The Elephant and the Flea by Charles Handy - Book Report/Review Example

The Elephant and the Flea by Charles Handy As life itself is not predicable, neither is a person’s business life. Gone are the days of stable employment at one company until retirement as are the days of fitting a certain personality profile to a fixed management position. New technologies are spawning diversified employment opportunities that do not fit within the concepts of yesteryear. One hundred, even fifty years ago, workers could be easily catagorised; industrial, agricultural, medical, services, etc. Jobs are becoming more specialised every day while management styles, in large part, still cling to the same old standards. An example of this is seen in the manager who demands his employees be in the office from nine to five, Monday through Friday, when, in many instances, the task could be more efficiently accomplished outside of the four walls. “Maybe we shall have to break our habit of herding all our people into the same building at the same time to do their work. It will, one day, be quite simply too expensive” (Handy, 1998a, pp. 149-50). People with specialised technical skills must also have specialised leadership skills to be successful at a management position. Businesses are moving from task to people oriented concerns as a priority. Employees’ loyalty can no longer be bought with a pay check. An organization must look at its hires as commodities, not solely as tools of the trade. “We have traditionally fit the people to the work; now we may have to fit the work to the people, as they become our key assets” (Handy, 1998a, p. 147). No longer does every man work at the town’s mill. People have choices as to employment and more so than ever are demanding the freedom to express themselves through their work. Corporate leaders now must adapt to this standard or perish in the business world. The corporate policy manual may have to, at long last, be flexible enough to fit present-day situations. Charles Handy, a self described social philosopher, prescribes that to properly lead individuals of an organization, the best fit approach is the answer. This theory maintains that there is no such thing as the right, or one, correct style of leadership. “Leaders will be most effective when requirements of the leader, the subordinates and the task fit together” (Handy, 1993a, p. 107). Handy challenges the ‘this is the way we’ve always done it’ attitudes of business professionals. A progressive stance not necessarily embraced by all business leaders, yet society is progressing with or without them. Business as usual in a high-tech world is not only antiquated reasoning, it’s fatalistic. Many of our fathers worked for the same company most of their adult lives. Today, individuality is prised over corporation and the individual is more likely to search for a position more suited to his or her capabilities, interest and education. The organisational leadership is not as centralised, or as well defined as it was only a generation ago. Organisations have branches scattered throughout the country and in many cases, the world. Leaders now must adapt with these changing times or fail. They must lead colleagues, not manage workers. “When Kofi Annan spoke at the 50th anniversary of the founding of the UN, he said ‘if the previous century had taught us one thing it was that central planning did not work. No-one thought his statement controversial, yet many of our organizations are still, in essence, centrally planned economies.’ You have to wonder why” (Handy, 2002, p. 37). Handy, in his many writings, lectures and interviews, predicts the changing leadership roles of the future and claims the future is now. This discussion highlights the many facets of Handy’s ‘best fit approach’ as it relates to employment adaptations and organisational structures both at the societal and cultural levels. In his 1995 Gods of Management, Handy breaks society into four philosophical classes, or “cultures”: Club, Role, Task and Existential. The setting in which the organisation operates is the determinate on the proper blends of these cultures. A different balance of personalities is needed in differing countries and differing occupations (Handy, 1995a, p. 102). A ‘club’ personality likes to run the operation themselves. They are happy to spend the day giving orders dealing with questions, settling disputes and allocating assignments all by personal intervention. “His idea of work is to have the phone running and employees asking for direction at the same time. He then feels indispensable, powerful and valuable” (Handy, 1995a, p. 33). The ‘role’ culture focuses in on procedures required to get the job accomplished, not on personalities. He assumes that every man is rational and that everything can and should be analysed in a logical fashion (Handy, 1995a, p. 17). The ‘task’ culture recognizes only expertise as the base of power or influence. Not age, length of service or closeness of kin to the owner. To contribute to the group, you need talent, creativity and a fresh approach (Handy, 1995a, p. 21). Existential