Member articles

Tale of Two Studios

1st February, 2007

by Lucy Elliot

This paper stems from a research tour (as part of an AGDA/ISS Fellowship) of two unique graphic design studios in London. These studios are Pentagram and Wolff Olins Design. It is based on a two hour meeting with each studio and can therefore only fairly represent the London office of each.

Pentagram is possibly the most well known design studio in the world with offices in London, New York, San Francisco and Austin, Texas. It was established in 1972 by five partners, hence the name (Forbes, 1993). The skills of the studio are broad with each partner having a particular specialty such as architecture, interior, exhibition or graphic design. Based on an annual fee income of $3.8M pounds Design Week (1999) ranked Pentagram twenty-six in their survey of UK design consultancies.

Wolff Olins enjoys similar notoriety amongst the industry, but within the more specialised field of corporate identity. It began in 1966 with two partners, Michael Wolff and Wally Olins (Corporate profile, 1997). Recent work includes the new identity for British Telecom and signage for Portugal's rail system. This year they were ranked fifth in Design Week's (1999) survey, with an annual fee income of $11.7M pounds.

In this article, key terms will be defined followed by discussion of each studio's organisational structure and culture. These elements will be compared and contrasted between studios. The conclusion will present an overview of the key issues discussed.

To begin analysing organisational structure and culture, it is important to define key terms:

Organisational structure is defined by Robey and Sales (1994, p81) as"a system of roles". It describes the way the organisation is made up in terms of the different positions and their relationship to each other. Bartol, Martin, Tein and Matthews (1995) support this by describing it as a pattern of interactions designed by management to ensure groups or individuals achieve organisational goals.

Some of the more interesting definitions of organisational culture have described it as 'covert dynamics' (Smircich 1983, p337), 'blueprints of prescribed behaviors' (Schneider and Rentsch 1988, p181) and as determined by Schein (1985) organisational culture consists of the 'values that lie beneath the organization's routines' (Schneider and Rentsch 1988, p181).
 
Organisational Structure

Pentagram has grown up with its partners as gods. They sit above the studio providing all creative and strategic direction. It is something that has become ingrained since the company was formed. In the London studio there are fifty-six staff, seven of whom are partners. With this structure each of the partners deal directly with the client on a daily basis, there are no project managers. The type of design project determines which partner it will be assigned to.

For example, an interior design project for a retail space would be assigned to the interior, or perhaps architecture partner. From here, they pull together a team of designers (senior and junior) to form the project team. In this organisation there are no project managers or production specialists, all administration and production is handled by the design team. To emphasise this design focused work, only four projects in the past nine years have used a coordinator to assist in running the project. As it was put quite bluntly during the meeting by the studio administrator (Allen, 19.03.99) Pentagram does not hire 'big guys with slick mouths to do the talking'. They viewed this job function as an unnecessary cost that would only be passed on to the client.

Looking to Mintzberg's five structural designs the structure of Pentagram most closely resembles an adhocracy (Robbins and Barnwell, 1994). An adhocracy is best conceptualised as a team. It is characterised as having little hierarchy, low formalisation (rules and regulations) and decentralisation (decisions are made close to the action). While it is true that Pentagram operates using teams, banded together on a project by project basis, there are differences from the textbook definition. For a start, there is definitely a strong hierarchy that exists. 'Management' per sé are the partners who handle the running of the business. Under them fall senior designers and then designers and support staff such as the archivist and public relations. In a sense, the organisation looks like partners up the top with everyone else mingling underneath.

Wolff Olins in London is set in a four storey building, with each floor housing a different discipline. There are distinct groupings of staff by job function. Designers occupy one level, project mangers on another and consultants on yet another. The top floor is dedicated to one client, General Motors, who through the volume of work commanded necessitate their own work area. This is the only conglomerate of staff within the studio where different disciplines work side by side. In general, team members work in their own area, meeting regularly to keep on track.

