Management styles

Management styles

Organizations are increasingly aware of the importance of human capital and its impact on the success or failure of the organization. Several organizations do realize that the organizational productivity and effectiveness are closely linked to the proper management style used by the managers of the organization. In fact, use of a proper management style avoids several unnecessary conflicts in the work-place.

Management as a process refers to a number of activities and functions, management as an art refers to implementation, and management as a science refers to a systematic and scientific knowledge. As per these perspectives, different meanings are attributed to the concept of management. However, in its most general definition, management can be seen as a process directed to manage individuals and groups for a specific purpose. In other words, management is to ensure that the organization resources reach the goals by planning. Management can also be defined as the process of working with people and resources for the realization of organizational goals, for the coordination of the work with others or through others, efficiently, and effectively.

In any type of organization, the manager is the person who ensures the accomplishment of the organizational goals by planning, organizing, leading, involving, and controlling the entire activity, as well as by goal-oriented work. Basically, managers are people who lead their organizations to the final achievement of the desired goals using the adequate means and decisions.

The position of manager involves several typical managerial activities within an organization and presents some special features which distinguish it from other jobs. Hence, managers activities are closely related to the current political and economic trend in the society. Also, getting a job as a manager is not very common, as while most of the jobs are a matter of personal choice at a certain moment, a manager’s career is built using a specialized mechanism of selection, recruitment, training, and promotion. Another characteristic is related to the duration of a manager’s career. Few cases can be mentioned of managerial positions covering the entire career of a person, situation which is quite common with other jobs.

The managerial activity is a rational one, needing task achievement, following a logical order and economic principles, and relying on a decisional and information system etc. All these elements are implemented by managers depending on their personal traits such as physical qualities, personality traits (temperament, aptitudes, attitudes, flexibility and behaviour), professional knowledge, and last but not the least, the personal motivation which leads to the choice of the position.

Given the above-mentioned elements, managers’ personal traits and their actions are reflected in the management style the managers adopt. A management style is mostly influenced by the managers’ behaviour.

The most important factor which determines and shapes the type of management behaviour is the way the managers use their authority. Managers are the people who get things done through other people. Managers are the people who work with others to coordinate organizational activities in order to achieve organizational goals. Based on these explanations, it is possible to say that management style is a very important process in achieving organizational goals since the way managers use their powers, the level of interaction with employees, and the decisions they take regarding service and production processes affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization. It is normally stated that the authority level and power of the managers of the organization are determinants in the classification of management styles which can be applied in the organization.

Management style, which is a broad concept includes elements such as organization, planning, directing, coordination, control, procurement and selection, and authority sharing. The most important elements which bring the organization to success are the management style and the people. Management style expresses the way the managers use their authority over the employees and level of relationship with the employees in reaching the goals of the organization.

Management skills, like several other abilities, are to be acquired through hard work and practice. But there are several ways to become a good manager. In fact, effective managers combine different types of management styles at different times. That is why, it is important to know the types of management styles for achieving effective performance of the organization.

If managers are to be effective in their role, it is important for them to think consciously about how they manage, i.e., what kind of management style suits them best and is going to work well in their team and in the organization. Adopting an appropriate style helps managers in establishing rapport, trust and respect, engage their team members, and build good working relationships. Equally, adopting an inappropriate style can lead to employees becoming disengaged or demotivated. Similarly, managers who adopt a style which is at odds with the values of the organization, are unlikely to be successful.

In the twentieth century, management style was seen as mainly about how managers exercised their authority to get work done and successfully meet the objectives. There was also a perception that there was one best way to manage which achieved the best results in every situation. Before the 1980s, a ‘command and control’ style was normally seen as the norm. Later, more collaborative and coaching styles began to be favoured with the aim of promoting motivation and engagement among employees. Presently, there is certainly a stronger emphasis on management style as the way in which managers relate to people, especially those who report to them. There is also now a growing belief that managers need to find a style which is authentic for them and that they need to adjust their style as per the situation, which include the culture of the organization where they work, the nature of the tasks to be completed, and the characteristics and expectations of their team members.

The use of the term ‘leadership style’ has become much more common in recent years and has largely replaced the term ‘management style’ in the work of management people. Frequently the distinction between the two is unclear. There is an ongoing debate about the concepts of management and leadership with some see them as different and distinct and others see leadership as an aspect of management which is not just the prerogative of senior management but can be exercised by everyone in their area of responsibility. One helpful approach has been put forward by Henry Mintzberg, who has suggested that although management and leadership are conceptually different, it is difficult to separate the two in day-to-day practice.

Definition – The term management style can be understood simply as a way to manage an organization and its people. It is the philosophy or set of principles by which managers can capitalize on the abilities of their people.

Management style is the manner in which managers exercise their authority in the work-place and ensure that their objectives are achieved. It covers how managers plan and organize work in their area of responsibility and, in particular, about how they relate to, and deal with their colleagues and team members. The key components of management style are attitudes and behaviours, including (i) what the managers say, (ii) how they say it, (iii) the example they set, (iv) their body language, and (v) their general conduct and manners.

There are wide range of definitions of the term ‘management style’. A fairly simple approach is to view management style simply as the way that the organization is managed. Schleh referred to management style as ‘—– the adhesive which binds diverse operations and functions together. It is the philosophy or set of principles by which the organization capitalizes on the abilities of its people. It is not a procedure on how to do, but is the management frame-work for doing. A management style is a way of life operating throughout the organization. It permits the managers to rely on the initiative of their people’.

Khandwalla has defined management style as the distinctive way in which the organization makes decisions and discharges different functions, including goal setting, formulation, and implementation of strategy, all basic management activities, corporate image building, and dealing with key stake-holders. Depending on the operating conditions of the organization, management styles can vary and can be different.

Yu and Yeh have defined management style as ‘a preferred way of managing people in order to bind diverse operations and functions together, as well as to exercise control over employees, and is considered as a set of practices that has been adopted either by an individual, a department, or whole organization’.

Others have approached descriptions of management style by attempting to identify different functions of the manager. Quang and Vuong pointed out that there is no single management style which applies in all the cases, and the operating conditions of the organization influence the style which is selected. This assertion is consistent with other indications that management styles are influenced and determined by a number of different factors.

Some believe that organizational culture has the biggest impact on the selection and use of the management styles by organizations operating within a society and there is ample evidence for the proposition that one can find distinctive management styles in different countries. This has led to the argument that each organizational culture has its own ‘core style’ of management based on the values and norms which is pre-dominant in that culture, with some allowances for local variations.

