Management Styles and Structures
This long document is a collection of some useful work on the Internet concerning
management styles and structures. As can be seen I have taken virtually everything
verbatim and I have duly acknowledged all sources for all examples.
I have tried to include as broad a sweep as possible so that there is something here for
the 15 or 16 year old who is studying management styles and structures and there is
something for the engineer or scientist who is beginning to study management science
for the first time.
I have deliberately included some theory, some practical and real life examples and
some diagrams and charts: taken as a package this page is a sort of readings page.
I found a good history of management thinking throughout the 20th Century and that
could prove to be a very useful document for teacher and student alike.
I should point out that there is some repetition here but that is also deliberate in that I
have left, eg, McGregor’s Theory X and Y wherever it appeared on a page since the
pages I used tend to add to the X and the Y rather than just presenting them and
leaving it at that.
My two contributions to this document are:
I have reformatted many of the contributions so that there should be no
reading and printing issues
I have chosen what appears here so that I might be seen as an anthologer
rather than a plagiarist!
Participatory Management Style
The premise of the participatory management style is the belief that the worker can
make a contribution to the design of their own work. The belief system that lead
managers to this conclusion was originally put forth as a management theory by
McGregor, who called it Theory Y. Theory Y advocates believe that workers are
internally motivated. They take satisfaction in their work, and would like to perform
at their best. Symptoms of indifference are a result of the modern workplace, which
restricts what a worker can do and separates him from the final results of his efforts. It
is management’s job to change the workplace so that the worker can, once again,
recapture his pride of workmanship. Elements of Theory Y are evident in Deming’s
discussion of the role of a manager of people, presented earlier.
Managers who practice the participatory style of management tend to engage in
certain types of behaviour. To engage the workers they establish and communicate the
purpose and direction of the organization. This is used to help develop a shared vision
of what the organization should be, which is used to develop a set of shared plans for
Page 1 of 30
achieving the vision. The manager’s role is that of a leader. By her actions and words
she shows the way to her employees. She is also a coach, evaluating the results of her
people’s efforts and helping them use the results to improve their processes. She
works with the leaders above her in the organization to improve the organization’s
systems and the organization as a whole.
Autocratic Management Style
The premise of the autocratic management style is the belief that in most cases the
worker cannot make a contribution to their own work, and that even if they could,
they wouldn’t. McGregor called the belief system that leads to this mindset Theory X.
Under Theory X workers have no interest in work in general, including the quality of
their work. Because civilization has mitigated the challenges of nature, modern man
has become lazy and soft. The job of mangers is to deal with this by using "carrots
and sticks." The "carrot" is usually a monetary incentive, such as piece-rate pay
schemes. The "stick" is docked pay for poor quality or missed production targets.
Only money and threats can motivate the lazy, disinterested worker.
The natural management style that a manager with this belief system would favour is
the autocratic management style. Autocratic managers attempt to control work to the
maximum extent possible. A major threat to control is complexity; complex jobs are
more difficult to learn and workers who master such jobs are scarce and possess a
certain amount of control over how the job is done. Thus, autocratic managers attempt
to simplify work to gain maximum control. Planning of work, including quality
planning, is centralized. A strict top-down, chain-of-command approach to
management is practiced. Procedures are maintained in exquisite detail and enforced
by frequent audits. Product and process requirements are recorded in equally fine
detail and in-process and final inspection are used to control quality.
Management By Wandering Around
Peters and Austin (1985, 8) call MBWA "The technology of the obvious." MBWA
addresses a major problem with modern managers: lack of direct contact with reality.
Many, perhaps most, managers don’t have enough direct contact with their
employees, their suppliers, or, especially, their customers. They maintain superficial
contact with the world through meetings, presentations, reports, phone calls, email,
and a hundred other ways that don’t engage all of their senses. This is not enough.