However, the studio has not always been structured by function. According to discussion with Stevens (19.03.99) they used to mix up the disciplines, grouping by project team, but have reverted to the job distinctions. It is realised that this is not ideal as informal team communication is decreased, but then, the other way was not ideal either. With team members working on a number of projects, such grouping became meaningless as the location of teams members was spread thinly. For example, it was difficult for one designer working on three projects to sit within proximity to three different project mangers.

With this set up of functional departments brought together to form interdisciplinary project teams the organisational structure of Wolff Olins may be viewed as a matrix (Robbins and Barnwell, 1994). In this case project teams are pulled together laterally from across a range of disciplines such as design, consulting and project management. This structure facilitates teams which produce cross-pollinated solutions to problem-solving projects.

A matrix also produces a dual chain of command (Robey and Sales, 1994) as the employee reports to their functional manager and project manger. This arrangement gives project managers 'authority over project employees relative to the project's goals' (Robbins and Barnwell 1994, p285) while the functional manager handles issues of employee promotion, salary and reviews. These broad employment issues are handled by the executive creative director, client service director and the like.

In this case, the matrix is temporary as it is constructed on a project by project basis. One of the key conditions of a matrix is the strong interdependence of departments (ibid.). This is true of Wolff Olins where strategy consultants rely on the designers to visually interpret their given direction. Likewise, project managers would have no project without the work created by the designers. Each are completely dependent on the others for their existence. One variation from the model found at Wolff Olins is that the size of the company does not afford staff to work solely on one project. Staff generally work on three or four projects at one time. The result of this is that loyalties and priorities may be pulled in more than one direction. For example, a strategic consultant working on three projects may have responsibilities associated with three different project managers.

In comparing the two studios, we see in some areas they run in a similar manner. Both achieve their work through setting up project teams which are disbanded at the completion of the project. This structure represents an adhoc arrangement, common to design studios in general.

However, the even-keeled nature of an adhocracy is unbalanced in Pentagram. There is a definite hierarchy which is led by the partners. This is not to say that Wolff Olins is completely flat in their structure. They certainly have their functional managers, chairman and managing director. It's just that Pentagram is more overt in creating a power distance between the partners and other employees.

The biggest difference between the studios is found in the job functions present. This in turn impacts the structure of the organisation through changing the composition of project teams. Pentagram focuses on design roles, led strategically and creatively by the partner. Whereas, Wolff Olins assigns a project manger to coordinate design, consultant and production roles in conjunction with client liaison.

The bottom line is that if you work at Pentagram and are not a designer, you are support staff. But, if you work at Wolff Olins there are other roles that make up the team.

Organisational Culture

There are a couple of theories about organisational culture that lend themselves neatly to the studios at hand. The first is Charles Handy and his "Gods of Management" (1991). This model proposes four styles of organisational culture, each presented as a metaphor using the characteristics of a different Greek god.

In applying this model to Pentagram, the organisation may best be represented by Zeus, the club culture, as depicted by a spider's web (ibid.). This culture radiates from the spider in the center of the web and is based on the relationship (proximity) with the spider. In this way each of the partners at Pentagram is at the centre of the web. They are the key ingredient to the organisation. Even the metaphor fits if one agrees that partners assume a god-like status.

Despite the hierarchy and web of connections, there are benefits of this style. The key advantage of the club culture is that it provides 'speed of decision' (ibid. p21). There are no committee review processes, rather, whatever Zeus decides is final. This is supported by the structure. Remember that all creative and strategic direction comes from a partner.

However, the negative aspect of this culture is that 'an incompetent, ageing or disinterested Zeus will quickly contaminate and slowly destroy his own web' (ibid.). This seems to sum up the current position of Pentagram, London. Partnerships offered in the past few years have failed (think of Peter Saville and Howard Brown). Aldersey-Williams (1997) proposes that the 'corrosive atmosphere' (ibid. p26) has something to do with the personalities.

The big question hanging over Pentagram is whether the partnership is equipped to take on the future. There cannot be much faith left, one former designer suggests that 'it should die peacefully. It has made its mark' (ibid.) This clearly shows a culture in disarray, where it is no longer appropriate to the organisation. As expressed by Handy (1991, p43) 'the wrong god in the wrong place means pain and inefficiency'.