While not making it any easier to create prescriptions for effective management styles, the reality seems to be that there are a number of factors which likely have an impact on the selection and effectiveness of management styles, including the type of organization, purpose and activities of the organization, size of the organization, operating environment, corporate culture, organizational culture, information technology and communication and, finally, the personal style and behaviour of the top management of the organization.

It is seen that the authoritarian management styles which are frequently used in state-owned organizations reflect the governing styles of the government. It is also seen that in the case of small and mid-sized organizations, the size of the organization leads to the personal style of the owner or chief executive which has a considerable impact on how the organization operates and subordinates behaves.

Advances in communications and information processing technology have changed the way in which the managers work and interact with their subordinates. Reddin’s model of management styles emphasized the importance of ‘situational factors’ and is based on the fundamental principle that managerial behaviours and styles vary depending on where the managers are in the organizational hierarchy and the type of activities which they are carrying out.

Management styles also change when organizations transition takes place to new areas of activities based on changing trends in the market-place, such as higher emphasis on quality, and customer service and satisfaction. A good management style is the one which is flexible, adaptable, and appropriate to the situation. Different situations need different management styles. The factors which affect the management style are (i) type of operations, (ii) the quantity of work which needs to be done in the near future, (iii) the personality and intrinsic managerial characteristics of the managers, and (iv) personality and approach of the employees.

It is important to know the different types of management styles for success in the organization. Knowing the core management style or knowing which styles are effective in which situations have a large impact on how the managers and their teams perform. There are four ways to identify a management style which are described below.

The first is not to rely on short-lived fashions. Management models are short-lived and few of them maintain their effectiveness in the long run. But once an effective management style has been found then it is built upon into a foundation which the managers can depend upon in difficult times.

The second is to know how to adapt. In certain cases, such as emergencies, critical deadlines, or organizational strategy, a more direct management policy is needed. Once the managers find their day-to-day management style, they know how to deal with issues which are out of the ordinary.

The third is to know how to engage the employees. If the employees are involved in their work, they perform better. Proper management style increases this type of employee engagement and makes it easier for team members to come to the managers for questions, ideas, and suggestions.

The fourth is to know the weaknesses and how to overcome them. Each management style needs its own skills. Once the managers know which management style is right for their personality, team, and organization, managers can focus on strengthening their strengths and improving their weaknesses.

The management styles which the managers adopt have a major influence over all activities in the organization, organizational climate, and employee productivity. It is hence very important for the managers to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of management styles, but also on how they are perceived by the subordinates. The management style is a necessary element of life, a key factor in the efficiency of the organizations.

Through-out life, humans are part of the organization, hence the need for a proper management style in the organization is one of the most important factors in gaining advantage on the market. The success of the organizations of the 21st century largely depend on the search for, discovery, and efficient use of talented managers, respectively of those imaginative people, full of curiosity, perseverance, hard-working, focused on ideas, qualified, capable of encouraging diversity, giving attention to environmental challenges, with permanent availability to turn vision into reality.

Management styles reflect the way the managers are exercising their functions, the role they have in work management and organization, training and stimulating subordinates for meeting the objectives. The knowledge and assessment of the management styles in particular are becoming more important to the effectiveness of the managers.

The influential factors which generate or influence management styles are, (i) physical and constitutional factors such as age, height, weight, and psycho-physical characteristics, (ii) psychological factors such as general intelligence and integrity of character, (iii) psycho-social factors such as sociability, and prestige, and (iv) sociological factors.

Management style is a managerial parlance frequently used to describe the ‘how’ of the management. It is a function of behaviour associated with personality. It can be understood as a way to manage the organization. As per Schleh, it the adhesive which binds diverse operations and functions together. It is the philosophy or set of principles by which the managers capitalize on the abilities of the work-force. It is not a procedure on how to do but it is the management frame-work for doing. A management style is a way of life operating throughout the organization and permits managers to rely on the initiative of the employees of the organization.

Effective management style is the extent to which the managers continually and progressively lead and direct the subordinates to a pre-determined destination agreed upon by the whole team. It is the manner of approach to the issues of the managers towards achieving the goals of the organization by transforming different resources available to the organization into output through the functions of the management. It is considered that the management style is the distinctive way in which the organization makes decisions and discharges different functions of goal setting, formulation, implementation of strategy, corporate image building, dealing with key stakeholders, and other basic management activities.

Management styles and organizational effectiveness – Organizations are consciously created for achieving specific objectives. In realizing set goals, organizations formulate strategies from which organization structures are designed and set targets are achieved. Organizations conduct periodic assessment for finding out the level of objectives achieved. The process of determining the extent of the performance level of the organization is called organizational effectiveness. The concept of the organizational effectiveness is otherwise called organizational success or organizational worth which associates with goal achievement.

As per Onwuchekwa, an examination into effectiveness is to evaluate how well the organization is doing in relation to some set standards. Georgopoulos and Tenneubaum have suggested that organizational effectiveness is the extent to which the organization as a social system with the resources and means at its disposal fulfils its objectives without incapacitating its means and resources and without placing undue strain upon its employees. Quang has proposed seven measurement criteria of organizational effectiveness. These measurement criteria are employee satisfaction, profitability, growth rate of sales or revenue, financial growth, competitiveness of the products and services of the organization, public image and good-will, and leader in the technology. This measurement criteria are quite impressive and cuts across a wide range of issues. It is not restricted to financial performance of the organization as being done normally.

The relationship between management styles and organizational effectiveness cannot be over-emphasized. Management styles are one of the important factors which affect organizational effectiveness. A good match between the style of management and operating realities of the organization substantially influences its level of effectiveness. In every organization, management style influences the performance of individual employee and work groups, and hence the organizational performance.

Culpan and Kucukemirogula developed a model to study how managers practice the different management styles in work-places. The model consists of six managerial dimensions for comparing management practices which include leadership / supervisory style, decision-making, communication patterns, control mechanism, inter-departmental relations, and paternalistic orientation. They further attempted to establish a link between management style and organizational effectiveness by comparing the American and Japanese management systems. The study found that the American managers underscore supervisory style, decision making, and control mechanism while the Japanese are concerned more with communication process, inter-departmental relationship, and a paternalistic approach.

