Effective Managerial Styles in Today's Global Environment - Literature review Example

Effective Managerial Styles Management effectiveness is inherent in the organizations people and their ability to maximize resources. In todays strategic organizations, managers are the key to organizational effectiveness and survival. They are responsible for counteracting different perspectives such as competitiveness, conflict resolution, resource maximization, organizational progress etc. Managerial styles greatly influence the development of these aspects and contribute towards strategic management. Different managerial styles exist for different organizations, situations and requirements. Moreover, they differ in culture, perspectives and dimensions in the global arena as well. For these reasons, the researcher finds it interesting to conduct the following research to find out the dynamics of effective managerial styles. Introduction In todays global environment, organizations strive from various perspectives to gain competitive advantage in order to survive the competition. Using strategic management firms can develop organizational strategies to effectively allocate resources, expand or diversify business in the international through mergers or joint ventures, or even to avoid a hostile takeover (David 2007). The aim is to maximize new opportunities by incurring limited cost. For this purpose, organizations need to have an efficient infrastructure, as well as be effective strategy implementers. Unlike earlier management practitioners, today’s strategy development and strategic implementation are channelled to all levels of business functional areas and people (David 2007). Organizations today, as Scholes, K. et al (2005) explains, need to understand their true strengths in order to compete successfully in the world. Core competencies must be identified and enhanced, skills and technologies must be integrated, and capabilities must be embodied within the subsystems to address innovation, architecture, reputation and strategic effectiveness. Who else is more equipped in dealing with these issues than the leading individuals within the firm? Managers are no longer the delegation medium, but are key to strategic success, which is why more studies are emphasizing on development of leadership styles within organizations today. It is within this context that the researcher shall endeavour to conduct a literature review in the following section, with the aim to outline how managerial styles affect organizations performance, strategy, and structure in the global environment, especially in the United Kingdom. An attempt shall also be made to study how the Western styles differ from Asian managerial styles. Literature Review Strategic Management Managers are taught to be global and local. They need to develop collaborative, competitive, adaptive and effective people skills. While accomplishing these skills is easy, practicing them is just as difficult. Indeed, managers are the key to covert management and organizational leadership (Gosling and Mintzberg 2003; Mintzberg 1998). Today, the manager is no longer different from the leader. In fact, they may be one and the same with work involving assuming interpersonal roles, informational roles and decision roles. The roles are embedded in the managers relative role within the organization including negotiation, motivation, conflict resolution, decision-making, and information dissemination (Mintzberg 2003). The managers job is no longer functional, but strategic in nature, and is governed by the core job, framework of the job and the agenda therein such as information disbursement, people management or managing external environments (Mintzberg 1994). Leadership is considered to be a critical success factor for sustaining continuous improvement in organizations today. For this reason leaders in the form of managers are considered to have a strategic role in sustaining quality and performance improvement, whether organizations belong to the private or public sector; operating in a local or international environment (Osseo-Asare, Longbottom and Murphy 2005). Kanji and Tambi (2002) in their work emphasize on the role of leadership in sustaining organizational standard of quality underlying strategic management and processes (See Figure 1) Figure 1 Source: Osseo-Asare, Longbottom and Murphy 2005 Effective leadership, therefore, is inherent in the position influence, behavioural influence and power influence leaders have on organizational practice and its strategic objectives (Osseo-Asare, Longbottom and Murphy 2005; Haberberg 2005). Leadership and the Organization Leaders managerial styles differ from each other, depending on the type of organization (private or public), department, nature of the business (technology, agriculture, service), industry, environment (Asian, Western, Middle East) and/or a combination of these factors. While some managers differ in their styles from others based on the culture prevalent within the organization (Howes et al 2003), others differ in their approach to management due to the nature of their work, role, situation, function, or attitudes (Pettinger 2004; Lynch 2003). The dynamic nature of leadership and its literature, therefore, allows one to evaluate leadership from multiple perspectives. Higgs (2003), for example, outlines several frameworks for evaluating leaders based on “long line in retrospect, leadership traits, behavioural and situational perspectives, charismatic approach, and transformational and transactional basis” (Higgs 2003, p.275). Clearly, there is no one approach that one can consider for leaders management style as conclusive or effective. Consequently, one could say that leaders management style or managerial style depends on the relationship of the manager within the context in which they operate within the organization. Though recent leadership studies focus on transformational and transactional styles (Bass 1990), the others cannot be ignored in the broader spectrum. Nevertheless, they all demonstrate characteristics of being goal-oriented, involving, engaging, committed and adaptable to change (Dulewicz and Higgs 2005). Thus, leadership can be defined as Armstrong suggests: Leadership happens "when there is an objective