure (dramatic versus novelistic) in the same breath. But, regardless, structure is separate from story content.
Structure is the foundation you lay your story content upon.
Story content might be a guy, a girl, a love story, dialogue, actions, a tragic accident, etc. Story structure is how those pieces are put together and in what order they're put together. For a great story, the two must work in harmony. However, since they are two separate components of story telling, many stories eschew the importance of crafting them both to perfection.
Many stories are full of great content - amazing dialogue, well-developed characters, exciting sequences, etc. - but are structured poorly to the effect that the story seems disjointed and sloppy. The hero may not seem to arc or accomplish anything, not enough tension is built, the payoffs aren't satisfying, etc. These elements are all part of structure; the way in which you put your story together.
As was said in another discussion I'm having on another board, structure (metaphorically) is the "language" in which you tell your story, NOT the content. I could say "What is your name" in English. Then say, "Cual es to nombre" or "Como se llama" in Spanish. Then say, "Ni de min tsu jiao se me" in Mandarin. In each case, the content is the same; I've delivered the same message. But, the language I've delivered it in is different.
According to the findings of Campbell and many, many others who've studied story and myth, stories across all cultures follow a similar structure (a "universal language," per Deus' metaphor), which is exclusive from content. This is, of course, based on his studies of social anthropology and psychology (Jungian). This, of course, begs the "chicken and egg" question about story structure. Do we tell myths and stories structured in this way because that is how we like to tell stories, or do we seek out stories told in such a structure because that is what we respond to best? Well, per the language metaphor, it's both. It's (the "hero's journey" or "monomyth") a natural, organic way to tell stories. I think it's a part of human nature to both tell and respond to stories in this structure.
The content of the stories can be dramatically (as in significantly) different - different characters, different actions, different situations, different stories altogether, but the structure - the way in which they are put together (for the story to truly be great and affect the audience) - might best be served following the universal model.
This (the fact that the greatest stories have all followed a very similar structure) should not be viewed as a bad thing, or limiting, in any way. On the contrary, it should be viewed as a way to enhance your stories and take them to the next level.
Every story has different content needs and story formulas. Rom coms have a "boy meets girl. Boy gets girl. Boy loses girl. Boy wins girl back" type of story formula. However, this is a story content formula and has little to do with the structure of the story elements (how they are put together).
Of course, he author may start out writing a character a certain way, but then the character changes or "tells" the author that it wants to act in a different way (i.e. a "surprise" to the author), but the story should always be moving in a focused direction (my opinion, of course).
There should always be two (main) goals in a story: the story goal and the protagonist's goal. I think that losing sight of either of these, or not even having them in the first place, may lead to a disjointed, sloppy, poorly structured story. But, it's poor structure is the very thing that makes it disjointed and sloppy and, thus, means it will never sell.
As far as outlining goes, I find it hard to wrap my brain around the idea of "not outlining." It seems odd to me to start a story and not know at least the beginning or end, not know the protagonist's goal(s), not know the major plot points, etc. I know that Stephen King doesn't outline...but he's Stephen King. I believe John Grisham does, and many interviews of published novelists I've read recently say that they outline as well (of course, not all do. Everyone has their own way of writing. But, the majority of the interviews I've read assert that those authors outline, at least to a small degree).
I don't think a person has to totally outline the story content, but at least make sure the story follows a logical structure.
But, to each his/her own. I don't do extremely detailed outlines, but I at least flesh out the goals of my protag and some of the major plot points (per my story structure). Not saying everyone should, I just don't understand how one could not know these things before writing one's story.