personalities are unique in that they believe the organisation exists to assist the individual to achieve their individual purposes while the other three cultures believe that the individual is subordinate to the organization. The style of the relationship may vary but the individual is there to assist the organization achieve its goals (Handy, 1995a, p. 25). According to Handy, the four cultures fit into an organization in four categories, Steady-State, Development, Asterisk and Management. Steady-state jobs are predictable and can be handled by set procedures. They may account for 80 percent of the quantity of actual work to be done (Handy, 1995a, p. 31). This type of classification of job would describe a low-tech organisation where workers experienced long-time employment. The location may be in a depressed area with a minimally educated at-large work force. The reliable, passive ‘Role’ culture which focuses in on procedures required to get the job accomplished fits this steady-state scenario perfectly (Handy, 1995a, pp. 79-80). Development type jobs attempt to deal with new situations faced by the organisation. The group responsible for adapting new techniques and procedures may even have the word ‘development’ in their title such as in the positions of “Product” or “Systems” development. The ‘Task’ personality with their inherent problem solving abilities is suited to a development job like this. Situations solved by personal intervention when all the rules have failed and in which instinct and speed are necessary fits the ‘Asterisk’ category. ‘Existential’ and ‘Club’ personalities share these traits, naturally migrating to these types of jobs and often leading to conflict. However, ‘Club’ is most comfortable in the management position. Management happens when these personalities are meshed together in a cohesive unit to accomplish a common goal. Differences are necessary for an organisation’s well-being, but a blend of cultures lumped together in haphazard manner with no regard to differences leads to inefficiency. The manager must endeavor to embody all four personalities, or cultures. “Most people can’t do it, of course. Most people revert, particularly when stressed, to their favorite culture” (Handy, 1995a, p. 32). As a result, Handy says, organisations often end up placing the wrong personalities in the wrong places. If an organization does not have the best fit for the job, the mix of personality to task is wrong or badly imbalanced, or is not changed when change is necessary, the result is ineffectiveness. This is a death sentence for any organization. “Effective organizations have usually formed their own balanced mix by means of experiment and continual adaptation” (Handy, 1995a, p. 70). These businesses have achieved cultural propriety and maximized performance. However, even when achieved, proper balances of personality type to job requirements are only temporary. Organisations must quickly respond to their particular environment on a continual basis. “Given the correct mix, the organization still needs to be held together; the cultures need to be linked. … Cultural harmony in the organization is supported by deliberately distinguishing it from the other parts. Enmity without encourages harmony within” (Handy, 1995a, p. 85). Handy describes the three elements of linkage as cultural tolerance, bridges and common language. Cultural tolerance involves knowing their specific traits. The ‘club’ culture relies on trust, empathy and personal inspection. The ‘role’ culture ensures rules and procedures are enforced thereby linking defined jobs. ‘Task’ cultures use past data to correct future forecasts. ‘Existential’ cultures delegate and coordinate functions. Effective linkage of these parts allows them to develop appropriate interactions and facilitates the tolerance of the other personalities (Handy, 1995a, p. 86). The ‘bridges’ element refers to communication between the cultures, which is usually relegated by management. Without understanding between the cultures, these individuals go their separate ways with lower efficiency the end result. The more diverse the cultures involved, the more bridges are needed to hold the organisation together. Communication between cultures can take the form of anything from as quiet as memos and other forms of correspondence to as loud as confrontational meetings held between warring factions in the hallways. “The third aspect of linkage is common language. ‘An organization that talks together, walks together,’ but the vocabulary of organizations differs from our everyday conversation” (Handy, 1995a, p. 93). Language affects the behavior of the group. It can be used to direct priorities or to build bridges between cultures. If quality is more important than quantity, the language used should reflect that. For example, it is ineffectual to preach about lack of productivity without using appropriate production statistics. The question is, how far to go past ones cultural instincts to maintain harmony and efficiency. The instinct of a ‘club’ personality to rely on informational conversations to