Main Categories

Other Resources

Pages

OnlineEarnings Article Board » Business » Management » Styles of Management
Welcome Guest

Styles of Management

Author: nouamaneer
Total views: 755
Word Count: 1956
View PDF

Add2Netvouz

STYLES OF MANAGEMENT
(Also: Styles of Leadership)

A MANAGER, the head responsible for the up-to the minute management keep up of a given company, firm, etc, has to be endowed with certain managerial values, characteristics and knowledge to fulfill the functions attributed to his status (e.g. Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, and Controlling). Alongside these requirements goes the style or management style. Man is style and a MANAGER is a management style. Management style is an overall method of leadership adopted by a given manager/ leader in managing his/ her establishment.

For years now, different taxonomies of management styles have been proposed. They tend to be different, but still are convergent, rather than divergent, as they all revolve around the same, more or less, classification which is basically based on the type of communication allowed by a manager with his staff/ employees.

The use of one given management style or another is dependent on many factors as, for example, “the culture of the business, the nature of the task, the nature of the workforce and the personality and skills of the leaders”¹.

Herein, I enclose a short paper on management styles. It is an all encompassing taxonomy of styles of management as I found it worthy of all and it is of four prongs namely: Autocratic, Paternalistic, Democratic, and the Laissez faire styles of management.

Still, and before addressing one’s topic of this paper, it is quite tantalizing and it is worthy of a good start to attempt to cover the nature of management; what is management? Without which one can not proceed to what is specific.

As a word and a concept, management has been defined by so many lexicographers and theorists in the field of management. Most popular and omnipresent of all in the literature of management is that of Mary Parker Follett in which ‘Management’ is:

“The Art of getting things done through people”

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, provides us with another definition more specific and to the point. It presents ‘Management’ as:

“The act of directing and controlling a large group of people for the purpose of coordinating and harmonizing the group towards accomplishing a goal beyond the scope of individual effort”

Further ahead in another reference, we read that ‘Management’ is:

“A process designed to achieve an organization’s objectives using its resources effectively and efficiently in a changing environment.”

Through these definitions one can draw certain conclusions that go hand in hand to show what management is all about. The definitions stressed the significance of two items: OBJECTIVES and FUNCTIONS. The main, run-after objective of management is “getting things done” as referred to in the first definition and “accomplishing a goal beyond the scope of individual effort”, “ to achieve an organization’s objectives” as termed in the second and third definitions aforementioned. In other words, management is task-based or objective-based to a whole extent through the exploitation of human resources, also financial, material, and intellectual resources. This goal oriented view of management can not be achieved without functions as, for example, those of directing, controlling, coordinating and organizing (“harmonizing”) and others.

Management, etymologically, stems from Latin manu agere which stands for “to lead by hand”. The question is the hands of whom? Of course, of a manager who deploys certain skills to achieve an organization’s objectives and manages his staff in a certain management style to that end.

Autocratic, Paternalistic, Democratic, and Laissez-faire styles of management are the ones subject of study herein.

The autocratic (also, authoritarian) management style bestows managers with a high level of authority in the process of decisions making. Authoritarian managers like to make all decisions relevant to the business and like to issue orders and closely supervise and control workers. While the workforce (also, employees or subordinates) is expected to keep up with these orders and decisions. In this respect, objectives and tasks which are issued in the form of orders are preset by the firm’s manager in a top-down way. This one- way type of communication, which is mainly dictatorial, is due to a lack of trust on the part of the manager in the abilities of his workers, especially if these latter are of low skills.

Such a style of management based on such a type of communication leads inevitably and inextricably to a decrease in employees’ levels of motivation affecting, in turn, the levels of productivity and profitability. It also engenders a kind of dependence on the manager that halts all kinds of creativity a thing that might lead to disasters in unforeseen problem situations which require instant solutions and decisions.

But, still what is worthy of note about this autocratic management style is its effectiveness in managing large numbers of low skilled workers and it helps also in the steady progress of a business’ direction without much fuss.