Luthans has stated that employees perceive the behaviour and actions of managers as actions of the organization itself. Employees develop positive attitude towards the organization where the actions of the managers clearly show that employees are part of the organization. Pathak has further confirmed that management styles affect the effectiveness and performance of organizations. He analyzed the impact of management styles on the organizational performance level and found a strong relationship between management styles and organizational performance.

Management style reflects the art of applying the principles of modern management, employee leadership, personality, and objective and subjective factors which determine it. Management style is to be addressed as a strategic variable since it exercises large influence on the performance and at the same time can be improved, given that there is a direct relationship between personality as head of leadership and results, and between type of behaviour adopted and efficiency.

Management style designates a uniform system of action means (design and execution) with a relatively stable character through which the decision-making and execution bodies contribute to the objectives. In reality there is a dominant style which originates in a combination of styles and which makes it not always constant of a person with certain relativity. Same individual in different situations produces different managerial behaviours generated by personal driving style, which is a combination of personal variables with the contextual-situational ones. Management style is the actual behaviour of the managers, meaning the way they actually apply the concept of manager and qualities.

Good managers are tested by what they do and how they do it, in this case management process analysis being based on the characteristic behaviour of the managers namely what they do, how they forward tasks, the way they communicate with subordinates and tries to motivate them, and how they perform tasks.

Management styles can be captured by the behaviour pattern, as per three sets of forces which help shaping the management. The first is forces related to the managers which consider knowledge, values, and experience of the managers. The second is the characteristics of subordinates, which play an important role in choosing by the leader of the conduct style. Originally, the managers are required to change the climate of the group, target it to new values, motivations and behaviours, to influence it so that they can effectively change the management style. The role and responsibility of the managers are to adopt that style which can be most efficient for the organization. The third is the situational forces which are specific of the group, nature of tasks, and environmental factors etc.

E.E. Geissler believes that only certain modes of behaviour, namely the ones ‘preferred and returning with some regularity’ become management styles and not all responses to environmental, not all attitudes towards situations which become complementary to the style. Fred Fiedler makes a difference between behaviour (understood as a set of specific acts which engage the individual in the activity) and style (which is the fundamental necessity that motivates the behaviour of a manager), claiming that the first changes depending on external circumstances, while the style remains constant. From the organizational perspective, management style is the way the managers assume the power they are invested with by their status in the organization and the art of using power management practices which allow both fulfilling of the organization objectives and ensuring a climate of participation and personal expression of each member of the organization.

Management style is a process by which a person or a group of people identifies, organizes, activates, influences the human and technical resources of the organization in order to achieve the objectives, Important factors which have role in shaping the management style are (i) personality factors, (ii) motivation, (iii) expectations, influences and pressures exerted on affirming the role of the managers, and which determine the management style of the managers resulting from the specific of the organization, and (iv) organizational climate which can define, strengthen, and adapt management style of the managers.

Management style is a causal variable on which depends a large part of the aspects of life and work of the people in the organization. It is estimated that only by improving the management style, performance can increase by 15 % to 20 %.

As per Fred Fiedler, efficiency of management depends on (i) personality of managers, considering the fact that managers are motivated by interpersonal relationships and by the challenging tasks, and (ii) situational variables, considering the favourable and unfavourable circumstances.

Types of management styles – There are several management styles identified and grouped by different management personnel. It is clearly seen that the classification of management styles is overlapping and homogenous with slight diversity. It is observed that the variation of management styles arises because of the differences in the types of organization, nature of the employees of these organizations, and settings. This demonstrates the organizations’ basic management styles with modifications largely because of the influence of cultural distinctions and peculiarities.

Several management styles have evolved hitherto as distinct managers utilized differing approaches in performing responsibilities in the course of their official work. Since the emergence of styles of management, people have identified and described a number of formal styles of management since the 1950s. Likert has classified four approaches of management which constitute a range of participative, paternalistic, exploitative, and autocrative and consultative management styles while Burn and Stalker have identified organic and mechanistic styles of management. Also, Minzberg considered entrepreneurial and strategic planning as forms of management styles adopted by managers in the organizations. In recent times, commonly used management styles include authoritarian, coercive, authoritative, democratic, affiliative, permissive, indifferent, coaching, pace-setting, visionary, bureaucratic, and defensive management styles.

McGuire explored basic management styles of different managers and came up with charismatic, persuasive, consultative, transactional, transformational and delegating styles. A survey conducted by Worrall has found that most managers are bureaucratic and restrictive in their management styles which are not conducive for the development of high-performance cultures for creativity and innovation to flourish in the majority of the organizations. Blandchard has reduced management styles to four basic types. They are directing, supporting, coaching, and delegating.

Pascale and Athos examined the Japanese style of management consequence to the economic success of Japan. They highlighted that the Japanese management style underscores paternalism, life-time employment, seniority, life-long learning, collective decision making, hard work, co-operation ethics, continuous adaptation, and improvement. The management style of the American organizations differed markedly from Japanese style and it pays attention to core values, high flexible structure, organizational unit autonomy, interactivity, and innovation.

The adoption of management of tolerance for learning organizations and knowledge-based organizations instead of action-oriented management style has been advocated by De gens. Harbison and Myers have classified management styles as autocratic, paternalistic, participative and Laissez-Faire while another emerging management style is the ‘theory z’ proposed by William Oluchi.

It is said that managers display one or more of the management styles. Some of the most commonly followed management styles are described below.

Authoritarian style – It is also referred to as coercive style of management. Authoritarian managers normally demand immediate compliance. Basically, such managers are saying ‘just do as I say’. In modern organizations, this style of management cannot succeed, as it ultimately causes employee demotivation or possible rebellion and legal action for bullying. However, authoritarian management style can be suitable in crisis situations and in the armed forces.

Authoritative style – This style is full of authority and influence. Managers who display this type of management style can very easily mobilize people with a great deal of enthusiasm and with clear objectives. These are very confident and charismatic managers who are basically saying ‘come with me, trust me’. Some pessimists can feel that such managers are too over-confident and arrogant.

Democratic style – As the name implies democratic managers seek to achieve their objectives by consensus and employee participation. These are managers who seek the opinion of their employees on serious issues. This creates the feeling of joint participation and responsibility among the employees. It is said that such management style is likely to reduce employee rebellion. However, there can be problem areas if, for example, the employees are against an important plan which management wants to get implemented. However, this style of management is likely to facilitate effective communication within the organization, which in turn is likely to reduce rebellion.

