Charles Handy-Four Culture Theory

Four Culture Theory

Power:

Power cultures are described to be more like a web. The creator of that web is in charge, or the boss and without out them the web wouldn't be there. Businesses that reflects the concentration of power of a family-owned business, which can either be extremely large or small. The family operation with strict responsibilities going to family members responsibility given to personalities rather than expertise creates the power structure of the web.

Role:

This has been typified as a Greek temple and has often been stereotyped as portraying bureaucracy in its purest form. The apex of the temple is where the decision making takes place, the pillars of the temple 

reflect the functional units of the organisation which 

have to implement the decisions from the apex. The strength of the culture lies in specialisation within its pillars. Interaction takes place between the functional specialism by job descriptions, procedures, rules and systems. This is very much an organisation culture run by a paper system. An authority is not based on personal initiative but is dictated by job descriptions.

Task:

This is characteristic of organisations which are involved in extensive research and development activities they are much more dynamic. They are constantly subject to change and have to create temporary task teams to meet their future needs. Information and expertise are the skills that are of value here. The culture is represented best by a net or lattice work. There is close liaison between departments, functions and specialities, liaison, communication and integration are the means whereby the organisation can anticipate and adapt to change quickly. Influence in this team culture is based upon expertise and up-to-date information where the culture is most in tune with results. The dangers for this culture exist when there is a restriction in resources causing it to become more power’ or ‘role’ orientated.

Person:

This is characteristic of the consensus model of management, where the individuals within the structure determine collectively the path which the organisation pursues. If there is a formalised structure, it tends to service the needs of the individuals within the structure. Organisations which portray this culture reject formal hierarchies for ‘getting things done’ and exist solely to meet the needs of their members. The rejection of formal ‘management control’ and ‘reporting relationships’ suggests that this may be a suitable culture for a self-help group or a commune, etc., but it is not appropriate for business organisations.

The Mission Statement

Types of Business Organizations

Reading Business 10/17/11- There's No Camera, but Plenty of Rubies (Nokia’s Bright Spot: Luxury Handset Maker Vertu)

" For his 27th birthday, Mohammed Al-Haj, a marketing executive in Abu Dhabi, hinted to his girlfriend that he wanted a new cell phone. He wasn’t after the latest Apple (APPL) or Android (GOOG) device. He wanted a Nokia. Or rather, he wanted a Vertu, from the Finnish company’s luxury division. “It’s an accessory, part of my outfit,” Al-Haj says of his Vertu, with its keypad bordered by pavé-set diamonds. “People look at it all the time and say, ‘Wow, that’s a nice phone.’ It feels good.” "

Reading business 10/10/11-For Chinese students, smoking isn't all bad!

The government provides tobacco. The schools are sponsored by local units of China’s state-owned cigarette monopoly, China National Tobacco. The schools slogan are 'Genius comes from hard work—tobacco helps you become talented.' This is related to what we have been talking about in class. This is an example of public limited company. Governments are supposed to provide survives that benefit people. China has more than 320 million smokers, a third of the world’s total, and 53 percent of men there smoke. About 1 million Chinese die from tobacco-related illnesses every year. The tobacco industry grew at an average annual rate of 19 percent from 2006 to 2010, according to State Tobacco. In the year of 2010 earnings of China's state tobacco monopoly went up 17%.

Failed Buisnesses

 Converse and Kmart are two business that have been merged into other companines. Converse was bought by Nike. Kmart was bought by Sears.

 Converse filed bankruptcy on January 22nd 2001. Converse lost much of its apparent near-monopoly from the 1970s onward, with the surge of new competitors, including Puma and Adidas, then Nike, then later Reebok, who introduced new designs to the market. In April 2001, footwear acquisitions, led by Mardsen Cason and Bill Simon bought them company. The new owers made converse go from the 16th largest foot wear to 7th largest in 2.5 years. This later led to Nike to buy the company. Nike bought the company on July 9, 2003 for 305 millon dollars. After Nike bought Converse the expanded the company from the US to overseas.

 On November 17, 2004 Kmart announced that they wanted to purchase Sears. Doing this they would change there name from Kmart Holdings Corporation to Sears Holdings Corporation. The typical white and blue interior of the stores was changed to orange and brown, and shelf heights were lowered to create better sightlines. 280 stores as of 2009 have been remodeled to this new prototype. Some auto centers left vacant by Penske aftern Kmart filed for bankruptcy have been converted to Sears Auto Centers. In November 2009, Kmart reported its first year-over-year sales increase of 0.5 percent since 2005, and only the second such increase since 2001.