Page 329 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh17v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:37 PM Page 312

Chapter 17 ■ Culture models and organization change
are high but more typically in large organizations as compared with the previous
culture type.
Then they identify the ‘bet your company’ culture in which big decisions are
taken but it may be years before the results are known. Power utilities may be one
sector in which such a culture might emerge. Oil exploration may be another
alongside aviation, space and all forms of mining. Finally the ‘process’ culture is
one in which people get little or no feedback. Often this is because services deliv-
ered to clients are complex with many departments and individuals involved.
Social services organizations are typical examples but retail stores may be another.
The strength of this model is that it deals with corporate culture in a rela-
tively pragmatic way. The key problem is that if you are seeking to define cul-
ture types then the types should be independent each of the other. Here the first
three overlap substantially thus weakening the analytical power of the model.
In practice it will be difficult to define particular organizations using these cul-
ture types. However, the focus on feedback is very useful, not least because it
relates to discretion.

Handy

Handy (1984) builds on the work of Roger Harrison in developing a model of
organizational culture in which he describes four culture types. First, the ‘power
culture’ in which power influence and decision taking is concentrated on a few
key people and positions. The organization is controlled from the top through
networks and teams rather like a web. Decision and action are quick and decisive
and there are few formal systems, procedures and rules. Next is the ‘role culture’.
Here people as role incumbents or role holders have clearly defined authority
within previously defined parameters. Power derives from position and/or
expertise, so long as the expertise is recognized and legitimated organizationally.
Third, a ‘person culture’ comprises an organizational setting designed around
individual performance. A ballet or opera company would be one example, law
firms, consulting firms and the like are others. Handy suggests person cultures
exist where each individual ranks their own performance as superior to the

organization. Finally, a ‘task culture’ exists where teams are created to work on
and resolve particular problems. Power derives from expertise so long as that
expertise is needed. Organizations with matrix structures and multiple reporting
lines will often be characterized with this culture.
Here at least the culture types are defined independently of each other and
linked to a questionnaire Handy reproduces. However, there is a real problem in
practice. The day before writing this section I met with senior executives of a
global technology services group. It is organized into ‘sector groups’ to win and
manage business, ‘capability groups’ to facilitate solutions development and cen-
tral functions (including information services, marketing, finance, human
resources, to provide shared services) and a further ‘business transformation
group’ to provide thought leadership. It brings together teams to serve clients.
The key point is that it seeks to maintain a ‘task culture’ for clients alongside a
‘role culture’ elsewhere. Is organization reality too complex for these models to
be the basis of useful solutions?

312