st but not least, we have Dionysus, the god of wine and song. The culture associated with this god is the existential culture. This culture states that we “are in charge of our own destinies.” (Handy 25) In the other cultures, “the individual is there to help the organization achieve its purpose” (Handy 25). But in existential culture “the organization exists to help the individual achieve his purpose.” (Handy 25) Doctors, architects, lawyers, professors, and artists are examples of people who thrive and operate in this type of culture, and in essence are the managers. In this culture, all individuals in the organization can be seen as a manager: a manager of themselves, left to manage their self and their operations. The Dionysus recognizes no one ‘boss’. After identifying these four gods, their managerial styles, and their corresponding cultures and organization types, we can now go back to Handy’s theory, that there is no one managerial style that is the perfect fit. One must be able to identify their managerial tendencies and place themselves in that organization type or at least in the department that incorporates that style behaviour. The first six managerial styles mentioned are founded in an academic and/or scientific method. The foundation of these styles are not fixed but have developed through changes in time, technology, values, and culture. Handy’s view, the Gods of Management, is a more ideological view, where the managerial styles are concrete in existence and are unaffected by time and technology. This allows for flexibility and movement within the four Gods styles described by Handy. The new-found view of leadership, the engine of management, is that “[t]he whole point of leadership is having power with people – not lording it over them. Everyone has leadership capabilities, and a true leader is one who encourages others to discover and utilize thei...