inject new ideas may not translate well to a ‘role’ personality which will “expect these changes to be reflected in the in the statistics of the reporting system” (Handy, 1995a, p. 95). ‘Task’ personalities won’t take the directives seriously until they are in revised group assignments. “If linkage is not achieved, the gaps will be filled by slack- inefficiencies.” A small degree of slack is not a major management concern as a completely trimmed organisation finds it hard to adapt to irregularities in planned events. However, managers must find the tie that binds all of these personalities, a rallying cry that is interpreted correctly by all concerned. “Leaders of institutions have to believe and declare that there is a future for their institution, some hope of glory, whatever that might be. Second, they have to make clear to the individuals that they are special to that dream of glory” (Handy, 1995a, p. 96). It is the manager’s job to ensure that employees believe they are there because they can make a contribution and, by extension, can believe that there is a reason for their existence. “The interesting thing about organizations is that they can make the assumption that they're never going to die. And the reason that you stay immortal is you have discovered what's unique about you. The job of the leader is to work that out, to express it. Very few leaders succeed in doing this” (Handy, 1997, p. 17). Handy suggests that managers need to consider four influencing factors that will determine the overall effectiveness of their management. These are: their operating style as a manager, the preferred style of their staff, the nature of the task and the management environment. The organisation itself, and specific situations within it, will suggest the most appropriate management style The employee society of the past century was a period of stability and knowing where one’s place was. Most workers had secure household incomes, with the career being a centralizing bond that kept society itself intact. In the 1980’s, Handy predicted that by the year 2000, less than half of the working population in the UK would be employed in conventional full-time jobs (Handy, 2001, pp. 3-4). Today more than 35 percent of Americans in the labor force are either unemployed or are classified as temporary, part-time, or contractual workers. In Europe that figure is already approaching 50 percent (Rapoport, 1994). “As it turned out, by the year 2000, the British labour force…in full time employment had fallen to 40 percent. In 1996, 67 percent of British’s business’s had one employee, the owner. Only 11 percent all of business’s had more than five employees” (Handy, 2001, p. 5). Indeed; times they are changing and at warp speed forcing organisations to abandon the corporate ranking system of management. New information technologies allow decisions to be better informed and delivered instantly to an entire network of employees. The ever-emerging knowledgeable, educated employee wants more than a pay cheque for his trouble. Job seekers want a rationale for being at work, a chance to make a difference somehow. They increasingly insist on being part of the decision making processes that not only affect themselves but others as well. “Organisations that do not recognise the need to share power and responsibility with all their workers will lose them” (Handy, 2002, p. 37). Technology and its inherent affect on the complex societal machine breeds knowledge. Collective knowledge has opened the minds and spirits of workers to freedoms of expression not formerly found or offered in the workplace. Inventions are created by the day. Email talks to us, cars guide us to the destination, phones are cameras, etc. It’s a creative world and creative thinking is the very engine that drives today’s economy. Carla Rapoport (1994) quotes Handy as saying “What is happening now is equivalent to what happened when the printing press was invented in the 1400s … The authority of the church crumbled because we could all read the Bible in our own homes and make up our own minds about God. Priests were suddenly just people.” Tokyo is as close to London as Liverpool as far as it concerns business deals in the age of the satellite. Whenever whoever, wherever, comes up with a good idea, everyone else knows practically instantaneously. The changing landscape and roles of the employer/employee relationship is still well behind employee career expectations, but those perceptions are evolving as businesses in Frankfurt learn which tactics are working for a successful competing Sydney firm. “Why have we persevered for so long with a system that treats people either as idiots or as untrustworthy slaves, instead of as the responsible, rational and sensible individuals that we all are if we are allowed to be and if we believe in what we are doing? Why have we created systems that separate employees from responsibility, decision-making, intuition and ownership?” (Handy, 2002, p. 37). Looking back 75 years ago and earlier, people knew of their village, its surrounding area and pretty much nothing else. Children saw