Different Styles of Management

Section 1: Literature review

Introduction
Below sections are based on the topic “implications of management” and focuses on different styles of management and different styles of leaderships suggested by two different authors. The purpose is to critically analyse and evaluate these two different styles and compare the two author’s views in order to discover where the similarities and/or differences appear. Furthermore this will focus on the main topic “implications of management” in order to identify the implications an organisation might face based on the theories presented.

Rowe and Mason’s view
How to run an organisation in the most effective and efficient way is a highly debated subject worldwide and therefore something that is relevant to any organisation. A lot of research has been carried out in this area and the theories continue unabated but this does not mean that there is an ultimate truth to be discovered. Generally we need to try to make some sense from these different perspectives (Torrington, Hall, Taylor and Atkinson, 2011). As many businesses today face intensive competition from especially global competitors every manager has to look for constant improvement, maximise resource utilisation and high focus on customer service in order to keep up with competitors. A relevant question in regards to this is how different managers carry out their jobs in order to achieve the best results for the organisation? Trying to give an answer to that question, Rowe and Mason (1987) identified four different decision styles: Directive, Analytical, Conceptual and Behavioural. These different styles are introduced in order to understand why managers, facing identical situations, acts differently (Rowe and Mason, 1987 cited in Naylor, 2004). Rowe and Mason (1987) argue that managers using a directive management style are very practical orientated and also authoritarian in their way of managing their employees. They tend to focus on the power aspect between managers and employees meaning there should be a clear distinguishing between who the manager is and who the employee is, which is why this style of management is seen as impersonal. The analytical style of management defines managers who are intellectual and therefore have the ability to reflect over things and stay rational and objective. They are as directive managers classed as impersonal but more control-oriented than power-centred. Conceptual management style is different as these managers are classed as more personal-orientated. Furthermore this style classifies managers who are flexible and adaptive to new and different situations. The last style of management is behavioural which characterise friendly and more sociable managers. They are also classified as being more supportive to their employees in the work environment (Rowe and Mason, 1987 cited in Naylor, 2004). One main concern with this theory is if it actually considers all possible styles of management. This debate regarding different styles of management and different leadership styles has been discussed by many authors such as Lewin (1939), Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973), Burns (1978), Goleman (2000) etc. throughout many years which indicate all the different views. It has been argued by other authors that there are other styles of management and therefore that this theory does not consider all aspects (Naylor, 2004). It is difficult to specify exactly have many different styles there are which is why the theory has to be questioned. As managers are people and because people are individuals everyone has their own opinion and own way of doing things. It is therefore difficult to defend the fact that all possible styles of management are included within those above mentioned four styles. Another possibility could be that a manager might be a mixture of two different styles, which is something that is not mentioned or considered. Another main concern about this theory is that it does not consider the different situations managers face. The author’s do mention that different managers act differently even though they face the same situation but they do not define what these situations could be. The theory does not suggest in what situations each style is most effective but simple clarify that managers fit into one of these styles whereby they base their decision depending on what style they use. It leaves out mentioning what sort of style is appropriate in what kind of situation and why that is. To extend this theory and to make it more useful in practice a possibility could be to suggest what kind of managers (e.g. directive managers) fit most effectively into what kind of situation or environment. Furthermore it does not discuss if a manager can possess more than one of these styles. It does not mention anything about if it is possible to move from one style to another over time e.g. through development. Some organisations might need a manager who possesses a behavioural management style but their current manager has a very directive way of managing the organisation. If this is the case and if a manager cannot change the style of management to suit the organisation implications will occur as the way the current manager carries out the work is not the most suited for the organisation, which will show in the overall performance. That means a new manager with a more behavioural management style has to be employed in order to increase performance.

Goleman’s view
Another view with a different outcome was taken by Goleman (2000) some years later when he contributed to this debate. He identified six different leadership styles (Bloisi, Cook, Hunsaker, 2007). These six styles were identified as: Coercive style, Authoritative style, Affilliative style, Democratic style, Pacesetting style and Coaching style (Goleman, 2000 cited in Bloisi et al., 2007), which each are springing from different components of Goleman’s (2000) work on emotional intelligence. The Coercive leadership style characterise leaders who demand immediate compliance, which is effective when an organisation faces some internal employee problems or a particular crises. On the other hand when the leader requires some changes within the organisation a more authoritative style is used, which will mobilise the employees towards a desired vision. This is especially effective when the leader has some objectives to achieve. An Affilliative leadership style focuses on creating emotions and harmony between people, which is effective when an organisation experiences internal conflicts whereas democratic leaders use participation to build consensus. This is shown to be effective when a leader needs input and acceptance from the employees. The Pacesetting leaders believe in high standards and expect excellent and self-direction from the employee whereas the coaching leaders want to help the employees improve their performance and thereby develop their long-term strengths for the future (Goleman, 2000 cited in Bloisi et al., 2007). It was argued by Goleman (2000) that if a leader possesses all six leadership styles the organisation would improve its financial performance and have a positive effect on the “company atmosphere”. The main aspect to notice about this theory is that Goleman (2000) argues that in order to achieve the best results within the organisation the leader cannot rely on just one of these leadership styles. The research found that the leaders must be able to use most of the styles all depending on what the situation is. Therefore the most effective leaders are able to change among these different styles in order to suit the current situation (Goleman, 2000 cited in Bloisi et al. 2007). According to Goleman (2000) very few of today leaders actually hold all six styles and furthermore even fewer knows how and when to apply these different styles. One of the possible ways to solve this issue is to build a team of supporting leaders who possesses the styles that the original leader lacks (Goleman, 2000 cited in Bloisi et al., 2007). This might seem both hard and cost requiring in practice as this requires a lot of work and a lot of resources to find out what styles the original leader actually lacks and then to find some people that possesses the exact styles that are missing. Another option suggested by Goleman (2000) himself is for the leader to develop the styles that are missing by understanding which emotional intelligence competencies underlie the leadership styles the individual leader is missing and then build up on theses competencies. This normally requires changing old habits in order to build up new once but this will increase the effectiveness of the leader and therefore also the performance (Goleman, 2000 cited in Bloisi et al., 2007). As mentioned in Rowe and Mason’s (1987) theory there is also in this theory a lack of situation specification. As Goleman (2000) mentions himself: ….. even fewer know how and when to use them (Goleman, 2000 cited in Bloisi et al., 2007 pp 666). The theory does not mention in what situations each individual style is most effective. It does mention that a leader must possess all styles to be highly effective and to achieve the best results but it does not suggest in what situations each individual style is most effective. This can again cause implications for the organisation and for the management as it is unclear in what situation the leader should apply what theory. This is as in Rowe and Masons (1987) theory a complex process but it is something that would be beneficial to a leader in order to avoid implications within the organisation and to get the most effective outcome out of each situation.