to be achieved or a task to be carried out, and when more than one person is needed to do it. All managers are by definition leaders in that they can only do what they have to do with the support of their team, who must be inspired or persuaded to follow them...." (Armstrong 1990, p.165). In this context, leadership or managerial styles depends on the relevant contingencies which affect managers, such as their personal characteristics, task or objectives to be achieved, team they work with, management processes, role expectations, situation, national culture, and upper management and subordinates trust in managers to assume their responsibilities (Morden 1997). Their relationship with their organization is intrinsic. UK Managerial Styles Perhaps except for inspirational and charismatic leadership, the rest of leadership styles are applicable to and adopted by managers. Therefore, managerial styles can be strategic or supervisory in nature, according to Nicholls (1994). According to the author, managerial leadership is inherent in the managers nominal position of getting things done through others. However, this edict has changed drastically over the years, and reshaped what one understands of the role of managers and their efficacy in leading the organization through the 21st century. According to Baruch and Lessem (1995), management styles are broadly categorized into eight dimensions of personality. Managers styles can be derived from cognitive, affective, behavioural, thinking, feeling, and willingness to do personalities. From this, the authors derived managerial styles as follows: - Innovative managers have the ability to create something; the drive to propel the organization forward; and the compulsion to instil creative learning among groups. They are visual and expressive in their management style. - Developmental managers recognize and harness the forces of people, product and marketing into progressive streams. They have the ability to suppress or counteract conflict, and channel the energy of the organization into cooperation and interdependence by facilitating teamwork. - Analytical managers usually assume the functional role of the objective identifier in an otherwise biased or bureaucrat organization. They have the ability to critically evaluate situations, plans, deals and the future using methodical, purposeful and deliberative approach. - Enterprising managers tend to focus on exploitation of new opportunities, business dimensions and allocate resources accordingly. They are usually effective in responding to competition, risk and new venture situations. They tend to learn quickly, initiate, and are energized by new business endeavours. - Managers of change are usually intellectual in nature, and usually act as the cornerstone for change promotion through networking, learning and experimenting. - Action managers are the productive type of individuals who are implementers, rather than deliberators. They tend to react fast in situations, and depend largely on their intuition. - Adoptive managers are individuals who usually adopt the environment or culture in which they work, and use it as the management strategy to drive others towards organizational objectives. - People managers are usually associated with managers who deal with culture, people and situations which are non-threatening in nature. (Baruch and Lessem 1995 p.35) Contingent with these managerial styles, Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) outline different leadership styles adopted by managers including autocratic, bureaucratic, laissez-faire, charismatic, democratic, participative, situational, transactional and transformational leadership. They are of the view that although not all of these leadership styles are effective or applicable in true management cadre, they are, nevertheless, adopted by organizations depending on situations and organizations (Rad and Yarmohammadian 2006). Indeed, Ellinger, Hamlin and Beattie (2008) are of the view that autocratic, directive, controlling and dictatorial styles are ineffective managerial approaches for communication, dissemination of information, and influencing employees. This is perhaps because these managerial styles are predominantly adopted in public organizations where effective management is not dependent on the managers ability to influence workers, but based on their ability to create incentive programmes to motivate employees, minimizing workplace problems, minimizing costly political decisions, and the fact that management processes are not easy to manoeuvre (Tilden and Kleiner 2005). Instead, managerial effectiveness is inherent in their emotional development and intelligence. Kialegee and Woolf (1996) draw their premise from the fact that leadership and management are overlapping in conceptualization. The capacity of individuals emotional development and individual defence mechanisms are critical for mobilizing action, making decisions and estimating problem resolutions. Their theoretical framework has been derived from Golemans (1998) concept of emotional intelligence, in which leaders are considered to be effective if they control, plan, inspect and monitor the organization by inspiring their juniors, and create a sense of contribution among teams (Goleman 1998; Mackenzie and Welch 2005). This style falls into the category of transformational leadership which is widely adopted by todays managers in organizations. Transformational leaders involve subordinates and engage them in true commitment. On the other hand, transactional leaders are contingent to situations and events in the organization. Nevertheless, theorists (Bass 1990; Kotter 1990) agree that both transactional and transformational leadership styles are required in organizations to manage change or any undergoing events. In the UK, transformational leadership has gained much enthusiasm, perhaps due to the culture of shareholder value and marketplace competency, and secondly of people management. The rationale for the adoption of transformational leadership is that the workforce needs to be developed to motivate people to deliver better customer service, committed to the organizations development and value contribution (Alimo-Metcalfe and Lawler 2001). Yet, one cannot ignore transactional