Participative vs Authoritarian Management - Essay Example

BMGT 391 Participative Management vs itative Management March 15, 2009 2009 The problem of management style What is management style? An extremely important charactertistics of effectiveness of manager is management style used by leader in a company or a team. The researchers have been studying management styles for several decades now, and there are a number of theories concerning this matter. Every manager in the process of his work implements management style that is determined by the ways he stimulates his team to work, motivates them, controls their performance etc. This management style can serve as a measure of the quality of manager’s work, his ability to ensure effective management and create good atmosphere within the team. Management style is characterised by the degree of empowerment of team members, his focusing either on people or tasks, etc. The correct and appropriate management style is able to yield very good results. What influences the selection of management style? Management style is in many aspects the product of individual personal traits of the manager; however this does not mean there are no other components influencing it. These components constitute subjective part of the management style, yet it always has a common objective basis. Objectively, whichever management style is chosen by the manager, this choice is determined by the goal, the team and the situation. In modern management theory there is a statement that the choice of a model of managing a company is a very important task ensuring the company or team’s efficiency and prosperity. Situational theories of management and the notions of authoritative and participative management styles A lot of management theories have been developed during the decades of studying the very phenomenon of managing people. Some of these theories singled out, among others, authoritative and participative management styles which were often contrasted to each other. For example, Likert’s System 4 theory of management named four broad management styles which were “forming a continuum, with autocratic, task-centered leadership at one end and democratic, participative, employee-centered at the other”. (Morris&Pavett 1992, 169) W. Schneider identified four types of orgnisational cultures (control, collaboration, competence, and cultivation) (cited from: Schulz, J.W., Hauck, L.C.& Hauck, R.M. 2001, 2), and each of them presupposes the prevalence of particular management style. Authoritative managers are characteristic for control cultures with their order, predictability and conservatism and participative managers often can be found in the companies with collaboration culture that treasure the quality of relationships and aim to build highly cohesive teams with hight participation in running the company. Forecasting a manager’s effectiveness is much more difficult than e.g. determining personal traits that are the most characteristic for the leaders. Situational factors were eventually taken into consideration – and that is how situational theories of management occurred. The connection between management and leadership style and effectiveness of the manager presupposed that certain style a is suitable in certain situations x, whereas the style b is suitable in the situations y. One of the most widely used and consistent approaches to the issue of management style is the “path-goal theory” developed by Robert House – this is the situational model of management whose essence is in the presupposition that the manager should help his subordinates in achieving their goals and ensure support or/and control necessary to correlate these goals with the goals of team or company. House also determined four models of manager’s behaviour, two of them being authoritative (directive) leader and participative leader. (Path-Goal theory 2009, np) Authoritative leader, in accordance with House’s theory, makes sure that the subordinates understand what is expected from them, and gives to them directions and recommentations concerning how to fo their work and how to plan it. Participative leader advises with his subordinates on all issues and takes into account their opinions while taking decisions. House’s “path-goal” theory includes the thesis that managers can be flexible, and one and the same leader can demonstrate any of the four behaviour models in different situations. Authoritative management should be preferred when the tasks set to the employees are dubious and the deadlines ae tense, whereas it would not be appropriate if people are highly gifted and have long-term experience of work in the field. Authoritative management is also good in case there is a conflict within the team. Participative management style is good for employees with internal locus of control, whereas authoritative management style is often preferred by those with external one. Authoritative vs participative management style General information One of the criteria according to which management styles are differentiated is participation of subordinates in management of the company. Three main styles have been singled out by the researchers: authoritative (when the manager takes decision and commands, and the employees obey) and participatory (when all employees participate to a certain extent in decision-taking process). Authoritative management style presupposes that all decisions are taken by the director (CEO), as a rule, without prior consulting other colleagues. Even if other people discuss the matter, their opinion is hardly taken into consideration at the end, and to decide is entirely up to the top manager. “Managers with the "firm but fair" authoritative style tend to provide direction, tactfully, but without leaving any doubt as to what is expected or who makes the final decisions. They solicit some subordinate input. They persuade subordinates by explaining the "whys" behind directions or decisions, in terms of either the subordinates or the organizations best interest. Authoritative managers monitor task performance and balance positive and negative feedback”. (Bakhtari 1995, 97) Participative style is characterized by the open and transparent character of the decision-making process, wide circle of people discussing the problems and collective ways of taking a decision. “Managers with a "participative," democratic