Why it matters when you are writing
The structure exists to make papers skimmable in a consistent way. A reader assessing whether your work applies to their problem goes straight to Methods; one checking a claim goes to Results; one deciding whether to read at all reads the Introduction and the first paragraph of the Discussion. Honoring the boundaries is a courtesy to that reader, and violating them is the fastest way to look inexperienced.
The boundary that gets crossed most is Results and Discussion. Results reports what the data showed, without interpretation — “treatment scores exceeded control by 4.2 points.” Discussion says what it means, how it relates to prior work, and what its limits are. Putting “suggesting the intervention worked” into Results is the single most common reviewer comment on early-career manuscripts.
Fields vary the shape without abandoning it. Some journals merge Results and Discussion by agreement; qualitative work often uses Findings with interpretation woven through; theoretical papers do not use IMRaD at all. Follow the journal’s instructions to authors, and where they are silent, follow the structure of three recent papers you admire in that journal.