Handy reporting the work of Harrison, suggests that organisations can be classified under four cultures:
This model is very like Weber's Charismatic organisation. It is like a web with a ruling spider. Those in the web are dependent on a central power source.
Rays of power and influence spread out from a central figure or group. There may be a specialist or functional structure but central control is exercised largely through appointing, loyal key individuals and interventionist behaviour from centre.whim and personal influence rather than on procedures or purely logical factors. This is not to say that the whim is autocratic or authoritarian - although it be is authoritative.
Effectiveness is judged on results and sometimes for the central figure, perhaps the ends sometimes justify their means.
However power cultures may suffer from staff disaffection. People in the middle layers may feel they have insufficient scope. The interventionist pressure and constant need to refer to centre may create dysfunctional competition and jostling for the support of the boss
The organisation is dependent on the ability and judgement of the central power - if weak then the organisation will struggle. As the power organisation grows, the centrist culture breaks down if it becomes impossible for the centre to keep up its interventionist, co-ordinating role. The large organisation may need to divisionalise (create other spiders webs linked to the central web).
Individuals succeed as long as they are power oriented, politically minded,, risk taking with a low need for security. The power of members is based on control over resources and personal influence with the centre.
it works by logic and rationality. Its pillars represent functions and specialisms.
Departmental functions are delineated and empowered with their role e.g. the finance
dept., the design dept etc. Work within and between departments (pillars) is controlled
by procedures, role descriptions and authority definitions. Communication structures
and well defined systems and products (committee constitutions and reports, procedure
manuals, official memoranda). There are mechanisms and rules for processing decisions
and resolving conflicts. Matters are taken up the line to the pediment of the
doric structure where heads of functions can define a logical, rational, & corporate
response".
Co-ordination is at the top - with the senior management group. Job position is central to this not necessarily the job holder as a person. People are appointed to role based on their ability to carry out the functions - satisfactory performance of role. This is very much in line with Weber's bureaucratic framework
Performance required is related to role and functional position. Performance over and above role is not expected and may disrupt.
Efficiency stems from rational allocation of work and conscientious performance of defined responsibility.
Role-cultures tend to develop in a relatively stable environments. Importance is given to predictability, standardisation and consistency .
However the role-culture may find it harder to adjust to change. Rules, procedures and tested ways of doing things may no longer fit the circumstances. Burns & Stalker pointed out the problems of mechanistic organisations struggling to cope with dynamic market change. Similarly Reddin's bureaucratic management style - tends to place less emphasis on task innovation and people relationships.
Work in a role-culture is frustrating to someone who wants discretion and opportunity for innovation in his/her work. Those who are ambitious may focus on procedures and existing methods and work the committee structure. Performance focuses on standard expectations rather than novel problem-solving to achieve results
Application of rules and procedures are major methods of influence.
As a culture, power and influence are distributed to the interstices of the net.
The emphasis is on results and getting things done. Resources are given to the right people at whatever level who are brought together and given decision making power to get on with the task. Individuals empowered with discretion and control over their work. The task and results and the main focus and team composition and working relationships are founded on capability rather than status.
Economies of scale are harder to realise - but computer communications and information systems facilitate sharing of information and co-ordination.
People in the team who want to specialise may be sucked into general probelsm-solving and when the task changes they must move with it rather than a particular scientific or professional specialism.
The project usually involves high risk and ambiguity. Control is via
Where resources become scarce and top management may intervene more closely. There may be competition between project leaders for available resources. Either way morale may suffer. Idividual priorities and objectives take over and the task culture may then become a power culture.
Task culture is based on expert power with some personal and positional power. Influence tends to be more widely dispersed with team members feelingthat he/she has more of it. In the team status and individual style differences are of less significance. The group achieves synergy to harness creativity, problem-solving and thus gain efficiency. The aspirations of the individual are integrated with the objectives of the organisation.
Only the originators are likely to achieve success - the organisation begins to take on its own identity and begins to impose on individuals so moving towards some of the other cultures.
NB. See Minzberg's work on co-ordination of organisations.
