The problem with power cultures
How the urge to power eats its own seed
Charles Handy famously put forward four types of organisational culture. These cultural types have marked effects on both the organisation and the people who staff it. I’m going to compare the two most common types:
Role culture
In a role culture, responsibilities are assigned or chosen based on best-fit speciality. In this kind of culture, people tend to feel fulfilled, as their roles match their expertise. Meanwhile, power comes with peer accountability, which can act to filter out those ill suited to wield it.
Because this culture recognises and respects expertise, power is devolved among a wider stakeholder group. Decision-making may be slower as a result, but the decisions will tend to be better. Another significant benefit is a higher degree of psychological safety, cooperation and collaboration among stakeholders. If colleagues respect each other and the incentive to one-up each other is removed, then they tend to get on better, stay longer and make decisions in the organisation’s best interest.
However, you have to be good to get ahead in a role culture, which may not suit the mediocre-but-ambitious. These employees may envy the expertise of others and seek to undermine them, leading to …
Power culture
The opposite of the role culture is the power culture. In this kind of organisation, power is concentrated in a few individuals who are bound in a small trust circle based on their interpersonal relationships. Employees outside that circle are not trusted with decision-making, regardless of their expertise or fitness for the task. There is little opportunity for subordinates to question leadership decisions in an open forum and they must execute strategy as directed. Those who do speak up to question decision-making may be sidelined or ostracised. Decision-making is quicker in power cultures, as those in power don’t need to check their thinking with any experts across the business. As a result of not checking their thinking with any experts, these decisions will tend to be poorer.
Since the power circle may favour one employee over another, based on relationships rather than talent, this is sometimes referred to as “club culture”. If you’re in the club, you will enjoy privilege and status. If you’re not in the club, expertise will not get you there. Morale, as a result, tends to be lower in power cultures, at least, for those who are not “in the club”.
Culture wars
In my experience, true role cultures are rare in a business environment. However, where they do exist, they must be tended carefully. It only takes one machiavellian with dull wits and sharp elbows to upset the carefully maintained equilibrium and turn the organisation into a club culture. When this happens, you will see a frantic scrambling, as people left outside the tent rush to curry favour with those who have risen to power, trampling on formerly respected colleagues, choosing scapegoats and generally regressing into playground tropes. There will be whispers, huddles, in-groups and out-groups.
Those who have taken power will now make decisions without the help of experts, so those left outside the club will be frozen out of decision-making. This will lead to questionable decisions with poor outcomes. After this happens you will likely see a great exodus, as those with valuable expertise take it elsewhere.
Finally, with talent either expunged or frightened into silence, the machiavellian is free to run the business as she sees fit. She will proceed to make a succession of terrible decisions, unaware that she now presides over an empire that has lost most of its original value. She will also be short of willing experts to execute the work, so outputs will be of poorer quality and less valuable to buyers. She may struggle to win work or fulfil contracts. Competitors will take market share and talent. Shortly after this spiral, it’s not uncommon to see organisations change hands a few times, as backers lose their nerve.