In a paternalistic (or social) management style, the manager diverts a bit his focus from an obsession about the company’s interests i.e. achieving profits even though at the expense of his employees’ to both caring about the business’ interests and employees’ needs. Here the manager acts as a father-like figure who ensures his employees being at ease and happy with/ in their work. That is achieved through a special attention paid to the workers’ social needs as, for example, salaries, wages, accommodation, health insurance, etc.

Although, it is a dictatorial style of management in the sense that the manager still monopolies the process of decisions making, the decisions made are still geared towards the employees’ social needs and their feedback and opinions are also taken into consideration in the aforementioned process. This relatively dictatorial style and despite its being downward in communicating with the subordinates (that is, decisions made by managers and realized by the workforce), it still takes heed of the workers’ social and leisure needs in such a way that an equilibrium is established between authority and socialization to shun over any kind of lack of motivation akin to that caused by an autocratic style of management.

As any other style, the paternalistic one carries its own advantages and limitations. The focus on the workers’ social needs and motivation oriented aspect of such a style is a plus that helps to instill loyalty amongst the workforce. It also turns down the levels of labor turnovers a thing that leads inextricably to higher productivity and profitability. Nevertheless, the authoritative dictatorial aspect underlying this style tends to downplay it as it yields a high dependence on the manager and his decisions. Such an effect culminates in an unbelievable lack of autonomous and creative thinking and reactions on the part of the employees that might lead to disasters at certain points. Happiness, on the other hand, can also turn to growing dissatisfaction if ever the manager/ leader is mistaken in his decisions.

A manager by a Democratic style shares the responsibility of decisions making with the workforce and the decisions in themselves are but the result of a give and take process of discussion. Major decisions in this style are mainly the culmination of a consensus of all, the manager and employees. What is so typical of this style is that it empowers the workforce with a certain kind of authority and freedom in making decisions; a thing that they were bereft of in previous styles of management.

Democracy is at the basis of the democratic style of management. Such a modern notion can not, by any means, stand by any other type of communication other than the two-ways one. In other words, leaders (no more mere managers) communicate with their colleagues (no more considered as mere recipients/ subordinates) and vice versa in a way geared towards equality and mutual respect rather than being vertically oriented. Trust, unlike the autocratic and paternalistic styles, is at the core of such communication and encouraging the employees to take decisions is a step closer to achieving thus trust and communication.

It is advantageous and limited. Why? Although, employees are satisfied and the quality of work is improved through good, useful suggestions and ideas, the democratic style of management tends to be a slower process in making decisions, a fact that might stand in the way of a business’ interests. More than that, not all decisions arrived at through a consensus are to the best of the business’. Sometimes, such decisions are mere results of some political games or manipulations of lobbies in a given company.

A Laissez-faire style of management tends, nine times out of ten, to be a desperate, last resort rather than a choice. Usually, managers opt for such a style to cover up their lack of expertise, good personality and managerial skills by standing in a peripheral position while the workforce is allowed to manage themselves for themselves and for the business’ interests. Such self-management is sectionalism in the sense that the workforce is divided into groups/ sections. Each section is made responsible for a task or an objective.

Communication with the laissez-faire is mainly horizontal and two ways in type. That is, the leader communicates and acts as a member amongst his employees and, on the other hand, the employees communicate and coordinate with the leader and themselves horizontally. No hierarchy is felt nor respected through such communication.

Despite the horizontal, two-ways type of communication allowed in this style, little communication really occurs, a fact that can lead to a loss of focus (which should be mainly objective-based) and the sense of direction. That can create, on the long run, dissatisfaction on the part of the leader and employees leading to a poor company image. But, still what is worthy of this style is the unbelievable flow of professionalism and creativity, if the spirit of the style is used and respected in the right way.

No one style of management is perfect or even better than the other. The best choice a manager can opt for is to be eclectic and to pick and choose from these styles the one fit to his own work environment.

Here, in the end, I conclude with a recapitulation of management styles encapsulated in the following table.
go to this link:
http://www.box.net/shared/n064gueyi0

References:

- Stephen, G. Franklin. Les Principes De Gestion. Chap. I : qu’est que la gestion et pourquoi l’étudier. Collection gestion.

- Research Engine. < http://www.google.com>

- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Nouamane ERRIFKI