style tend to consider specific direction and close supervision unnecessary when trust has been established. They believe subordinates should participate in decisions that affect their work and prefer to make decisions by consensus. They reward adequate performance and rarely punish or give negative feedback. They hold many meetings and listen to subordinates”. (Bakhtari 1995, 97) Participative management is the most democratic way of managing a company. Many companies nowadays use this management style as its effects upon people’s performance are astounding. The matter is that creating for a worker the opportunities to really produce an impact upon the company’s important matters leads to satisfying this worker’s need in self-actualisation, creativity and recognition; besides, it raises people’s interest to work and satisfaction from it. All this inevitably leads to each worker’s striving to really make a difference and contribute more significantly into the company’s performace. Participative management presupposes that all workers make their contribution into taking management decision beyond the limits of their job functions. Participation of each worker in managing the company is influenced by a number of important factors: above all, there are particular conditions that facilitate or prevent different categories of workers from taking part in management; there is also information that each worker has access to concerning each problem (important aspects are the quality of this information, as well as frequency, transparency and channels of communication); certain “psychological climate” within the company; each worker’s motives that make him participate in company’s management, etc. In other words, there are certain stimuli that regulate each worker’s behaviour in this sphere, which can vary from economic interest, relationships withint the team or company, expectations, the need to be recognized, the desire to make a difference, the striving to creativity, the feeling of responsibility for the wider community, etc. The size of workers’ impact into taking a management decision may vary. The most effective environment for participation in decision-making process is every worker’s team. The impact of the worker upon the bigger system (team, department, company) can be realized in different spheres: from industrial and technical to organizational or economic. Also, each worker can make his impact in a variety of different ways: he may come up with ideas and proposals, object to the ideas of others or approve them, make changes into these ideas, etc. Subcategories of authoritative and participative management style Authoritative style of management has several subcategories: - dictatorship style – when a manager takes decisions solely by himself and his subordinates only obey his orders under the threat of being penalised; - authocratic – when a manager controls the mechanism of power; - bureaucratic – when management’s authority is based of formal hierarchical system; - patriarchal – when the authority of manager is something like “the father in the family” and his employees trust him totally; - benevolent – manager uses his personal traits and that is how he gains authority among his stuff. Participative style of management can also exist in different variants: - communicational style – when a manager has problems taking decisions, he informs his team, and then people ask questions and tell their opinion; however at the end they are supposed to follow management’s instructions; - consultative style – in general it is the same as communication style but decisions are taken together after discussion; - common decision – the manager sets the problem and states restrictments, and the workers take decisions themselves, whereas the manager retains the right of veto. The best style of management: is there such a notion? Some theoreticians of management claim that there is a certain hierarchy of management styles, and often consider authoritative style less effective than participating. There is a belief that authoritative style of management is only good for large hierarchical organizations, like those created during the Industrial Revolution in the USA at the end of the 1800s. (Houghton 1993, 62) After one of the best-selling books about the “success stories” of the world’s greatest companies – Maverick by Ricardo Semler – was released, many companies started implementing participative management style, and, as Semler states himself in his book, this did not work for all of the companies, notwithstanding the fact that he himself sticks to this management style at Semco. (Semler 1995) Today more and more researchers start speaking about the flexibility of management: there are a lot of articles about the topic, and situational leadership trainings are very popular as well. To my strong belief, for the manager-practitioner, studying these multiple theories of situational leadership will hardly yield any significant result, but what is really important is for him to understand that the more flexible he can be, the more “different” strategies of bevaviour he can use, the less problems with managing his staff he will encounter. The bottom line is - the manager should be able to be different! Strict, honest, open, humane, controlling, creating comfort, delegating, empowering… etc. And above all – flexible, and able to “switch onto” varius management styles depending on the situation. Why? Let us imagine that the life of the manager is completely clear and predictable: all of his subordinates are more or less the same, the external environment does not change or changes very slowly and in total conformity with forecasts, with no unexpected situations and surprises… I personally have not heard of any successful manager who would want to work in these “ideal” circumstances, as this puts under question the necessity of managing people as such. A manager’s work presupposes that the task is done not by an abstract performer but by a particular person with his own knowledge, skills, ambitions, wishes, etc. And that is why manager’s flexibility is one of his most important professional skills. I’ve encountered situations in some companies when a manager, effectively interacting with a certain type of emplopyees, completely fails in communicating with the others, as some of their personal characteristics