This does not mean that the Zeus philosophy of management and organisational culture (central power and influence) has always been inappropriate. In fact, history shows this culture is most frequently found in small entrepreneurial businesses (Handy, 1991) illustrating that it has its time and place.

So, the message is not that a Zeus culture should never exist, but rather 'no culture or mix of cultures, is bad or wrong in itself, only inappropriate to its circumstances' (ibid. p20). What was appropriate for Pentagram in its formative years is no longer suitable. The trouble is it has not moved from this position. As it does not provide an atmosphere to nurture talent (Aldersey-Williams, 1997) it is paying the price through a high rate of attrition.

The second theory worth briefly touching on is presented by Schein (1992). His work focuses on the impact of leaders on culture and is particularly apt to a discussion of Pentagram. Schein (ibid.) views culture as emanating from three sources. These are: '(1) the beliefs, values and assumptions of founders of organizations; (2) the learning experiences of group members as their organization evolves; and (3) new beliefs, values, and assumptions brought in by new members and leaders' (ibid., p211).

What we see in Pentagram is a culture dominated by the first source, the founder's beliefs, values and assumptions. How this comes about is through the entrepreneurial vision of those who set up the company. Often they have strong opinions and assumptions about how the world runs, or rather, how they would like it to run. Therefore, as a founder, they assume control and impose their view on others. This role of founder has been transferred to the succession of partners in the London office.

The problem at the moment is that while the Pentagram is struggling to find new partners to fit this culture (just take the title of Aldersey-Williams' 1999 article "New blood wanted" for example), the existing partners are clinging to old views. As identified by Schein (1992, p211) 'culture at times seems to resist change'. This is the position of Pentagram.

Looking back to the metaphor of culture as Greek gods presented by Handy (1991), Wolff Olins works within a task culture. The patron god is Athena and the style of culture is depicted by a net. The crucial element of a task culture is the intersection of the warp and weft of the net. This is where each team is formed and problems solved.

This style of culture works cohesively with a matrix structure. Even the diagrams are the same; a matrix and a net a drawn in the same way with cross-hatched lines. However, the matrix focuses on what is in each box whereas the net focuses on where the corners of each box meet. Either way they each depict the drawing together of different parties, which is the way Wolff Olins works. This is visible in the different disciplines present such as design and consulting.

The benefits of this style of culture is that value is placed on expertise and talent (ibid.). This spreads power and influence throughout the organisation. It also encourages innovation because whoever comes up with the best concept/design/strategy wins. The task culture is very focused on the successful solution of problems (ibid.). Wolff Olins has weathered its maturity and is currently in a rejuvenation phase. The company is due this year to open an office in New York which spells growth and attracts the talent. Talent will follow the action.

However, the negative of this talent-driven culture is that it is 'staffed by experts who can demand their market price' (ibid. p29). Creativity is charged at a premium. Combine this with other factors such as the necessity for experimentation and meeting times for everyone to throw around ideas and what you have is culture that is expensive to run. This is fine at the present while the organisation is expanding. Though it is something to remember before you are in the position where the only option is to drastically reduce your human resources.

Referring back to Shein (1992) and the impact of leaders on organisational culture, it seems that the culture at Wolff Olins has emerged from a combination of sources. The founders may have set the tone at inception, but it appears their values promoted more of a group culture than one directed by them. It has developed as a culture derived from 'the learning experiences of group members' (ibid., p211) as the organisation has evolved.

Since the management buy-out of the founders in 1997, the company has experienced a regeneration. Projections of fee income growth for next year stand at 20% (Design Week, 1999). This invigoration has produced a shift in the organisation's culture. The latest source of culture comes from the new. New leaders, new clients and new employees. This shows an invigorated team progressing confidently without the founders.
 