Without more intense contact the manager simply can’t fully internalize the other
person’s experience. They need to give reality a chance to make them really
experience the world. The difference between reality and many managers’ perception
of reality is as great as the difference between an icy blast of arctic air piercing thin
indoor clothing versus watching a weather report of a blizzard from a sunny beach in
MBWA is another, more personal way, to collect data. Statistical purists disdain and
often dismiss data obtained from opportunistic encounters or unstructured
observations. But the information obtained from listening to an employee or a
customer pour their heart out is no less "scientifically valid" than a computer printout
of customer survey results. And MBWA data is of a different type. Science has yet to
Page 2 of 30
develop reliable instruments for capturing the information contained in angry or
excited voice pitch, facial expressions, the heavy sigh—but humans have no trouble
understanding the meaning these convey in the context of a face-to-face encounter. It
may be that nature has hard-wired us to receive and understand these signals through
eons of evolution.
The techniques employed by managers who practice MBWA are as varied as the
people themselves. The important thing is to get yourself into direct contact with the
customer, employee, or supplier, up close and personal. This may involve visiting a
customer at his place of business, or bringing them to yours, manning the order desk
or complaint line every month, spontaneously sitting down with employees in the
cafeteria, either one-on-one or in groups, inviting the supplier’s truck driver to your
office for coffee. Use your imagination. One tip: be sure to schedule regular MBWA
time. If it’s not on your calendar, you probably won’t do it.
Management Style Matters
by Derek Breton
Which management style we choose to use depends on the situation. During an
earthquake, with no time for discussion, the need to take control is obvious. This is
not to say that ninety percent of the response and procedures cannot be worked
through to agreement with the participants prior to the event. This encourages self-
management and commitment, both desirable attributes in an emergency. But on the
day clear directions and concerted action are critical.
The selection of style will vary significantly depending upon the analysis of the
business you are in, the expectations of your clients and the present relationship
between staff and manager.
Here's a personal experience when the exercise of an autocratic style lead to a
I went into a Cabinet committee meeting some years ago with a proposal that we
knew was scientifically sound and compatible with government policies. I expected a
balanced discussion of the issues. Instead I was attacked by one of the senior
ministers with phrases such as 'Do you mean to tell me...?' and 'Are you seriously
proposing...?' delivered with a fierce glare, leaning forward with elbows on the table.
I was so surprised by the attack that I lost the thread of the discussion and was unable
to make a contribution. I left the meeting angry and with all my thinking diverted for
some days into recapturing the lost ground.
This response to adversarial behaviour is a common experience. It causes a diversion
of focus at the time and damages decision-making. The information we provided to
the Cabinet Committee was incomplete and the decision, not sustainable. I discovered
later that the minister in question was in the middle of a row with my own minister.
Page 3 of 30
Officials had to return at a later date to re-litigate the issue and the decision was
Inference: As a manager you are in a position of power in relation to your staff and
that is unavoidable it goes with the territory. And it's not neutralised by having an
open-door policy. The way you behave determines whether you use all the brains in
the room or only some of them or only your own. If you run the process badly, you
get a poor decision and you have to revisit it, and correct it. Confusing our frustration
over one issue with a discussion on another may lead to behaviour that damages an
unrelated decision. We have to learn to manage ourselves. There are consequences for
selecting the 'I make the decisions round here' style.
For many of us behaving in an autocratic manner is the natural way to behave when
we are appointed to a position of authority and responsibility. It is a product of our
experiences at home, at school and at work. Traditionally the concept of the manager
has been as a 'boss' who directs and controls subordinates to ensure that the required
result is achieved. At its most extreme the method of control is to have all- embracing
rules designed by the 'boss' that all subordinates must follow. The 'boss' gets many of
the new, interesting or challenging jobs. Other's mistakes are treated as failure and
everyone expects punishment from on high to result. In a workplace with autocratic
management it is common for such browbeating and blow-ups to occur. The belief is
that this will remove all risk of mistakes or failure and the results will be uniform.
Other characteristics are that the 'boss' attempts to supervise everyone all the time.
Form filling and clocking in and out remain ingrained and there is no feeling of
personal responsibility for the results. Nor for improving them in the future. These are
seen as the responsibility of the 'boss'. In this day and age a well-designed computer
managed process, could achieve the same results.
One of the people I worked with recounted his disaffection with his previous job.
'It was de-motivating, frustrating and affected my self-confidence. I never received
any positive feedback. I was closely supervised and given very little room to do
anything innovative or for which I had personal accountability. I had a feeling that my
manager did not think I was competent enough to have significant work delegated to
me, she was overworked and I was under-occupied! Even if she was right to have
doubts about my competence, there needed to be an agreed process for assessing
competency and coaching to improve performance.'