their fathers work in the fields, mines or office until retirement age. It is an age-old system that is dying a slow death because upper management, the decision makers, have no justification to alter what is already working for them. The power and authority of even a labour foreman is intoxicating to some. The higher up the chain, the drunker one tends to get on authority alcohol. Power is personally profitable as well. A sharing of powers and authority means a distribution of wealth not at all palatable by the powers that be. “Have we been blinded by what we are accustomed to and have accepted that hierarchy, rules and managers are an essential part of organisational life? Have we been working with a self-fulfilling prophecy to treat people as children and they'll behave as children?” (Handy, 2002, p. 37). Democracy is slowly replacing dictatorship attitudes in organisations’ leadership roles. It is certain that the wording of the unspoken contract between employee and employer has changed. “The smart jargon now talks of guaranteeing employability instead of guaranteeing employment.” Handy invokes the ideology of federalism as a basis for future employee/employer relations. Federalism on the global level implies that a rule of law should exist between countries and the conflicts should be resolved through peaceful means rather than through intimidation. “Federal organisations are reverse thrust organizations; the initiative; the drive and the energy comes mostly from the parts with the center an influencing force, relatively low in profile” (Handy, 1989, p. 119). The move to a more federalist type employment/employer system has the greatest impact on leadership expectations of the future. Understanding this concept is of utmost importance to understanding the changing roles of corporate management. “In a federal system, the power to deal with an issue is held by institutions at a level as low as possible, and only as high as necessary. The most important aspect of a federal system is that it recognises that there are different types of political issues which need different types of institutions to deal with them. The idea that government should be based solely on strong central institutions is old-fashioned and out-of-date” (Laming, 2001). Without principles of federalism entrenched within an organization, domination of the strong over the weak work only towards its instability. The success of capitalism has shown that centrally planned economies have been discredited. Still, many organizations operate this way. “Applying political principles to management issues makes a great deal of sense, given that organizations today are more and more seen as mini-societies rather than as impersonal systems” (Handy, 1993b, p. 159). The use of the term federalism as a model for organisations is appropriate. Change a few of the terms and these political issues can be found on the agendas of senior managers in most of the world's large companies. “It is therefore no accident that Percy Barnevik, the CEO of Asea Brown Boveri, has described his sprawling ‘multidomestic’ enterprise of 1,100 separate companies and 210,000 employees as a federation. Nor is it accidental that former CEO John Akers has called IBM's restructuring a move to federalism. Basel-based Ciba-Geigy recently moved from a management pyramid with a matrix designed around businesses, functions, and regions to an organization with 14 separate businesses controlling 94 percent of the company's spending, a federal organization” (Handy, 1993b, p. 159). Several other large companies, such as General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, and Coca-Cola in the United States; Grand Metropolitan and British Petroleum in Great Britain; Accor in France; and Honda in Japan, are listed by Handy as being organisations moving ever closer to federalism, even if they don’t always recognise it as such. “Older global companies, such as Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever, went federal decades ago, pulled that way by the demand for autonomy from their overseas subsidiaries. But they, too, are always flexing their structures and fine-tuning the balance of power because federalism is not a static system” (Handy, 1993b, p. 159). The continuing changing patterns of work are inevitable. The implications of corporation management not meeting these needs by redeveloping its thought process at the leadership level are dramatic. If organisations cannot compete nationally or globally, neither can the country in which they pay taxes. “Organizations have no choice but to reinvent themselves almost every year. To succeed, they will need individuals who delight in the unknown. The wise organization will devote considerable time to identifying and recruiting such people and to ensuring job satisfaction. Preferred organizations will be learning organizations. They will provide opportunities to exercise responsibility, to learn from experience, to take risks and to gain satisfaction from results achieved and lessons learned” (Handy, 1998b, p. 64). These will be organizations of consent, not