The Hindu Business Line : Handy's Greek God cultural types

Making some form of relevant classification is always a useful tool to grapple with complexity. One of the earliest to do this with regard to organisational culture was Charles Handy, a senior manager at Shell who taught at London Business School. Drawing on his classical education, he identified four organisational cultures named after Greek gods.

Thus Zeus, the all-powerful, represented a culture that is built around power. A powerful person sits at the centre much like a spider does, with the rest of the organisation revolving around his whims and pet notions, loves and hates. Many of us know such monarchic organisations. Obviously, every first generation organisation started by an entrepreneur out of his own dreams and aspirations first tends towards this type. Here, the offsetting element to the centralisation and perhaps autocracy is the lack of needless bureaucracy. Decisions are swift and clear although they could change rapidly. No one is left in any doubt as to reasons: the boss wants it so.

In marked contrast is the bureaucracy or rule-based organisation, which lives and prospers or dies according to procedures, precedents and rules, no matter who is at the head of it. The saving grace of this model, though much maligned for being impersonal and prone to delay, is that it dishes out decisions without fear or favour — because that is the way the system demands it. Governments all over the world tend to function this way largely, except where they are themselves person-centred as in dictatorships and monarchies. Handy called it the Apollo culture or the worship of form over substance. Hierarchy and doing things the approved away dominates the thinking in such a milieu. Other organisations which are very much task focussed, are referred to as task cultures named after Athena, known for her youth, verve and action orientation. Project teams, consultancies, research groups and even music bands could form Athena organisations. While they might all have their own versions of rules and systems, no one is any doubt that the show must go on regardless and that the client system is always right and takes precedence over everything else. Increasingly in the modern world, every business has parts of it that are best run along these lines. At times the entire organisation might have to take on a commando force mentality and function totally focussed on a goal — regardless of precise job descriptions, roles and procedures or indeed hierarchy.

The fourth model, person-centred, is familiar to those who have been in artistic ensembles, laboratories or university faculties. Here, the purpose is explicitly to let each person give of his personal best; and each one is unique. This is the exact opposite of the bureaucracy. Partnerships of lawyers, advertising hot shops, boutique agencies in various fields would be examples of this, which Handy named after Dionysius remarkable for innovation and individual genius. Most scientific research establishments that are successful at retaining highly talented people tend to treat the paraphernalia of the organisation more like a necessary evil or potential hindrance that must be suffered — while no one is left in any doubt as to the very reason for the existence of the place: to give the experts a place to display their skills and arts. Technology-driven companies and start-ups tend to function this way, often in garages and makeshift attics.

As will be obvious, there can be no best form; it all depends on the purpose. Culture is a function of the task and the milieu and one should never make it the focus of the debate. The functionalist mind merely asks: Is this right for what we want to achieve?

More Stories on : Management | Manager's Handbook

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Handy's Greek God cultural types

Shaping a business dynasty

Building cultural awareness

The entropy of markets

Combine knowledge in newer ways