Affiliative style – It is closely related to the democratic style. Affiliative style of management is intended to create unity and harmony in the organization by seeking to build an emotional bond among the employees. Such bonding is expected to create an atmosphere of friendliness, unity, and love in the organization, which in turn is seen as a motivator. It can also breed employees feeling that they are all tied to the same destiny. While there is no doubt that it is a positive style, some can worry that being too close and friendly with the employee can cause problems relating to too much familiarity.

Permissive style – It is also referred to as Laissez-Faire style. This is the style of management where managers give little or no direction to the employees, basically, letting the employee to just carry on with their job. This provides a big deal of empowerment for the employees, who can feel proud that they are in charge of their work and can work without supervision. However, this style of management is only appropriate where the employees are highly skilled and experienced, interested in working on their own, trustworthy, and independent experts which are contracted from outside.

Some of the potential issues with this style is that (i) managers are kept in the ‘dark’ as to what is going on as there is little or no feed-back from the employees, (ii) it can create insecurity and uncertainty, where employees are not properly trained or experienced, (iii) it can lead to a situation where managers do not compliment the employees at all, as they do not know how efficient the employees have been, and (iv) the role and responsibilities of the managers are effectively reduced.

Indifferent style – While a bit similar to the permissive style, the indifferent style is basically that the managers just cannot be bothered. This can be the case where the managers are seriously demotivated as a result of lack of recognition or simply that they have had enough and do not care what is going on. Obviously, this is an unacceptable style in the present day management scenario.

Coaching style – This is a management style where a manager focuses on training, guiding, counselling, and employee personal development for the future growth of the organization. This is extremely useful for the improvement of employee performance and the future strength of both the employees and the organization. Properly trained employees are much more confident and efficient on the job.

Pace-setting style – This is a management style where managers set examples and standards for high performance. Basically, it is management by example, where managers are saying ‘do what I do’. It is like a role model management style. This sort of style can only be suitable for managers who are highly motivated. Others can find it very intense and overwhelming and can just give up, since they are unlikely to achieve such standards.

Visionary style – This is a management style, where managers move their employees to share positive dreams of the potential benefits and opportunities which they stand to gain. This is where when both employees’ and organizational goals are clearly defined and the means of achieving them are well known by everyone. Visionary managers can be innovative and normally seek to develop the employees’ ability to make effective decisions and to improve performance.

Bureaucratic style – This is a management style which is dominated by the procedure. Hence, such managers are completely inflexible. Basically, such managers go by the book, no more – no less. The bureaucratic style needs that everything is done as per the organizational policy, procedure, and culture. This type of management style can only be useful where (i) employees perform routine tasks, (ii) the job needs employees to know and understand all the policies and procedures, (iii) for health and safety reasons, certain work (e.g. machine operation) has to be done in a certain way, and (iv) for security reasons, certain procedures have to be performed in the course of the job.

However, a bureaucratic style can cause problems in cases (i) where innovation and initiative are needed for the job, (ii) where employees have become bored of their job and need challenges, (iii) in breaking bad work habits which have been formed over the years, and (iv) employees object to changes to be introduced, since they become used to certain ways of work

Defensive style – This is a management style which is practiced by managers who always seek to find fault from the employees and give the impression that they are correcting the fault. For example, such managers can always say such words ‘that is wrong, it is not to be done like that’. The issue is that such managers are always negative in their attitude towards the employees, finding faults and errors, but not acknowledging their positive contributions. This sort of management style can be very de-motivating and demoralizing. If such behaviour persists, the employees can also become defensive towards the managers.

Because of the variety, management styles have been classified by specialists using a series of criteria namely (i) attitude toward responsibility, (ii) authority used by the manager, (iii) organizational initiative and consideration for the work-force, (iv) concern for production and employees, (v) concern for production, employees, and efficiency, and (vi) types of motivations, communication characteristics, nature of cooperation, and decision-making strategy. For a better understanding of what is a management style, different management styles as per these criteria are described below.

The ‘attitude toward responsibility’ is the first classification criterion which encompasses the following management styles.

Repulsive style – It is characterized by the tendency to refuse being promoted to managerial positions. Also, it extravagantly relies on the subordinates’ independence. Under particular circumstances, managers can adopt imprudent and inefficient solutions. Normally, managers who adopt this repulsive style hide some kind of inferiority complex, in other words, they almost completely mistrust their own capabilities. Their desire to avoid responsibilities can explain their refusal to accept managerial positions, as well as the hasty decision-making when they are circumstantially forced to take such a job. The hasty decision-making adopted by these managers can reduce the tension triggered by the uncertainty preceding any decision-making stage.

Authoritarian style – It is adopted by managers hunting managerial positions. These managers are very active and dynamic, creating a work environment characterized by tension and conflicts. These managers normally have a wonderful opinion about themselves, with a high self-confidence, strongly believing that they are entitled to get managerial positions, as they are the only skilled and capable to successfully achieve all the objectives related to their job. This attitude can entail the tendency of these managers to firmly maintain and enforce their opinions in decision-making. In case of failure, they always find reasons and explanations which absolve them from any responsibility. Hence, they strive to reduce their own responsibility, leaving the entire burden on their subordinates, or other decision-makers. At the same time, this boost of confidence can also explain their tendency to act firmly even in uncertain situations and to persevere in reaching the desired goals.

Laissez-Faire style – It highlights the lack of interest for a personal evolution in the organizational hierarchy. They are not very much concerned about getting managerial positions, but once promoted to these positions, they can make efficient managers. Their efficiency comes from their commitment to temperate, balanced attitudes, and the desire to thoroughly reach all the proposed objectives. These managers are able to create a realistic image about themselves, just like about the others. They normally maintain a balance between the positive and negative traits of their personality, treating their subordinates as their equals. This category provides most of the managers.

Something to be mentioned is that each of these management styles has both positive and negative aspects. Hence, each style (repulsive, authoritarian, or Laisser-Faire) can be efficient or not, depending on the situation. Hence, managers adopting an authoritarian style are unlikely to be efficient in extreme situations, since they are bent for organizational decisions and their ambition to reach all the goals. Under special panic circumstances, the repulsive managers are definitely not a good choice, since they tend to be hasty in decision-making (even to the detriment of the action quality), and they are not gifted with the tendency to persevere in reaching their objectives, so they cannot rise to the requirements of a critical situation.

The second criterion refers to the quantity of authority used by managers. The three management styles as per this criterion are given below.