control. They will make many mistakes, but will have learned from them before others realize the learning and correction has occurred. They will invest hugely in their people and trust them hugely and save the salaries of ranks of inspectors. Above all, they will see learning not as a confession of ignorance but as the only way to live (Handy, 1995b). Today's organisations are facing an uncertain world where change is not only happening fast but also in sporadic timeframes and forms. Every organization struggles daily in this environment. Thus, organisations need to continually learn to renew, reinvent and reinvigorate themselves. According to Handy (1995b), this vitally strategic concept is built upon an “assumption of competence supported by four qualities; curiosity, forgiveness, trust and togetherness.” Each individual is expected to perform to the limit of her competence, with the minimum supervision. “Curiosity is essential, but must be bounded by a license to experiment, as specified in the person's authority. Experiments may fail, thus forgiveness is also essential. Instead of failures, unsuccessful experiments must be viewed as part of the learning process as lessons learned” (Handy, 1995b). Trust is the glue that binds this concept together. The other qualities, competence, curiosity and forgiveness cannot advance an organization unless there is trust. “One way to gain trust in individuals is to have them working in teams - togetherness. Few of the problems businesses face nowadays can be handled by one person acting alone” (Handy, 1995b). According to Handy (1995b), “lonely learners are often slow and poor learners, whereas people who collaborate learn from each other and create synergy.” In order to both get things done and to encourage the kind of exploration that is the future of the organization, the tool of togetherness is essential to the organization and creates the conditions for trust. However, the meaning of trust is conditional at best. The technology that allows us freedom of mobility also watches our every move. Why should an employee sacrifice time, effort and ingenuity for a company that doesn’t trust him? “If we are to enjoy the efficiencies and other benefits of the virtual organization, we will have to rediscover how to run organizations based more on trust than on control” (Handy, 1995c). Trusting, unfortunately, is a deposit held over from the old management ways and requires a rethinking of leadership styles. “The rules of trust are both obvious and well established, but they do not sit easily with a managerial tradition that believes efficiency and control are closely linked and that you can't have one without a lot of the other” (Handy, 1995c). The current combination of economics and technology means that people will be spending increasingly longer time voyaging in virtual space. Colleagues will not be in the next office or just down the hall and available for an unscheduled meeting or a progress check. A face-to-face meeting is more personal and thus, more reassuring to a deadline conscious boss. And what boss isn’t deadline conscious? Therefore, trust without interpersonal contact is the biggest bridge to cross in developing the new generation of employer/employee relations. Successful leaders will learn how to run organisations without meetings and become acclimated to working with and managing those whom they cannot see. “Trust is the heart of the matter. That seems obvious and trite, yet most of our organizations tend to be arranged on the assumption that people cannot be trusted or relied on, even in tiny matters. Oversight systems are set up to prevent anyone from doing the wrong thing, whether by accident or design. That attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy” (Handy, 1995c). “Life is full of paradox. It's complicated, and there is no perfect formula. We have to continuously balance it. There is no right answer. I used to think there was. It's a pendulum. At present we're swinging toward trusting people, giving them autonomy and freedom. This will go too far, and we'll pull back, frustrating people and organizations. Chief executives have to sense where they are on this swinging pendulum's path and try to make it swing less erratically” (Handy, 1995a). Imposed authority does not work in this culture; it must be earned from those in which it is to be exercised and held together by shared beliefs and values, by people who are committed to each other and to common goals. This is an uncomfortable environment for those holding to established past patterns of leadership as it is hardly the same definition of control as in the past. According to Handy, it is easy for people in leadership positions to collect information without putting it to the test, or experimenting without pausing to reflect. “The process of learning is composed of four quadrants: questions, ideas, tests and reflection. Only when the entire process is complete can we truly say that we have learned something” (Handy, 1995b). He argues that great leaders combine self-confidence with reasonable doubt, a skepticism that starts the