Various Management
Styles can be employed dependent on the culture of
the business, the nature of the task, the nature
of the workforce and the personality and skills of
the leaders.
This
idea was further developed by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren
H. Schmidt (1973) who argued that the style of leadership
is dependent upon the prevailing circumstance; therefore
leaders should exercise a range of leadership styles
and should deploy them as appropriate.
An Autocratic or
authoritarian manager makes all the decisions, keeping
the information and decision making among the senior
management. Objectives and tasks are set and the workforce
is expected to do exactly as required. The communication
involved with this method is mainly downward, from the
leader to the subordinate, critics such as Elton
Mayo have argued that this method can lead to a decrease
in motivation from the employee's point of view. The
main advantage of this style is that the direction of
the business will remain constant, and the decisions
will all be similar, this in turn can project an image
of a confident, well managed business. On the other hand,
subordinates may become highly dependent upon the leaders
and supervision may be needed.
A
more Paternalistic form
is also essentially dictatorial, however the decisions
tend to be in the best interests of the employees rather
than the business. A good example of this would be David
Brent running the business in the fictional television
show The
Office. The leader explains most decisions to
the employees and ensures that their social and leisure
needs are always met. This can help balance out the lack
of worker motivation caused by an autocratic management
style. Feedback is again generally downward, however
feedback to the management will occur in order for the
employees to be kept happy. This style can be highly
advantageous, and can engender loyalty from the employees,
leading to a lower labour turnover, thanks to the emphasis
on social needs. It shares similar disadvantages to an
authoritarian style; employees becoming highly dependent
on the leader, and if the wrong decisions are made, then
employees may become dissatisfied with the leader.
In
a Democratic style,
the manager allows the employees to take part in decision-making:
therefore everything is agreed by the majority. The communication
is extensive in both directions (from subordinates 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. However, the decision-making process
is severely slowed down, and the need of a consensus
may avoid taking the 'best' decision for the business.
It can go against a better choice of action.
In
a Laissez-faire leadership
style, the leader's role is peripheral and staff manage
their own areas of the business; the leader therefore
evades the duties of management and uncoordinated delegation
occurs. The communication in this style is horizontal,
meaning that it is equal in both directions, however
very little communication occurs in comparison with other
styles. The style brings out the best in highly professional
and creative groups of employees, however in many cases
it is not deliberate and is simply a result of poor management.
This leads to a lack of staff focus and sense of direction,
which in turn leads to much dissatisfaction, and a poor company
image.