In the event, the staff member was lost to the organisation with the associated costs of
re-establishing a replacement. In a new environment, the same person gained self-
esteem and flourished. Additional participation in the work unit, and some changes in
management style encouraged the contribution of innovative ideas and the acceptance
of increased personal responsibility.
Inference: If people are managed as though they are incompetent, they will be. You
will never find out how competent they actually are. The staff will not contribute to
decision making, nor will they let the manager know when a decision is hazardous.
The manager will only find out when the last wheel falls off the wagon.
Page 4 of 30
Being subordinate to an autocratic manager is no fun. Job satisfaction is elusive, staff
turnover is high, adding to costs, and the manager keeps imposing new rules. For the
staff there is the thought that 'I know this won't work and (perhaps subconsciously) I'll
make sure it doesn't'.
Clearly there are attractions to autocratic management. The manager is seldom
challenged by staff. Decisions are made quickly and without dissent. There are
explicit rules reflecting the expectations of the manager and there are minimal grey
areas. The risks of failure are reduced for everyone and most tasks are carried out as
routine processing. If the services of the work unit are directed by Acts and
Regulations, the risks of being taken to court and losing are minimised. But if
managers play only by their own rules, they may as well play by themselves. The
team will never deliver results that match their capabilities.
Choosing your own Management Style
As I mentioned earlier, choosing a management style is a strategic decision. It should
be included in the regular planning cycle of the organisation and your work unit. The
process for determining the most suitable management style should follow the same
steps as are used in other strategic planning. For your enterprise this involves analysis
the environment you are working in
the expectations of all your stakeholders, and
your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
This analysis should lead to a clear definition of the attitudes, behaviours, skills and
knowledge of your staff that will bring about high performance in their jobs.
The selection of the most appropriate management style is derived from this analysis.
It is affected by the demands of clients, the type of work to be done and the individual
natures of your staff.
As occurs in other strategic situations you may plan to commence with one style and
as you make progress in implementing change, migrate to another. Whichever
management style we select as the most appropriate, it is essential that we behave
consistently. When this does not happen, then we hear the distressed cry, 'I never
know where I am'. Fretting about this unsettling issue diverts people from
concentrating on achieving the results expected of them.
Managing for Performance
The complexity of today's world makes it progressively more difficult to provide rules
for all situations. Furthermore, it is frequently not possible to provide full time
supervision of all staff. Many work away from the office for prolonged periods and
the costs of continuous supervision are exorbitant.
Page 5 of 30
More importantly, the organisation has a key expectation of their managers, which is
that they will change things for the better. This means better quality, faster, at less
cost, happier clients or customers, increased profit, improved environmental effects
and sustainability. Managers are expected to change things!
This raises the question of which style of management will achieve the highest
performance from the staff we manage and contribute most to the success of the
organisation. The performance of management as a boss or the extreme alternative of
abdication creates significant constraints on people's performance. How might
management style be designed to create exceptional performance?
Your planning process may suggest that a leadership style (coach, motivate, lead) is
most likely to deliver the results needed by the workplace. In line with our
commitment to consistency, leadership then needs to be applied to everything we do.
In the long run there is no one leadership style that suits any particular organisation.
Market circumstances change, internal circumstances change, external pressures
change, or alternatively there may be a period of stability. These factors mean that as
the business adapts to these different circumstances then the type of leader that is best
suited to the business will also alter. The type of management required to force
through restructuring or rebranding of an organisation, will be very different from the
management who most effectively oversee a period of stability.
The management styles we examine below may then be broadly suited to a particular
business form or structure, but there will be times when the style is easily transferable
to organisations that have previously been run in quite different ways.
Different Management or Leadership Styles.
Autocratic Leader. Gives orders which are to be obeyed without question. Probably
a theory X manager who has no time for consideration of Maslow's higher needs, or
Herzberg's motivating factors. This type of manager can be effective when rapid
restructuring is required, but to be effective he will rely upon a strictly hierarchical
Directive Leadership. Based on the idea that all managers in a chain of command are
supervisors. The directive manager will tell their direct subordinates what their roles
and tasks are and what is expected of them. He or she will provide a blueprint of how
to do a job, and will monitor performance and achievement of standards. This type of
management style is often applied when HRM is adopted by organisations, but it's
emphasis on control is given as one of the major reasons why Hard HRM policies
result in demotivation rather than the intended motivation.