Permissive (Laissez-Faire) style – It is dominated by the tendency to avoid any involvement in group organizing and leading, focusing on spontaneous organizing and coordinating activities. The presence or absence of the manager does not affect the activity efficiency.

Democratic style – It is characteristic of the managers who allow their subordinates’ participation in the management. These managers accept their employees’ involvement in both objective setting and task assignment. From the point of view of its consequences, the democratic style is said to reduce tensions and conflicts, and to stimulate employee involvement. The group efficiency is marked by the managers’ presence or absence. These managers’ reduced-control attitude can encourage innovative work.The difference between a permissive and a democratic style is given by the managers’ morale. The democratic manager is high-spirited, since they support the group. When it comes to the permissive managers, they are lower-spirited, since they do not support the group in fulfilling the given tasks.

Authoritarian style – It is typical of those managers who refuse their subordinates’ involvement in the management. These managers make their own decisions in setting objectives and choosing the suitable methods to reach them. They are focused on objective achievement and task assignment supervision, granting unlimited confidence to all their decisions related to goal accomplishment. As a result, this style determines a tacit protest of the subordinates, reducing the possibility of professional improvement. The reduction of these opportunities is determined by the limitation, sometimes on the verge of exclusion, of the employees’ participation in decision-making.

The impossibility to take part in decision-making decrease the sense of responsibility, reducing the participation and creative interest of the employees. Authoritarian style entails an extreme critical attitude and the decrease of the employees’ professional interest (professional alienation). Also, an exaggerated supervision of the employees determines the subordinates’ confusion and dis-orientation while the managers are not present, fact which induces and even determines the need of being controlled. The reduction in work efficiency when the managers are not there hence shows that there is a need  for higher control of the employees. Hence, allowing more time to supervision, the authoritarian managers reduce the time for creative and innovative activities.

The third criterion in the taxonomy of management styles are the organizational initiative and consideration for the work-force, referring to the managers’ approach to the organizational and humane aspects of their tasks. By ‘organizational initiative’, Fleishman and Harris denote the managers’ focus on managerial activities namely task assignment, group creation, and task achievement procedures. These organizational activities (structural initiation) mirror the need felt by managers to limit uncertainty, and to extend supervision on all activities involved in the production process. The structural initiation is considered an unfailing factor of any managerial activity.

The term ‘consideration’ involves the managers’ tendency to stimulate their subordinates, treating them like equals. Managers adopting this management style focus mainly on building solid mutual relationships of trust, confidence, and feedback. They normally use financial incentives to appeal to their subordinates. Managers who do not have much consideration for their employees rather choose to punish them, hence increasing tension and conflicts and eventually, being forced to impose their authority and control.

As per one other very important criterion, the management styles are classified depending on the managers’ concern for production and employees. The managers’ level of concern for their employees and production can be assessed using a scale ranging from 1 to 9. Level 1 is the lowest level of concern, while level 9 designates the highest degree of pre-occupation. Depending on their final score, managers are introduced in the different squares of a grid, which has been created using coordinates representing the two main dimensions namely concern for production and concern for employees. In the grid below (Fig 1), representing the management styles, the marked squares highlight the basic styles.

Fig 1 Managerial grid for management styles

As per the grid in Fig 1, the basic management styles are the given below.

The style of the apathetic manager (square 1-1) – It is typical of those managers who show very low interest for both their subordinates and the production. They make minimum efforts to achieve the goals of their team or the organization, and to properly lead their employees.

The style of the task-oriented manager (square 9-1) – It is specific to those managers who make a priority from solving all the production difficulties, paying minimum attention, or sometimes even neglecting their subordinates. Their efforts aim at the achievement of the organizational objectives, imposing a very busy and tiring work-schedule, and permanently needing their employees’ participation. Organizing is the key word with these managers. The activity efficiency can only be ensured by a minimal relationship with their subordinates. In this case, efficiency depends directly on solving the technical aspects of this activity.

The style of the group-oriented manager (square 9-9) – It reveals an increased interest for their employees and the production. The efficiency of these managers is given by the quantity of effort made to favourably solve the problems related to both above-mentioned categories. The relationships between these managers and their subordinates rely on mutual respect, being interactive, cooperative, and participative.

The style of the employee-oriented manager (square 1-9) – It focuses on human resources, taking care of all the employees’ problems, and of creating a pleasant work environment (ergonomic, and psycho-social). The interest of the managers for production is minimum. Sometimes, the managers show a lack of interest which is close to the apathy toward production.

The style of the moderate undetermined manager (central square 5-5) – This style pays the same importance to the employees and to  the production, maintaining a balance between the concern for subordinates and that for the production. That is why this style is also known as ‘balanced’. It determines optimal performance and ensures the increased morale of the employees.

The sociologists Blake and Mounton divided the grid into 5 almost equal areas which represent the basic management styles, (i) area A corresponding to the style introduced in square 1-1, (ii) area B corresponding to the style from square 9-1, (iii) area C corresponding to the style from square 9-9, (iv) area D corresponding to the style marked in square 1-9, and (v) area E corresponding to the style presented in square 5-5. The five areas are marked in the management styles grid in Fig 2.

Fig 2 Aspects of management styles

In the system defined by Blake and Mounton, the ideal management style for all the potential situations is 9-9. The productivity and the employee mood and morale are in balance at an optimal level. This maximum balance state is normally reached by making up a team from all the subordinates. Also, the work division is used, and managers involve an increasing number of employees in planning, objective setting and decision-making. At the same time, the team members are offered all the relevant information, being assigned important tasks, hence feeling valuable and useful. This management pattern involves some kind of ‘philosophy’ on management and leadership, along with an efficient strategy to implement this philosophy.

The Dominance scale – As the different managerial styles unfolded over time, they followed what can be called an evolutionary scale of decreasing dominance. In other words, the ‘dominance’ can be defined to be the power to determine the future, it can be shown that the truly dominant force moved from the single manager to the system or organization, to the group, and finally to the individual within the group or system. Hence, it seems only natural that the different managerial styles adapt themselves very well to a dominance scale. In fact, two managerial theorists by the names of Tannenbaum and Schmidt have developed such a scale, where numerical reference is made to the dominance factor (Fig 3).

Fig 3 Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s dominance scale of managerial dominance

Dominance scale 1 – Autocrat – These are managers who regularly make decisions and announce them before checking with anyone. They are individuals who insist that all organizational decisions, even the minor decisions, are to be rendered by them. These managers retain full control of the organization, almost solely as a result of their own charisma, their position within the system, and their forceful personality.