leaders. For example, Lee-Kelley (2002) maintains that companies are constantly facing pressure on price, satisfaction and shortening product cycles. For this reason, advancement in information and communication technology demand a different type of management approach to achieve organizational goals. Project management, for example, require a different type of managerial style to manage projects, situations, change, people and resources. The managers role is to protect the technical integrity of the project without risking financial resources. Moreover, Schneider and Littrells study (2003) sums up managerial styles in UK as traditional and focussed on social and practical skills. UK managers are more polite, frank, self-disciplined and concerned with interpersonal skills for persuading subordinates. Their ethnocentric attitudes allow them to be adaptive towards foreigners. They are individualistic, task-oriented, and committed to their careers than their roles. This is perhaps derived from the English culture of mechanistic and organic management style. Mechanistic styles refer to task-oriented managers who specialize in management by interacting within the hierarchy. Organic managers are used to performing their jobs based on their knowledge of the work and the firm. Their roles are consistent with the organizations structures and interaction (Schneider and Littrell 2003). To emphasize, Oshagbemi and Ocholi (2006) also found that UK managers can be grouped into practical leaders or unity leaders. Practical leaders demonstrate behavioural characteristics such as delegation, individual consideration and inspirational motivation. They favour cordial relationships with subordinates and emphasize on training and development. Culture, sex and age do pose as barriers to these managers. On the other hand, unity managers are characterized by consultative behaviour, lead their organization through intellectual and participative stimulation, and derive work satisfaction through unity at all levels of management. Asian Managerial Styles While a leadership management style may be effective in one culture, it may be otherwise in another. Experts have found that cultural context influences managerial styles and its effectiveness. Traits, behaviour, organizational power and politics often differ from group to group. Likewise, managerial style in the UK may greatly differ from those of Asians. For these reasons, conflict often occurs and results in inefficacy, especially in multinational organizations operating in foreign environments or foreign managers working in a foreign firm abroad. Rodsutti and Swierczek (2002) are of the view that organizational culture comprising of ideals, norms, and values are symbolic to management and are powerful tools for enhancing organizational effectiveness. In Asian countries, the customs, values, perception and inter-cultural relationships differ from those of Western values. Indeed, Pheng and Leong (2001) Asian management style is influenced by group behaviour, as well as unique organizational styles. For this reason, autocratic-democratic model of contingency approach is often adopted by Asian managers to influence subordinates to carry out organizational strategic plans. Managers use coercive, knowledge and persuasive power to influence subordinates. However, even though Asian managers are culturally different, they are similar to the UK managers in that they are characterized by individualism-collectivism, according to Hofstedes dimensions of cultural differences (2001). This means that in collective societies like those existent in Asian countries, group behaviour determines relationships of power distance. Managers in these countries need to maintain a system of checks and balances in order to curb power abuse (Hofstede 1984). Chinese managers, for example, avoid conflict, and tend to shy from rationale arguments. Instead, they find it easier to relate to self-respect and individual connections within the group is given more preference (Fu and Yukl 2000; Selmer 1997). Similarly, Yousef (1998) identifies differences in decision-making style among Middle East Asian managers which is linked with the managerial value system in the Eastern parts of the world. They differ from Far-East Asian style in that Middle Eastern Asian managers prefer participative and pseudo-consultative styles which are similar to UK managerial styles. Perhaps, the similarities of some Eastern and Western management styles derive from the colonization of Western countries and globalization. Kakabadse, Myers and Okazaki-Ward (1996) find that Japanese managerial styles are based on responses to attitudinal and behavioural issues. Their management styles are categorized into business drivers, policy-makers and implementers. They are, however, inconsistent in their intrinsic details such as the necessity to develop team relationships as motivation tools, willingness to face strategic challenges, and the importance of goal-oriented approach to management; which are some aspects that Japanese differ from British managers. To clarify, Fukushige and Spicer (2007) can be taken into account to explain that Japan differs from the Western culture in leadership approaches. The authors are of the view that Japanese leaders display management-by-exception and laissez-faire more as compared to their Western counterparts. This means that Japanese managers are only effective under certain situations, or under conditions of deviation. They tend to take corrective measures when mistakes or errors occur, while they prefer to lead passively and allow individuals to initiate work. They are moderate in power distance and individualism, yet they are averse to risks and uncertainty. This management style is transactional in nature, and hence, is considered ineffective by Western leaders (Avalio and Bass 2002). Summary of Findings In the above literature review, the researcher has attempted to look at the different managerial styles in the UK and Asian managerial styles, and see how effective both are from different authors views. The literature identifies the importance of leadership in todays global organizations, in which strategic management is the key to success and survival. Unlike traditional perception, managers and leaders, in most cases, have the same or similar approaches to management. Managers are key to the organizations strategic achievement, and their individual styles greatly contribute towards its effectiveness and efficiency. There is a clear demarcation between the UK and Asian style of management. In the UK, managerial styles are predominantly transformational with emphasis on pragmatic approach to dealing with day to day activities and unity in decision-making. While similar characteristics are upheld in Asian managerial styles, they are more collective and focussed on value systems. Bibliography Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Lawler, J. (2001) Leadership development in UK companies at the beginning of the 21st century. Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol. 15 No. 5 pp. 387-404. Armstrong, M., (1990) How to Be an Even Better Manager,Kogan Page, London. Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2002), Developing Potential Across a Full Range Leadership: Cases on Transactional and Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Baruch, Y. and Lessem, R. (1995) Managerial development through self and group evaluation of managerial style. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 34-39. Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stodghill Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Applications, Free Press, New York, NY. David, F.R. (2007) Strategic Management: Concepts and cases. 11th Ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2005) Assessing leadership styles and organisational context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 105-123 Ellinger, A. D., Hamlin, R. G. and Beattie, R. S. (2008) Behavioural indicators of ineffective managerial coaching: A cross-national study. Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 240-257 Fu, P.P. and Yukl, G. (2000) Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States of America. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 251-66. Fukushige, A. and Spicer, D. P. (2007) Leadership preferences in Japan: an exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 508-530 Goleman, D. (1998) Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury Publishing, London. Gosling, J. and Mintzberg, H. (Nov 1, 2003) The Five Minds of a Manager. Harvard Business Review. Haberberg, A. (2005) The Strategic Management of Organisations. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Higgs, M. (2003) How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24/5 pp. 273-284 Hofstede, G. (1984) Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 81-99. Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Howes, R. et al (2003) Strategic management applied to international construction. London: Thomas Telford. Johnson, G. Scholes, K. et al (2005) Exploring Corporate strategy: text and cases. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Kakabadse, A., Myers, A. and Okazaki-Ward, L. (1996) Japanese managers operating in Europe: implications for international management and Japanese secondees. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20/7 pp. 10–16 Kanji, G.K. and Tambi, A.M. (2002), Business Excellence in Higher Education, Kingsham, Chichester. Khaleelee, O. and Woolf, R. (1996) Personality, life experience and leadership capability. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17/6 pp. 5–11 Kotter, J. (1990) A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, Free Press, London. Lee-Kelley, L. (2002) Situational Leadership. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 461-476. Littrell, R. F. and Schneider, J. (2003) Leadership preferences of German and English managers. Journal of Management Development Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 130-148 Lynch, R. (2003) Corporate Strategy. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Mackenzie, I. and Welch, P. (2005) Leading from the heart: Developing emotionally intelligent leadership. Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 13-14. Mintzberg H, Quinn JB, Ghoshal S. (1995) The Strategy Process. Prentice Hall: London Mintzberg, H. (1994) Rounding out the Managers Job. Leadership and Organizational Studies. Fall Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 11–25 Mintzberg, H. (Nov 1, 1998) Covert Leadership: Notes on Managing Professionals. Harvard Business Review. Mintzberg, H. (Nov 1, 2003) The Managers Job: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business Review. Morden, T. (1997) Leadership as competence. Management Decision, 35/7 pp. 519–526 Nicholls, J. (1994) The “Heart, Head and Hands” of Transforming Leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 8-15 Ocholi, S. A. and Oshagbemi, T. (2006) Leadership styles and behaviour profiles of managers. Journal of Management Development Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 748-762 Osseo-Asare, A., Longbottom, D. and Murphy, W. D. (2005) Leadership best practices for sustaining quality in UK higher education from the perspective of the EFQM Excellence Model. Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 148-170. Pettinger, R. (2004) Contemporary Strategic Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Pheng, L. S. and Leong, C. H. Y. (2001) Asian management style versus western management theories: a case study in construction project management. Work Study Volume 50. Number 1 pp. 13±22 Rad, A. M. and Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006) A study of relationship between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. xi-xxviii Rodsutti, M. C. and Swierczek, W. (2002) Leadership and organizational effectiveness in multinational enterprises in Southeast Asia. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23/5 pp. 250-259. Selmer, J. (1997) Differences in leadership behaviour between expatriate and local bosses as perceived by their host country national subordinates. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 18/1 pp. 13–22 Tilden, C. and Kleiner, B. H. (2005) Effective Management of State Employees. Management Research News, Vol. 28 Number 11/12 pp. 45 Youself, D. A. (1998) Predictors of decision-making styles in a non-western country. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19/7 pp. 366–373 Read More