It has always been a myth that there is one best way to manage - but it has been a pervasive myth and a damaging one, to both individuals and organisations. Alongside the most successful leaders in history, we can find a new story in the timeless wisdom of the Ancient Greeks. They recognised a variety of gods and, Charles Handy shows, this productive diversity should be reflected in management too.
In this classic of business thinking, Handy draws on decades of experience and the Greek gods to illuminate the different styles of management found in businesses and organisations. Whether the dynamic entrepreneurial spirit of Zeus, or the task-oriented focus of Athena, each god demonstrates the different values and culture that a leader can create. Successful leaders will learn how to cultivate these qualities, work to their teams' strengths and use the importance of culture to foster a productive and happy workplace.
Charles Brian Handy was an Irish author and philosopher who specialised in organizational behavior and management. Among the ideas he advanced are the "portfolio career" and the "shamrock organization" (in which professional core workers, freelance workers and part-time/temporary routine workers each form one leaf of the "shamrock"). Handy was rated among the Thinkers 50, a private list of the most influential living management thinkers. In 2001, he was second on this list, behind Peter Drucker, and in 2005, he was tenth. When the Harvard Business Review had a special issue to mark the publication's 50th anniversary Handy, Peter Drucker, and Henry Mintzberg were asked to write special articles. In July 2006, Handy was conferred with an honorary Doctor of Law by Trinity College Dublin.
This book not only analyses individual managers but also organisations. How each type of manager and how each type of organisation functions and their predictable responses to situations are clearly explained. The author has done a detailed study of management styles and the reasons for such styles are conveyed precisely. A wonderful read not only for managers and heads of organisations but also for the everyday reader.
One of the great management classics is Gods of Management. Charles Handy has identified four management styles that can be found in organizations. He explains the various values of each style and how it can influence the culture of an organization using the allegory of Greek gods.
According to Handy, this book's goal is to "demystify organizations, make their ways and assumptions more apparent to ordinary mortals, and lead more people to think about the way in which they work and the ways in which they might have to work." In order to portray the various work cultures found in contemporary businesses, he uses four mythological figures from ancient Greece. He aims to develop a "theory of cultural propriety," which he defines as a theory of "putting the right culture in the right location for the right purpose" by outlining the many patterns reflected by each of the representative gods. He does not advocate applying his theory in a rigorous manner. Instead, he advises the manager to draw inspiration from the theory and, when practical, apply it. However, he recognizes that each manager must make their own way in the world and employ the techniques that are most appropriate at any given time.
The first god, Zeus, stands for "club cultures," or those societies that frequently have strong patriarchal traditions together with an internal communication style that prioritizes making decisions quickly and empathically. Small entrepreneurial businesses that are run by a charismatic individual with the help of a team of apprentices or personal assistants frequently serve as examples of this work culture.
Apollo, the second god, stands for "role cultures," which are most easily characterized by order and norms. Both business and public sector bureaucracies are typically Apollo cultures. In these societies, it is taken for granted that people are rational creatures, that predictability, stability, and efficiency are required variables, and that change is to be avoided at all costs. It is believed that people are interchangeable human resources.
The third god, Athena, stands for "task culture," which is built on shared undertakings that connect individual expertise. Expert teams collaborate to accomplish tasks and use their collective knowledge to support one another's efforts. In this culture, self-improvement is valued, and being able to describe an issue might provide one an advantage.
The last culture, represented by Dionysus, offers a framework in which the organization exists to aid the person in fulfilling their goals. The culture of Dionysus is well represented by associations of physicians and lawyers. Dionysians are fiercely independent and without a formal leader. They are renowned for appreciating their time freedom.
More importantly, Charles Handy offers a very helpful framework for comprehending management styles and the corporate cultures associated with them. He has written a very entertaining book. Charles Handy demonstrates how in this fascinating book that is a joy to read.
Mostly dated, at times prescient First, the idea of visualising organisations metaphorically is great - he sums up Cameron and Quinn’s competing values frameworks, or Morgan’s organisational metaphors pithily. Most of the text is very dated, with references to old boys clubs and is gender, racial and class blind. The Dionysian organisation of professionals is not quite the self employed gig economy of Uber and Deliveroo we now see, although references to universal basic income are present, and evoke discussions of automation. But one suspects the Charles Handy of 1978 would not dream that the economic problems of 2022 are still largely driven by labour shortages. Engagingly written
Overall this book is as relevant as it was in the 1980’s as it is today. Discussions about technology replacing human tasks and it’s shadow are in this book - and 40 years later we still talk about. It has good theory, good practical points - as much as I would expect from an Academic.
From an Archetypal perspective however I find its use of the Gods to be egotistical. Simply it is not the Gods we serve us, but we who serve within archetypal patterns of consciousness we call the Gods. As W.H.Auden said “we are loved by powers we pretend to understand.”