Management guru Charles Handy highlights that there are four main types of organizational culture.
The power culture is associated with small entrepreneurial organizations. With influence emanating from a key central source the power culture can be conceived as a web. The strands of the web provide a conduit for the influence from the central power source. Argentina, winners of World Cup 1986, represent an example of a power culture. The central figure in this team was Maradona, one of the greatest and most influential footballers ever. As a central motivating force, his talent and presence cascaded as a positive influence through the rest of the side and this ensured victory on this occasion. It didn’t prove quite so successful in 1990 however when a weaker Argentina side, still inspired by Maradona, lost to Germany in the final. This shows that, whilst a spider can weave a web, it can’t carry one!
The role culture is often found in bureaucratic organizations. These organizations are predicated upon specialized functions, such as finance and HR, which operate within clear procedural parameters. Role requirements take primacy over the skills of any individual incumbents. A range of individuals could fulfil a specific role, as long as the function remains appropriately resourced. Greece from Euro 2004 demonstrate a side that successfully embraced a role culture. Senior manager, Otto Rehhagel presided over a well-organized functional unit which managed to overcome more celebrated teams with flimsier organization. There were no major personalities in the Greek team, but they triumphed due to the players fulfilling their role requirements effectively in the pursuit of organizational goals.
The task culture is project or activity-oriented. With influence dispersed across various loci of expertise, a net can pictorially represent this organizational culture. Under this culture, professional expertise is more crucial than personal or positional power. This is a highly flexible culture in which teams can be quickly convened to meet a specific objective, and then disbanded. The Netherlands team which made the World Cup final in 1974 are the most appropriate footballing exemplars of the task culture. The Dutch played a brand of ‘total football’ which required a high level of player adaptability: this style of football depended on players switching positions with their colleagues in the endeavour to outmanoeuvre their opponents. There is less depth of specialization, but a task-orientated culture can creatively respond to the ad hoc challenges which arise throughout a game of football.
In a person culture the individual is the key unit. The organization is a nominal entity and ancillary to the individuals which comprise it: there are no overarching objectives beyond the aspirations of these individuals. A successful version of this culture was realised by Brazil at World Cup 1970. Brazil played a free-flowing game built on the attacking abilities of individuals such as Jairzinho, Tostao and Pele. The heat of Mexico prevented other teams from compressing the space which the Brazilians required for the expression of their skills. However, at Spain 1982 this culture did not serve Brazil so well. A team with talents such Zico, Eder and Socrates required a draw against Italy to progress to the semi-finals. Without a more robust culture to temper individualistic attacking proclivities, they lost 3-2.
What type of organizational culture will triumph at World Cup 2010?
Maradona’s effect on not just Argentina but Napoli was quite remarkable. I don’t think we will ever see one individual single handedly improve a team’s fortunes as much as Diego did.
To me this is the only real example of Power Culture being conducive to on field success in football, at least at the highest level.
That said – honourable mentions go to Dugarry at Birmingham and Pedro Mendes at Pompey for dragging their repective clubs out of the relegation zone in half a season!
I think England are wise to persist with a blame culture.