Similarities and/or differences
When comparing the two different authors views both similarities and differences occur. First a clear distinguishing between managers and leaders has to be made as Rowe and Mason (1987) are referring to styles of management and Goleman (2000) is referring to leadership styles. Whereas managers are rational, consulting, problem solvers, interpret control signals and spot development in the environment leaders are more risk-taking, creative, creates changes, flexible and innovative. Managers have been argued as individuals who “do things right” whereas leaders are “doing the right things” (Bloisi et al., 2007). This distinguishing between managers and leaders can therefore be one of the reasons why the two theories differ from each other even though it has to be mentioned that other authors actually have classed Rowe and Mason’s (1987) different styles as leadership styles and not styles of management (Mockler, 2002). Even though Rowe and Mason (1987) suggest only four different styles and Goleman (2000) suggests six different styles they still highlight some similar aspects in their views. Rowe and Mason’s (1987) directive management style include similar aspects to Goleman’s (2000) authoritative leadership style as they both focus on leading and directing people in a certain direction or towards a certain vision. Both use the power aspect to direct the employees in the desired direction. The analytic style (Rowe and Mason 1987) has not got many similarities with any of Goleman’s (2000) styles as the analytic style is characterised by intellectual managers which Goleman (2000) does not mention in any of his styles. On the other hand the conceptual management style has got some similarities to Goleman’s (2000) democratic leadership style as they both have a personal focus. Furthermore they are both flexible and open for changes but differ on the fact that democratic leadership style uses participation to build consensus which is not mentioned by Rowe and Mason (1987). The last mentioned management style is behavioural which actually includes similar aspects to affiliative, coaching and democratic leadership styles. The behavioural style is characterised by friendly and sociable managers and at the same time with focus on being supportive to the employees in the work environment. The affiliative leadership focuses in comparison on creating bonds and harmony with the employees which to a certain degree can be associated with the aspect of friendly and sociable managers as bonds and harmony created between the leader and the employee can be achieved by being a friendly and sociable leader who the employees can connect with. Furthermore the democratic leadership style has aspects of both being friendly, sociable and supportive as it focuses on leading the organisation in a democratic way with support from employees in the decision making process in a sociable and friendly environment. Also coaching can be compared to the behavioural management style as coaching focussing on helping the employees improving their performance for future perspectives, which can be associated with behavioural managers being supportive in their way of managing the employees. Both styles focus on the employees by helping and directing them in order to achieve the best possible result for the organisation. The aspects included in the pace-setting leadership style and the aspects in the coercive leadership style are not clearly represented in Rowe and Mason’s (1987) theory which is where the significant differences are. This can again be an indication that Rowe and Mason’s (1987) theory includes fewer styles than Goleman (2000) and therefore that Goleman (2000) covers more aspects within his styles. Both styles have some similar aspects missing as they both fail to discuss any situational aspects. As already discussed the author’s do not identify in what situation each style is most effective which highly likely will cause implications for the management as they will not know in what situation to apply what style. Therefore, knowing about the different styles has got its advantages but if the management does not know in what situations and in what environment to apply the different styles it is doubtful how effective the theories actually are.

References

Bloisi, W. Cook, C. Hunsaker, P. (2007) Management and organisational behaviour 2nd European Edition, London: McGraw-Hill Education.

Mockler, R. J. (2002) Multinational strategic management, International Business Press, Binghamton: The Haworth Press

Naylor, J. (2004) Management, 2nd Edition, Harlow: Pearson education

Torrington, D. Hall, L. Taylor, S. and Atkinson, C. (2011) Human Resource Management 8th Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education. Essex

References: Bloisi, W. Cook, C. Hunsaker, P. (2007) Management and organisational behaviour 2nd European Edition, London: McGraw-Hill Education. Mockler, R. J. (2002) Multinational strategic management, International Business Press, Binghamton: The Haworth Press Naylor, J. (2004) Management, 2nd Edition, Harlow: Pearson education Torrington, D. Hall, L. Taylor, S. and Atkinson, C. (2011) Human Resource Management 8th Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education. Essex