Dominance scale 2 – Authoritarian – These managers also insist that they fulfill the major role in the whole decision-making process. Yet the difference is that while the autocrats impose the decision on the organization, the authoritarians actually try to ‘sell’ their decision to the organization. In brief, these managers at least recognize the desires of the organization from which they derive their power.

Dominance scale 3 – Bureaucrat – The bureaucratic managers present ideas and invite questions before decisions are made. With the bureaucrats, there is minimum use of absolute power. Instead, they exist as a creature of the organization, which surrounds them. They exist to serve the organization, strive to meet its objectives, and use it for their own protection whenever necessary. Performance is judged by these managers to be consistent with the survival and growth of the organization.

Dominance scale 4 – Laissez Faire – This managerial style is placed at the mid-point of the dominance scale since it represents a null balance between manager domination and employee domination styles. Within this classification, a combination of the organization, the group, individual employees, and some unknown components, act together to fill in for the inactivity of the manager.

Dominance scale 5 – Democrat – These managers draw their power from what they see or determine to be the majority opinion. The basic mode is to present problems and openly solicit suggestions. A majority vote then establishes the destiny of the organization.

Dominance scale 6 – Participative – As shown in Fig 3, the participative managers define some organizational limits, but they rely heavily on groups and individuals within the organization for definitive decisions. To a degree, their managerial style appears similar to scale 5. The outstanding difference is that individuals within a group are gradually gaining power over the wishes of the group as a whole.

Dominance scale 7 – Humanist – This managerial style results from an over-reaction to the preaching of human relationists. It sets individual happiness as the ultimate goal. In search of this goal, the objectives of the organization or groups within the organization are relegated to a subordinate position.

One more criterion refers to the managers’ concern for employees, production, and efficiency. W.I. Reddin approached the fourth criterion, and improved it by adding the element ‘efficiency’. As per him, eight management styles can be outlined, divided into two main groups namely efficient and inefficient. The classification of these styles mainly relies on the efficiency of each type of managerial attitude.

The group of the efficient styles highlights the types namely (i) organized style which is typical of managers who make use of modern management methods of science, technology, and innovation, (ii) humane style which is corresponding to managers who focus on human resources, hence ensuring efficiency, (iii) technical style which is specific to managers who fundamentally concentrate on production, always seeking rational solutions for technical issues and their subordinates understand the necessity of the adopted solutions, and (iv) moderate style which is adopted by managers who create a balance between production and employee expectations, permanently getting a good feedback.

The group of the inefficient styles is composed of (i) uninterested style which is specific to those managers who do not care much about the production, employees, or final results, which finally leads to the employees’ loss of interest for the production, (ii) paternalistic style which is found with those managers who are too concerned about the employees (almost like in the relationship between parents and children), and determines a reduced interest of the employees to get involved and take responsibility in the organizational activities, (iii) abusive style which is typical of managers who focus mainly on the production, being cold, distant, or even uninterested in the employees (this style can generate tension and conflicts, because of the employees’ tacit opposition to the exaggerated tasks), and (iv) undetermined style by which the manager, relying on the extreme balance between the two groups on interest namely production and employees, shows exaggerated caution and lack of determination in decision-making.

The classification according to the types of motivations, communication characteristics, nature of cooperation, and decision-making strategy has been initiated by Likert, who created a system of four categories of management styles as given below.

Dictatorial style – It characterizes those managers who initiate communication only downwards, give orders, and are too severe supervisors. This style can arise the employees’ tacit opposition, which decreases productivity, reduces the employee satisfaction, and interest in their job.

Autocratic (authoritarian) kind of style – It is specific to those managers who set objectives by themselves, but accept discussing assignments with their employees, which ensures the partial use of the employees’ experience. The tacit opposition of the subordinates is reduced but still present. Being excluded from objective setting, the employees can perceive all the tasks as obligations, and they do not identify with those objectives which only accidentally reflect their own aspirations.

Participative-advisory style – It refers to the managers’ inclination to discuss with the subordinates regarding work and production issues. These common discussions bring about final decisions and task assignment. However, the main objectives are established by the manager alone. The prior consulting of the subordinates offers them the opportunity to take part in both decision-making and management. The tacit opposition of the employees can occur however.

Extremely participative style – It implies a large participation of the subordinates in the production process. Their discussions and suggestions do not only report on the production process, but also on the objective setting. Setting objectives after previously consulting the employees determines their identification with the established objectives, hence stimulating motivation and interest. As a matter of fact, objectives are updated in every stage of the production process, by adjusting the organizational interests to those of the employees. Objectives are established by managers alone only in special, emergency situations. This management style does not exclude the tacit opposition of the subordinates, but it is stray and accidental.

These styles differ from one another depending on the level reached by each of their composing dimensions (motivation, communication, cooperation, and participation etc.). In conclusion, just as shown before, the management styles can be categorized in two basic groups (with their corresponding aspects and variations) namely the authoritarian style, and the participative style.

The outlining of these categories is the result of an analysis made on the activity of some managers of different organizations, and on some elements like the subordinates’ responsibility, their loyalty to the organization, and the nature and intensity of the conflicts. Likert has highlighted the capacity of the authoritarian style to entail for short and medium-term best results. The negative counterparts of this style are the precarious circumstances which reduce the subordinates’ participation in the production process.

As compared to the authoritarian style, the participative style offers fewer medium-term and short-term results, but they are improving on long-term, becoming even performance oriented. This favourable performance evolution results from a positive influence exercised on a set of variables. Hence, the managers adopting a participative style are appreciated by their employees. Also, loyalty and communication are developed, while tension and conflicts are reduced. Yet, as per Likert, in order to assess the performances of the participative style (in terms of value and deficiencies), a longer period is needed, of at least two years. In other words, the results of this style can only be seen over time.

While the participative style ensures future performance results, the authoritarian style can only offer medium and short-term performance results. The participative style helps developing decision-making abilities and taking responsibility of these decisions. The adoption of this style needs some behavioural changes from both managers and subordinates. But the behavioural change is a long-term process which can only produce in the presence of a certain flexibility and acceptance of failure (short and medium-term risk-taking). Yet, the initial costs for the implementation of the participative style can pay off in future higher performances.