Conclusion

The most significant difference between the studios is the location of power and influence. Wolff Olins' culture is constructed like a net which is representative of people collaborating at each crossroad. The power is held at these intersections by groups of people focused on a task. In contrast, Pentagram hold their power at the center just like the spider in middle of the spider web in a Zeus culture. This depicts the central role played by each partner and the emphasis placed on personalities. These metaphors of net and spider web clearly illustrate the contrasting locations of power and influence between the two organisations.

Wolff Olins has evolved their culture to value the new while Pentagram has maintained the values, beliefs and assumptions of its founders. What worked for them in the seventies is no longer appropriate to their circumstances. This appears to have stagnated a business that could have enjoyed the same revival as its peer. Pentagram is an example of culture resisting change while Wolff Olins has progressed and developed.

In conclusion, what have we learned about these two London studios?

Firstly, the structure at Pentagram operates as an adhocracy. Pure design teams are set up on a project by project basis led by partners who control all creative and strategic direction. This varies from a textbook case adhocracy as a hierarchy is present.

In contrast, Wolff Olins closely resembles a matrix. Cross-functional teams are built to project needs incorporating disciplines such as design, consulting and project management. The presence of disciplines other than design at Wolff Olins is a significant difference between the studios.

Secondly, when we look at culture within Pentagram we see it centered around the partners. They hold the power and influence. This stems from the founders' beliefs which have framed the organisation's culture from the beginning. Partners at the top are withering in their verve and not nurturing new talent. This is a business struggling to regenerate itself and faces the need to change.

Wolff Olins on the other hand seems to have successfully managed the transition from a founder owned business to one owned by a management team. The culture is based around the task which respects the contributions and talent of individuals. For the time being, the predicted growth will support this but it is an expensive culture to maintain.

Finally, while there is no 'one-to-one relationship of any aspect of organizational culture with organizational performance' (Hofstede, 1998) there is 'little doubt it affects performance' (ibid.). It may in turn be the one factor to differentiate the success or failure of organisations in the future (ibid.). It is not really a question of one culture (or for that matter, structure) being better than another, but rather the alignment of the organisation's culture with its business strategies (Davis, 1997). If the right organisation has the right culture at the right time, it strengthens the odds for survival. As cited by Handy (1991, p20) 'No culture, or mix of cultures, is bad or wrong in itself, only inappropriate to its circumstances'.

The views expressed this article are not necessarily those of AGDA. Please note that the information in this article is the view of the author only. The author can therefore accept no responsibility for actions taken on the basis of this information. Copyright Lucy Elliott, May 1999. Permission is granted to freely copy this document in electronic form, or to print, for personal use. Reprinting for non-personal use will require the express permission of the author.

References
Aldersey-Williams, H. 1997, 'New Blood Wanted', Creative Review, August, pp.26.

Bartol, M., Martin, D., Tein, M. and Matthews, G. 1995, Management: A pacific rim focus, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Sydney.

Davis, M. 1997, 'A better culture can mean better business', The Australian Financial Review, 26 November, p56.

Design Week 1999, 'DW top 100 design groups', Design Week, 26 March, pp.62-64.

Forbes, C. 1993 'About Pentagram', The Compendium, ed. D. Gibbs, Phaidon Press Limited, London.

Handy, C. 1991, Gods of Management The Changing Work of Organisations, 3rd edition, Random House, Sydney.

Hofstede, G. 1998, 'Attitudes, values and organizational culture: disentangling the concepts', Organization Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 477-492.

Robey, D. and Sales, C. 1994, Designing Organizations, Irwin, Illinois.

Robbins, S. and Barnwell, N. 1994, Organisation Theory in Australia, Prentice Hall, Sydney.

Schein, E.H. 1992, Organisational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edition, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Schneider, B. and Rentsch, J. 1988, 'Managing climates and cultures: a futures perspective', in Futures of Organisations: Innovating to adapt strategy and human resources to rapid technological change, ed. J. Hage, Lexington Books, Toronto.

Smircich, L. 1983, 'Concepts of culture and organizational analysis', Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 28, pp339-358.

Wolff Olins corporate profile, 'Creating Leaders' 1997

Lecture notes, AD495 Organisation structure and design

View comments

There are no comments for this article