stand in the way of mutual understanding and effective collaboration. Hence – conflicts, strikes, opposition, struggling for the power, and other desctuctive issues. By knowing how to use different management styles the manager can easily “find the key” to any of his staff. Many managers, especially the “green” ones, show proneness to one particular style of management – however, sometimes this also happens to experienced bosses. The examples from real business show that the correctly selected management style allows the manager to distribute his own and employees’ resources, including his own emotions, and avoiding the extremes – both extensive and unsufficient management. It is very important that, having chosen a relevant style of management, the manager allows as much time and effort to setting tasks and controlling their implementation as required – not more and not less. In the companies where a manager is a master of different management styles, the motivation and performance of personnel are usually high. This happens because the manager is able to correctly determine which of his staff members should only be given the direction of activity, which of them need detailed instructions, and which require constant moral support. Let us look at some examples taken from real companies and see how the theory is implemented in managers’ day-to-day work, and how it works. Example 1. Ms C., Head of one of the key departments of a major financial structure, is a bright example of authoritative manager. Imperative, authoritative, completely intolerant to any objections on the part of employees, knowing the answer to any question – she is a true “iron lady”. She always gives to her staff detailed instructions of what and how they should do. She believes that people go to office with the only goal to work, and all emotions should be left at home. She also believes that she should constantly keep an eye upon the employees as they do not deserve to be trusted. Her complaints are that, notwithstanding her more than clear and detailed instructions, her people are working under the lash, are not professional enough, demonstrate blatant sabotage and ungratefulness, and the turn-over is high. Her version of what is going wrong: initial selection and hiring of personnel. Example 2. Mr S. is a perfect sample of a manager with participative management style. He manages the HR department of an advertising holding. He is sure that all people working in an organization are high-class professionals, and to his opinion, there are enough instructions for his staff in the official papers, and the key task of him as their manager is to maintain their motivation, inspire them, and keep them loyal to the company. He admits that motivating personnel is quite expensive for the company, and that many of workers abuse good attitude towards them, and are trying to always make the most of the situation to get personal profit (both material and non-material). He, however, hopes that his staff will listen to the working of their conscience before doing anything that might harm the company. Example 3. Ms M. is Head of sales department of an IT company. He manages a team of sales assistants working in the В2В segment. According to her, the profession of a sales assistant is very creative. Her managerial and life experience assured him that if her staff has to work under pressure, people will stop being initiative, and will begin treating their job formally. That is why, according to her, her main task as a manager is to create all conditions necessary for staff’s comfort work. Together with that, she spends quite a lot of time talking to her people and trying to get across to them what is expected from their work, the evaluation criteria, etc. She also tries to implement a personalized approach towards every member of staff and explain to them the connection between their personal goals and the goals of the sales department and the company. She notes that people’s overall performance has increased, and the only problem is that sometimes talking to staff takes up too much time. So, which style is better? I would say, the best management style if the most effective one, and effectiveness is achieved by perfect combination of taking into account both people’s interests and the interests of the organization. Conclusion The two basic management styles – authoritative and participating – both have their advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of style is normally determined by leader’s beliefs, personal traits, nature of work, team’s characteristics, etc. All in all, a signigicant breakthrough in understanding management styles happened due to the acknowledgment of the necessity to develop situational theories and take into account situational factors. The examples taken from real business prove that there is no such a thing as “the best” management style. One of the main “virtues” of a manager is flexibility – i.e. the ability to implement different management styles when necessary. References Bakhtari, Hassan. (1995). Cultural effects on management style: a comparative study of American and Middle Eastern management styles. International studies of management & organization, 25 (3), 97 – 103. Houghton, J.R. (1993). Its time for a new management system. USA Today, 121 (2574), 62. Morris, T. & Pavett, C.M. (1992). Management style and productivity in two cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (1), 169 – 173. Path-goal theory. (2009). Retrieved March 17, 2009 from 12manage website: http://www.12manage.com/methods_path_goal_theory.html Schulz, J.W, Hauck, L.C. & Hauck, R.M. (2001). Using the power of corporate culture to achieve results: a case study of Sunflower Electric power corporation. Management Quarterly, 42 (2), 2 – 8. Semler, R. (1995). Maverick: the success story behind the worlds most unusual workplace. Grand Central Publishing. Simmons, J. (1999, November/December). Participation provides hope for the new millennium. Journal for Quality & Participation, 22 (6), 64. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from UMUC Academic library database. Steinheider, B. & Wuestewald, T. (2008, May). From the bottom-up: sharing leadership in a police agency. Police Practice & Research, 9 (2), 145 – 163. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from UMUC Academic library database. Read More