questioning that turns the wheel of ideas. It means giving away power to those closest to the action, ensuring each individual is held responsible for their own learning via “individual initiative and corporate support” (Handy, 1995b). The organisation must also build in time for personal reflection and create places and opportunities for meeting and interaction. “[One] who is seen to be open-minded, questions himself and others, searches for ideas, is obsessed with truth and betterment, is ready to take risks, listens to the criticism and advice and has a purpose beyond himself combined with an awareness that he cannot do it on his own. Give that leader self-confidence and a sense of humor, and most would be happy to follow her example” (Handy, 1995b). According to Handy, therefore, a leader's first priority is to be a missionary, to remind people what is special about them and their institutions. Second it is to set up the infrastructure, the support systems, and put the people in place. “The two go together; it's no good having a brilliant strategy and structure and great people unless there is some reason for it. And it doesn't get you very far to go around saying how wonderful things will be in the future without knowing how you might get there. This combination is rare” (Handy, 1997). A separation of powers in management and below ensures that one group does not have too much power. Those who make company policies must not be the same as those who enforce those policies; the executive branch is divided into the legislative and judicial branches (Handy, 1995a, p. 122). In order to build loyalty and therefore trust, the laborer should be given a voice within the organization. “One answer is to turn the laborers into members; that is, to turn the instrumental contract into a membership contract for the smaller core. Members have rights. They also have responsibilities. Their rights include a share in the governance of the community to which they belong. No one can buy a club against the wishes of its members” (Handy, 1995c). When laborers believe they are assets, not just easily replaceable numbers, the underlying understanding with the organization has to change. Trust requires some sense of mutuality, of reciprocal loyalty, especially in virtual organizations, which feed on information, ideas, and intelligence. “People who think of themselves as members have more of an interest in the future of the business and its growth than those who are only its hired help. Giving membership rights to key people is not the same as giving them ownership, but those membership rights inevitably diminish the powers of the owners. Such a shift in the governance of the corporation would bring Anglo-American businesses more into line with the businesses of continental Europe or Japan” (Handy, 1995c). This current shift in both the manager’s role and the worker’s role represents a dramatic shift for the future functions of the manager’s job. “Twenty years ago, a leader's job was to project a company's direction and ultimate destination, then organize it to get there. This will change. We are entering a world that is much more chaotic in the scientific sense. It's fuzzy. We can't clearly see where it's leading. Tomorrow's leader is not a clear-sighted prophet and commander, but a designer of a responsive organization that adapts reflexively to change” (Handy, 1995a). Instead of having a clear understanding of where the company wants to be positioned, the leader has to create an understanding of what the organization is positioned now, a much more difficult task. Executives are abandoning strategic plans because they never achieve the goals. Organisational leaders will spend more time designing organisations than directing them. The most prevalent, satisfying and secure jobs now and in the future will be for those creative people with good educations and training. “The trouble is that when you do creative work, you’re always working. If you’re working at home, the tendency is to pick up the fax as it comes through or look at your e-mail. It has become clear that the traditional agricultural world’s way of dividing life into work and time off is no longer appropriate. The five days or six days of work, with Sundays free, doesn’t work anymore. So we have to think differently” (Pegeen, 2001). Women also have the upper-hand, psychologically speaking, in the future job market. This new market is one that females understand more easily than most men because it’s not a of chain of command world. “Women understand that intuition and feelings, those things that can be sensed but not measured are very important. Most men think that what you see on paper numbers, for example, are the only things that matter. I think that the numbers are the results of the other things and that the key to success is getting the other things right first. Therefore, men will need to tap into their feminine sides and trust their intuition more” (Pegeen, 2001). In the last 20 years the number of working wives in Britain has grown faster than the number of men. “It’s not that women are displacing men in their jobs but that new businesses and new organizations want more part-time, short-term, semi-contractual workers who are semi-skilled but reliable. Women fit the bill more easily than men do, who still hanker after the permanent job with a long-term career structure” (Handy, 1995a, p. 213). The term ‘house husband’ may become more common as the new job structure may become insecure and poorly paid, but these jobs are flexible which fit the life-pattern of more women than men. In conclusion, Handy believes a learning organization constantly reinvents itself. “Look at Coca-Cola, for example. This extraordinary organization is still doing what it did 105 years ago. But its motto is, ‘The world belongs to the discontented.’ That doesn't mean the workers are always agitating; it means, ‘We are never satisfied” (Handy, 1995a). Every organization should assume it is at the peak of its either product or life cycle and it should create a new and different life cycle. To accomplish this, organizations must constantly explore different directions. “Most don't reinvent themselves particularly well until it's almost too late. I don't know any that do it continuously” (Handy, 1995a). Many large organizations will not endure in their present-day manner. Smaller organizations that link themselves in different ways for different purposes will replace them. A company's value increasingly is the brains of its employees. The people who supply the money cannot pretend to have any ownership over the minds of the people who work there. The stockholders must have some rights, but the employees should have more than they do presently. Technology is evolving and is transferring the power from the bosses to the workers, power they never had before. An organisation’s goal should include being proud of itself, satisfying the customer, behaving decently in the community, being an exciting place to work, and not polluting the environment. “An organization's ultimate purpose is to aim for immortality, to create a community that will last not only through your lifetime but that of your grandchildren, should they choose to work there - and you would hope they would. To do that, of course, you must finance your future. It must be a good place to work. And you must have products customers want to buy. But all these things are a means to an end: to be an everlasting community that adds wealth to society” (Handy, 1995a). The new organizations will be smaller by necessity and will find it more economically sound to pay fees to workers, not salaries. A smaller organization may not need someone and their associated skills seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. There will, of course, be the need for creative professionals but on a hit-and-run basis. This idea of a leader as a teacher will become increasingly important. Leaders of the present and future, to survive in business must realize these dynamics that are changing the way the world does business. Finding the correct blend or right fit of employees will be not only more important but it will be more of an ongoing treadmill for organizations. This idea of a leader as a teacher will become increasingly important. Leaders of the present and future, to survive in business must realize these dynamics that are changing the way the world does business. References Handy, Charles. (1989). The Age of Unreason. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Handy, Charles. (1993a). Understanding Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press, ed. 4. Handy, Charles. (1993b). “Balancing Corporate Power: A New Federalist Paper.” The McKinsey Quarterly. No. 3, p. 159. Handy, Charles. (1995a). Gods of Management: The Changing Work of Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Handy, Charles. (1995b). “Managing the Dream.” Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace. Eds. Chawla & Renesch. Portland, Ore: Productivity Press, pp. 44-55. Handy, Charles. (May/June 1995c). “How Do You Manage People Whom You Do Not See?” Visionary Marketing. Viewed 19 January 2006, . Handy, Charles. (Summer, 1997). "The Search for Meaning." Leader to Leader. vol. 5: pp. 14-20. Handy, Charles. (1998a). Beyond Certainty: The Changing Worlds of Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Handy, Charles. (1998b). The Hungry Spirit. New York: Broadway Books. Handy, Charles. (2001). Elephant and the Flea. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Handy, Charles. (February 2002). “It’s Curtains for Managers: If centrally planned economies have been discredited, why should we run our companies that way? Charles Handy hails a book with a wake-up message.” Management Today. p. 37. Hopkins, Pegeen. (2001). “The Elephant and the Flea: Interview.” C Magazine. Viewed 19 January 2006, < http://www.contextmag.com/setFrameRedirect.asp?src=/archives/200106/Feature0ElephantAndTheFlea.asp>. Laming, Richard. (June 2001). “An Introduction to Federalism.” Federal Union. Viewed 19 January 2006, . Rapoport, Carla. (31 October 1994). “Charles Handy Sees the Future.” Fortune Magazine. vol. 130, n. 9, pp. 155-56. Read More