Although 'management' and 'style' aren't two words we normally put in the same sentence, having a good understanding of management styles and how they influence the workplace is a great advantage - no matter what career path you choose.
To understand management styles, we first need to understand the function of management itself.
Management refers to a group of people who plan, organize, lead and control a range of activities in a business or organization.
Without management, there would be no personnel, systems or infrastructure in place to make sure things run smoothly.
'Management' is a term that is traditionally used to describe the process of planning, organizing, leading and controlling staff to achieve outcomes.
And we see there's a lot of...
..many different styles of management and management style.
What we can explore is how workplace culture affects that.
Management is about decision-making.
A management style is the particular way managers make their decisions and the degree to which they share this decision-making with their staff.
There are various ways of doing this, ranging from the truly autocratic...
..to staff having much more control over a business.
Many external and internal factors influence the particular management style a business uses.
Macro factors are broad factors outside the business that have an indirect influence, such as: Operating factors are also outside the business, but have a more direct impact, like: Internal factors, as the name suggests, exist inside the business and include things like: A management structure is the way a business arranges or organizes its staff and resources.
There is a direct link between management structures and management styles.
For example: A decentralized structure often suits a more consultative or participative management style where some decision-making and responsibility is delegated to employees.
Decision-making is shared and communication is two-way.
Workplace, or corporate culture, is another internal factor that has a large impact on management styles.
'Workplace culture' is defined as the values, ideas, expectations and beliefs shared by management and staff.
Corporate culture is something that can be very subtle.
It underlies the way an organization goes about doing business.
If you have a culture that focuses only on outcomes, you run the risk that managers and staff may adopt a whatever-it-takes type of mentality to achieve those results.
But a culture that is based more upon balancing results with relationships, with social responsibility, with ethics, it's more likely then that you're going to have not just good results, but sustainable results and a place where people want to work.
The autocratic management style is a hierarchical, authoritarian approach in which managers make all the decisions and then dictate these to staff.
On the surface, this style may seem unappealing to employees.
Staff are regularly performance-checked, and are expected to be compliant.
Communication is one-way, top down, with limited staff participation.
Management essentially tells staff what decisions have been made.
Advantages of an autocratic style of management include: An example of where an autocratic style of management has been effectively used in the past was Bill Gates with Microsoft.
All the stories about Bill Gates in the early years of the development and the growth of Microsoft, in the early '80s through to the late '80s, was that he was someone who kept tight reign, tight control over all the details of his operation.
And, of course, Bill Gates was an expert, truly, in the truest sense of the word, a high level of expertise and technical skills and it was probably appropriate therefore for him, in those early days, to take charge of the operational details and oversee so closely and rigorously the growth of his business.
I would suggest to you, however, that in more recent years, Bill Gates has stepped back and is certainly using less of an autocratic approach than what he did in the early years of the growth of his business.
Disadvantages of an autocratic style include: Alternatively, staff can become too reliant on their manager, and an us-and-them mentality can occur.
A persuasive management style is a variation of the autocratic that tries to address some of its disadvantages.
The persuasive style involves management making all the decisions, and then convincing staff that what has been decided is in their best interests.
Management essentially sell their decisions to staff.
A persuasive style of management is more where, again, the manager is making all the decisions, but is communicating it and explaining the basis of those decisions to staff.
So it's still the manager retaining tight control, but at least opening up the communication channel and giving a little more explanation and reasoning behind the decision-making process.
Persuasive is much like authoritarian, but the manager makes the choice to explain their reasons for decisions.
The persuasive style enjoys many of the advantages of the centralized management style, such as: But because staff input is not directly sought, the persuasive style can still lead to: The consultative style involves two-way communication, with managers consulting with staff during the decision-making process.
This style recognizes the importance of good relationships between staff and management.
Management essentially asks staff for input before making their decisions, however the final decision will always rest with the manager.
The consultative approach gives management access to the many ideas their staff may have about the business, such as new processes or procedures taking place.
Businesses like Richard Branson's Virgin companies have enjoyed the benefits of the consultative approach for decades, however it can be: ..and, if their opinions are not incorporated into the final decision, they can feel less valued.
Look, most businesses today have consulted processes in place.
And it's simply a reflection that nowadays in the workplace, most staff, at some level, expect to have a say.
And certainly gen Y, if they don't feel that they're having the opportunity to put forward their ideas and contribute some of their thinking, they'll move on.
In the participative management style, management and staff work together and share in the decision-making process.
They essentially join together to make group decisions with a high level of staff involvement.
The participative approach can be: There can be a subtle difference between participative management style and consultative management style.
With the consultative style of management, the manager goes out and seeks input into the decision-making process, but still retains the right to make the decision after having gained the benefit of the experience, the thoughts and the ideas of their people, but will still ultimately make the call.
Whereas with the participative style of management, the manager encourages staff to join with him or her as a genuine partner in the decision-making process.
And it's much more now a team-oriented decision-making and planning and problem-solving process in terms of the way the organization does business.
On the plus side: The laissez faire management style is a completely decentralized approach.
Employees assume almost total responsibility for the control of all workplace operations.
Management takes a hands-off approach, and staff are essentially left alone to decide objectives, solve problems and make their own decisions.
The laissez faire style is most effective in businesses where the staff are highly skilled and don't need much supervision.
The style encourages: One of the world's richest men, Warren Buffett, is famous for this style of management.
For me, laissez faire is a bit of a misnomer.
Sometimes it's referred to more as a free rein style of management and that is where now, as a manager, I am fully empowering my staff with much greater levels of decision-making authority, giving them a lot more latitude, a lot more autonomy so that they can exercise their own judgement, but still within some constrained criteria or parameters.
On the downside: Employees can lose their sense of direction in their work due to the lack of monitoring and accountability.
A situational or contingency approach to management lets the manager use the style that is best suited to a particular situation.
Managers today often need to be more flexible than simply adopting one management style at all times.
Managers in large organizations often have a mix of different staff - some low-skilled, others highly skilled and motivated.
There may also be time and money constraints in different departments, which require different management styles to get results.
An authoritarian style could be adopted with new or unskilled employees in the organization.
In the right time, in the right place, autocratic style of leadership can be appropriate.
But if you are in a situation where there's not a crisis, and you have motivated people, skilled people, who have experience that they want to offer and they want to contribute to the planning and the decision-making process, they will be stifled, they will be demotivated, they will be discouraged by that autocratic style.
A participative style could be used with a group of highly experienced and motivated employees who are capable of running projects alone.
One of the biggest challenges that I see for managers in the workplace is to put aside their own personality and their own disposition, shall we call it, and instead step back and make a measured assessment of the needs of the situation and an assessment of where their staff are in terms of their level of skill and their level of motivation.
And recognizing when there is that opportunity to consult, then, as a manager, learn to take advantage and not to feel threatened by other people's experience and other people's thinking.
And the manager who has that humility to recognize that they don't know it all is a manager who will more likely make the right decision about the style of management that's warranted in a particular situation.