Khandwalla categories of management styles – Khandwalla while carrying out an empirical study of 90 organizations in India, has defined ten categories of management styles namely conservative, entrepreneurial, professional, bureaucratic, organic, authoritarian, participative, intuitive, familial, and altruistic. The key features of these management styles are described below.

Conservative style – It has bias for preserving and extending whatever it has worked. The style is cautious towards innovation and / or changing status quo. It is predisposed to pursuit of diversification and growth in familiar directions. It is reliant on traditions which preserve the strengths of the past and normally has conservative personality traits but not necessarily.

Entrepreneurial style – It indulges in calculated risk taking, pioneering, innovation and rapid growth. An entrepreneurial approach is necessary for efforts of developing countries to diversify their industrial base and pursue rapid growth of outputs.

Professional style – It adapts scientific optimization and oriented approach to management. It uses sophisticated management tools and techniques and undertakes long range planning. A professional approach works well for managing new and complicated technology-intensive industries in a complex global environment.

Bureaucratic style – In this style, there is stress on orderly management, accountability, and formalization of rules, regulations, and procedures. The bureaucratic management style has been well documented and frequently associated with larger organizations, particularly those in the public sector, which are presumed to need processes which ensure accountability, equity, orderliness, and operating efficiency.

Organic style – In this style, there is deep commitment to flexibility, innovation, responsiveness to change, teamwork and interactive, and feedback-based decision making. An organic approach is frequently desired for organizations operating in fast changing environments.

Authoritarian style – In this style, there is stress on discipline and obedience. The authoritarian management style is frequently used in developing countries during their colonial periods as a means for dealing with the perception that the local work ethic is weak and the task environment is hostile.

Participative style – This style is committed to an ideology of collective, consensus-based decision-making. It is the polar opposite of authoritarian style, and it focuses on fostering motivation and cooperation and is useful in situation where managers value diverse perspectives and input before decisions are made and executed.

Intuitive style – This style shows faith in experience, common sense, and intuitive judgment based on good rules of thumb or mental short-cuts learned from experience.

Familial style – This style is anchored in the notion that for achieving organizational cohesiveness and loyalty of employees for the organization, the organization is required to treat its employees like family members and look after their needs.

Altruistic style – This style is based on the belief that the organization is an instrumentality of some larger social good and not just a vehicle for profit maximization. The style is thought to be useful in developing countries launching major social projects, such as initiatives to alleviate poverty, improve infrastructure, or bolster the local education system.

Thornton’s ‘big 3’ management styles – Thornton argued that there are three basic management styles namely (i) directing (tell employees what to do), (ii) discussing (ask questions and listen), and (iii) delegating (let employees figure it out on their own), and that the characteristics of each of these styles can be explained using dimensions such as communication strategies, goal-setting and decision-making procedures, performance monitoring procedures, and the methods used for rewarding and recognizing the work of subordinates.

Thornton advised that managers are to be skilled at each of the styles and are to be able to diagnose the situation before deciding which management style to use. He also observed that management style is an evolutionary process and that as employees gain experience, skills, and confidence, the managers become more comfortable with granting employees more freedom and transitioning their preferred management style from directing to discussing and, finally, to delegating. Thornton has also promoted the idea that managers are required to provide challenge, coaching, and confidence to their followers in order to provide the highest value to their organizations.

The directing style places major control squarely in the hands of the managers, who assume full responsibility for assigning duties and roles among subordinates, setting standards, and defining goals and expectations. This style is appropriate when specific orders need to be given in order to complete specific and well-defined tasks. When the directing style is used, communication normally takes the form of specific directions from management, short term goals are set by management with little or no input from subordinates, formal control systems are used to monitor performance, and rewards are distributed based on how well subordinates follow and carry out the orders issued by management.

Managers using the discussing style makes an effort to discuss relevant issues with subordinates and creates an environment in which communication flows more smoothly and both managers and employees feel free and empowered to present ideas, ask questions, provide feedback and coaching, and challenge assumptions. Managers using this style have developed the capacity to listen to the concerns of their followers and facilitate meetings at which issues relating to work activities are discussed and debated. The discussing style gets people involved in the process of setting goals and making decisions and builds higher commitment among subordinates with respect to the goals of the units since they have a hand in setting them. Performance is monitored by managers and subordinates and the criteria for rewards and recognition is expanded to include the quality of contributions made to discussions, social skills, and openness in sharing information and opinions with the group.

The delegating style features a high level of autonomy for subordinates as managers set general expectations yet transfer substantial responsibility for the details of meeting those expectations to the subordinates. Not surprisingly, it is desired that this approach be limited to situations where the subordinates have a substantial quantity of training and experience and hence are capable to acting without much direct supervision. Communication within groups using the delegating style varies depending on the situation and can either be ‘one-way’ or ‘two-way’. Goals can be set by the managers alone or by the managers in collaboration with representatives from the subordinate groups. However, regardless of how goals are established, the hallmark of this type of style is the subordinates are given the independence and autonomy to decide on their own about the best way to pursue and achieve those goals. Since managers are not involved in the details of the design of specific tasks and activities, they do need continuous and timely feedback on performance for ensuring that satisfactory progress is being made toward completion of the agreed goals. Rewards and recognition when the delegating style is used are based on efficiency and the ability of subordinates to perform well when asked to work autonomously.

Theory X and theory Y – Douglas McGregor believed that management style is determined by the manager’s assumptions about human nature. He identified two broad categories of beliefs namely ‘theory X’ and ‘theory Y’. As per ‘theory X’, humans have an inherent dislike for work and are to be controlled and directed to accomplish goals. As a result, autocratic and paternalistic management styles become prevalent. As per ‘theory Y’, work is a normal part of life which provides individuals with a sense of fulfillment. Respect and recognition can motivate employees to perform at their best. As a result, management styles become more consultative and participative. While McGregor believed that both techniques can be effective, he believed that ‘theory X’ management can result in demotivation and low performance. In contrast, ‘theory Y’ management can result in high levels of motivation and performance.

Reddin’s 3-D management style theory – A number of people have observed that the psychological managerial typologies created by several leading management personnel are actually all based on two underlying variables namely task orientation, and relationships orientation. For example, the model of managerial types proposed by Blake and Mouton in their ‘managerial grid’ (Fig 1) contrasts managers who have a concern for production (i.e., a task orientation) with managers who are more concerned with people (i.e., a relationships orientation).

