Management styles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Management styles are characteristic ways of making decisions and relating to subordinates. Management styles can be categorized into two main contrasting styles, autocratic and permissive.[1] Management styles are also divided in the main categories of autocratic, paternalistic, and democratic.[2] This idea was further developed by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt (1958, 1973), who argued that the style of leadership is dependent upon the prevailing circumstance; therefore leaders should exercise a range of management styles and should deploy them as appropriate.

Autocratic[edit]

An autocratic management style is one where the manager makes decisions unilaterally, and without much regard for subordinates. As a result, decisions will reflect the opinions and personality of the manager, which in turn can project an image of a confident, well managed business. On the other hand, strong and competent subordinates may chafe because of limits on decision-making freedom, the organization will get limited initiatives from those "on the front lines", and turnover among the best subordinates will be higher.

There are two types of autocratic leaders:

  • a directive autocrat makes decisions unilaterally and closely supervises subordinates
  • a permissive autocrat makes decisions unilaterally, but gives subordinates latitude in carrying out their work

application: It is used in times of crisis where the time for discussion is unavailable and the managers are responsible to give orders only. These orders need to be obeyed immediately by the staff so that further problems are not caused. This style is also used in the military and police forces where instruction are given and need to be taken seriously without hesitation or questions.

Consultative[edit]

A more paternalistic form is also essentially dictatorial. However, decisions do take into account the best interests of the employees as well as the business. Communication is again generally downward, but feedback to the management is encouraged to maintain morale. This style can be highly advantageous when it engenders loyalty from the employees, leading to a lower labor turnover, thanks to the emphasis on social needs. On the other hand for an autocratic management style the lack of worker motivation can be typical if no loyal connection is established between the manager and the people who are managed. It shares disadvantages with an autocratic style, such as employees becoming dependent on the leader.

Persuasive[edit]

A persuasive management style involves the manager sharing some characteristics with that of an autocratic manager. The most important aspect of a persuasive manager is that they maintain control over the entire decision making process. The most prominent difference here is that the persuasive manager will spend more time working with their subordinates in order to try to convince them of the benefits of the decision that have been made. A persuasive manager is more aware of their employees, but it would be incorrect to say that the persuasive style of management is more inclusive of employees.[3]

Just as there are occasions where the use of an autocratic management style would be appropriate, there are also instances where a company will benefit from a persuasive management style. For example, if a task that needs to be completed but it is slightly complicated it may be necessary to rely upon input from an expert. In such a situation, the expert may take time to explain to others why events are happening in the order in which they will occur, but ultimately the way in which things are done will be that person's responsibility. In those circumstances, they are highly unlikely to delegate any part of the decision making process to those who are lower down in the hierarchy.

Disadvantages to a persuasive style of management[edit]

1. There may not be enough or even an entire lack of support from employees for management. Seeing as how the employees will have no input into the decision making process, they also may not trust the decisions that are made.

2. A system that has no input from employees minimises access to one of the most valuable resources that a business has; the ideas of the people who are working on the "front line". As a result, employees will show no initiative, which can reduce productivity.

3. One-way communication models are unlikely to be effective when compared to two-way communication.

Democratic[edit]

In a democratic style, the manager allows the employees to take part in decision-making: therefore everything is agreed upon by the majority. The communication is extensive in both directions (from employees to leaders and vice-versa). This style can be particularly useful when complex decisions need to be made that require a range of specialist skills: for example, when a new ICT system needs to be put in place, and the upper management of the business is computer-illiterate. From the overall business's point of view, job satisfaction and quality of work will improve, and participatory contributions from subordinates will be much higher. However, the decision-making process could be severely slowed down unless decision processes are streamlined. The need for consensus may avoid taking the 'best' decision for the business unless it is managed or limited. As with the autocratic leaders, democratic leaders are also two types i.e. permissive and directive.


Firstly, to manage change in a democratic would mean involving staff in key decisions/.This is because a democratic leader would consult the employees about any change to find and seek their input on decisions. This is important because the employees would feel more motivated and valued in the business. This in turn would reduce resistance to change and potentially lead to a better and quicker change process. Overall, staff motivation will increase and thus lead to less waste, greater efficiency and low staff turnover. All reducing cost and increasing profitability.

Chaotic[edit]

A very modern style of management, chaotic management gives the employees total control over the decision making process. Some modern companies have adopted this style of management. [Please cite valid & provable references.]

Laissez-faire[edit]

Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to make the decisions. Researchers have found that this is generally the leadership style that leads to the highest productivity among group members.[4]

Laissez-faire leadership is characterized by:

  • Very little guidance from leaders
  • Complete freedom for followers to make decisions
  • Leaders provide the tools and resources needed
  • Group members are expected to solve problems on their own

MBWA[edit]

Management by Walking Around (MBWA) is a classic technique used by managers who are proactive listeners. Managers using this style gather as much information as possible so that a challenging situation doesn't turn into a bigger problem. Listening carefully to employees' suggestions and concerns will help evade potential crises. MBWA benefits managers by providing unfiltered, real-time information about processes and policies that is often left out of formal communication channels. By walking around, management gets an idea of the level of morale in the organization and can offer help if there is trouble.

A potential concern of MBWA is that the manager will second-guess employees' decisions. The manager must maintain his or her role as coach and counselor, not director. By leaving decision-making responsibilities with the employees, managers can be assured of the fastest possible response time.

Disadvantages to a MBWA style of management[edit]

1. There may not be enough or even an entire lack of support from employees for management. Seeing as how the employees will have no input into the decision making process, they also may not trust the decisions that are made.

2. Another disadvantage can materialize when the interactions during rounds are perceived or executed as micro management style. People skills and emotional intelligence are required for this management style to be beneficial.

3. Another disadvantage or pitfall of MBWA is the manager taking ownership of too many issues that surface during the talks. The manager should only intervene when the resolution of the issue is more advantageous to the organization then the employee's development opportunity to handle the next situation on their own.

Asian paternalistic[edit]

Like consultative and easily confused with autocratic and dictatorial; however, decisions take into account the best interests of the employees as well as the business, often more so than interests of the individual manager. Communication is downward. Feedback and questioning authority are absent as respect to superiors and group harmony are central characteristics within the culture. This style demands loyalty from the employees, often more than to societies' rules in general. Staff turnover is discouraged and rare. Worker motivation is the status quo with East Asians often having the world's highest numbers of hours worked per week, due to a sense of family duty with the manager being the father, and staff being obedient children, all striving for harmony, and other related Confucian characteristics. Most aspects of work are done with a highly collectivist orientation. It shares disadvantages with an autocratic style, such as employees becoming dependent on the leader, and related issues with seniority based systems.

An Asian Paternalistic style means that the manager makes decisions from a solid understanding of what is desired and best by both consumers and staff. Managers must appear confident, with all answers, and promote growth with harmony, often even if hiding harmful or sad news is required.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Management Styles". Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved 24 May 2012. 
  2. ^ "Exploring Different Management Styles". Managerial Skills.org. Retrieved 24 May 2012. 
  3. ^ "Management Styles - Persuasive". MrWood.com.au. Retrieved 24 May 2012. 
  4. ^ http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/f/laissez-faire-leadership.htm

Further reading[edit]

  • Tannenbaum, R., Schmidt, W (1973). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, May/June 1973.