Similarly, McGregor’s ‘theory X’ is arguably task oriented while his ‘theory Y’ is more relationships oriented. Carron focused on ‘initiating structure’ (i.e., a task orientation) and ‘consideration. (i.e., a relationships orientation) as tools for describing management behaviour which allowed for identification of four managerial styles namely Laissez-Faire, democratic, autocratic and paternalistic.

Following review of the orientations and definitions used in, and the findings of different studies, Reddin suggested definitions for both task orientation and relationships orientation. With regard to task orientation, he defined it as ‘the extent to which managers are likely to direct their own and their subordinates’ efforts toward goal attainment. Those with high task orientation tend to direct more than others through planning, communicating, informing, scheduling, and introducing new ideas’. Relationships orientation has been defined as ‘the extent to which the managers are likely to have highly personal job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates’ ideas and consideration of their feelings. Those with high relationships orientation have good rapport with others and good two-way communication’.

Reddin has suggested that managerial styles can be categorized and defined by four possible ways by which managers highlight tasks and / or relationships and develop the following four- type typology of ‘latent non-normative’ styles. These are namely (i) ‘separated’ which is the situation where managers appear to act without concern for either tasks or relationships, (ii) ‘relationships’ which is the situation where managers clearly highlights concerns about relationships over tasks (i.e., relationship oriented), (iii) ‘task’, which is the opposite of ‘relationships’ and is present when managers focus primarily on tasks (i.e., task oriented), and (iv) ‘integrated’ which is the situation where managers attempt to be both task-oriented and relationship-oriented. Reddin has taken pains to highlight that ‘no claims can be made that any one of these four styles is more effective than the other’ and the managerial behaviour needed for successful performance varies depending upon the particular situation. Reddin has noted, for example, that ‘some jobs, to be performed effectively, demand a high relationships orientation and low task orientation while some other jobs need the opposite’.

Reddin has argued that if the effectiveness of a particular style varies depending on the situation, then it is possible to create model of eight managerial styles which included two behavioural counter-parts, one which is less effective and one which is more effective, for each of his four ‘latent non-normative styles. For ‘separated’ the less effective style is called ‘deserter’ and the more effective style is called ‘bureaucratic’, for ‘relationships’ the less effective style is called ‘missionary’ and the more effective style is called ‘developer’, for ‘task’ the less effective style is called ‘autocrat’ and the more effective style is called ‘benevolent autocrat’, and for ‘integrate’ the less effective style is called ‘compromiser’ and the most effective style is called ‘executive’. Reddin has also supplied the following summary descriptions of each of the eight styles included in his 3-D model.

Deserter – Managers using this style frequently display a lack of interest in both tasks and relationships (i.e., the ‘separated’ latent non-normative style) and are ineffective both because of the lack of interest and the impact of this style on the overall morale of subordinates. In addition to deserting, this type of managers can hinder performance in other ways by valueless intervention in work activities and / or by withholding necessary information.

Bureaucrat – Like deserters, bureaucrats are not really who are interested in either task or relationship orientations and focus their efforts primarily on understanding and applying the rules and procedures which have been laid down for production. In contrast to the autocratic described below, the bureaucrats are effective since they do not disrupt morale by obvious disdain for tasks and relationships and follows the rules while maintaining a mask of interest.

Missionary – Managers using the missionary style place the highest value on harmony and relationships (i.e., the ‘relationships’ latent non-normative style). However, they are ineffective since they want so hard to be seen by themselves and others as a ‘good person’ that they are unable to risk upsetting relationships in order to make decisions which are necessary for efficient production.

Developer – The developer style is the more effective of the two ‘relationships’ latent non-normative style, contrasting with the missionary style described above. Managers using this style place their implicit trust in those who work with them and see their roles as being primarily concerned with developing the talents of others and providing an overall working environment which is conducive to motivation and maximization of individual satisfaction. This approach can be highly effective in certain cases since it promotes a working environment in which employees are committed to their personal development and to completion of their work. The risk of this style is that there can be times when the managers’ high relationships orientation cause them to make decisions which put the personal development of subordinates ahead of the interests of the entire organization with respect to maximizing short-term or long-term production and / or the development of subordinates who can succeed to the position occupied by the managers.

Autocrat – Autocrats are most interested in completing the immediate task above all other considerations, including relationships (i.e., the ‘tasks’ latent non-normative style). This lack of concern for relationships makes the autocratic style ineffective since subordinates act only out of fear and their dislike of the manager stifles their motivation and causes them to work only when direct pressure is applied by the manager.

Benevolent autocrat – Benevolent autocrats place implicit trust in themselves and are concerned with completing both immediate and long-term tasks. In contrast to their ineffective counterparts the autocrats, the benevolent autocrats are effective since they have the skill and patience to induce subordinates to carry out the directives without creating resentment or reducing morale, either of which can undermine the ability to achieve the desired production goals.

Compromiser – Managers using the compromiser style recognize the advantages of both task and relationship orientations (i.e., the ‘integrated’ latent non-normative style). However, they are ineffective because of their inability to make sound decisions. Ambivalence is the term which is used to describe the manner in which compromisers act and decisions are normally taken based on the most recent or heaviest pressure. This leads to a style focusing on minimizing immediate issues rather than taking the steps which can be needed for maximizing long-term production. The compromisers are particularly interested in staying on the good side of those people whom they believe can have the largest influence on their career.

Executive – Managers using the executive style see their job as maximizing the efforts of their subordinates with respect to both short-term and long-term tasks. The executive is committed to both task and relationship orientations (i.e., the ‘integrated’ latent non-normative style) and this is obvious to everyone in the organization. The managers seek to act as a powerful motivator, sets high standards for production and performance and is willing and able to treat subordinates differently in order to get results and create personal satisfaction for as many people as possible within the organization. The ability of the managers to get results from both task and relationship orientations makes them extremely effective.

While Reddin referred to the eight styles as ‘more’ or ‘less’ effective he has counseled that the proper focus is to be on ‘style demands of the situation’ to which the managers are in. The ‘demands’ are a function of the style demands of the job, the style demands of the top management, which are derived from the organizational philosophy and the top management’s own preferred style’ and the style demands of the subordinates, which are derived from their expectations and their own styles. Reddin noted, for example, that in jobs where an orientation to routine is necessary the ‘separated’ style of ‘bureaucracy’ can be most effective, however, if the separated style is used in an aggressive sales organization, it is likely to take the form of the ‘deserter’.

Leave a Comment