Constitutional or Participative Leader. This type of manager consults with
subordinates in the decision making process. Subordinates are involved with
Page 6 of 30
managers in designing their jobs and the tasks involved. Ideally suited to
implementation of Soft HRM policies. Definitely a Theory Y manager
Missionary Leadership. Leaders driven by beliefs can be regarded as missionary
leaders. They must have an organisation and employees behind them that also have
the same set of beliefs. Steve Jobs at Apple Computers was a missionary leader
forcing the pace of change in the Personal Computer market. He was thrown out by
the board when his style of leadership was not seen as appropriate in a multi-billion
dollar company but after an absence of several years he was invited back to again lead
Apple and has been the driving force behind the launch of the interesting and different
iMac computers. Management Consultants and their employers are seen more and
more as Missionaries, selling their firm’s set of beliefs to those businesses that will
buy into them.
Laissez faire Leadership. The direct translation is 'leave well alone', and this is
exactly what they do. Middle managers and subordinates are just left to get on with
their jobs, and given the minimum of guidance, they succeed or fail on their own.
In the long run effective leadership is what makes businesses successful. But what
makes successful leadership is open to question. Different styles suit different
circumstances, and the same manager can use different styles with different groups of
workers, (Mayo and group dynamics). Managers can be task or people orientated, (see
HRM) and this orientation will dictate their approach to control, job design and
Leaders must plan, motivate and control, but how they best do this is a question of
circumstance. Using an autocratic style with a group of computer games developers
may be a mistake, but using the same style within the armed forces makes a great deal
Most successful leaders There is no point in
have a strong tendency having technical staff and
towards an autocratic advisors if you don't take
Page 7 of 30
style, for example Sir any notice of their
John Harvey-Jones, a top opinion. However
consultant who is sure of learned a manager is,
his knowledge and he/she should be able to
opinion and knows what rely on information staff
is good for a business. offer and must give them
He may be controversial, due consideration.
but he knows his stuff. Possibly more
A manager (or importantly, staff need to
consultant) needs to be feel that they contribute
autocratic, but at the right to the organisation's
times. A decisive, lead success and that they are
from the front is often a valued member of the
necessary to ensure team, this is one reason
everybody is pulling in why democratic
the same direct. management techniques
I believe I have the are required.
ability to make the right I believe I have a good
decisions when decisions balance between
are needed. democratic and autocratic
management styles. No
one style is right all the
time, both are needed on
the right occasion.
Leadership and Management Styles
Managers are autocratic. They make all the decisions and rarely delegate authority.
This form of leadership is common in the army or organisations where control is
important. It is also useful when dealing with students and pt workers. This form of
leadership might not suit everyone although maybe some.
Similar to an autocratic leadership style but decisions made in best interest of
Under this style of leadership and management, decisions are made in a democratic
manner. All people are included in the decision-making process and therefore might
Page 8 of 30
be motivated by this. This form of leadership could make decision-making slow and
therefore is not suited to some industries
McGregor's Theory X and Y
Managers believe workers are lazy, dislike work and want to be controlled. If
managers hold a theory x view, they are more likely to be autocratic.
Managers believe workers enjoy work as much as they do anything. If managers hold
a theory y view, they are more likely to be democratic.
The Move From Management To Leadership
Control to Consent
Efficiency to Effectiveness
Regulation to Relationships
Autocracy to Democracy
Evolutionary Change to Revolutionary Change
Doing things right to Doing the right thing
Certainty to Uncertainty
Autocratic management becomes democratic management where everyone wants a
say in what happens. A culture of Control becomes a culture of Consent. “Intelligent
organisations have to be run by persuasion and by consent.” (Handy 1995.) So
‘management’ becomes the art of influencing people.
WHERE DO WE GET OUR AUTHORITY FROM IN AN ORGANISATION?
LEGITIMATE power Power that comes from position, authority,
REWARD power Power to bestow e.g. promotion, praise
COERCION power Power to punish
EXPERT power They know more than you
REFERENT power Personal characteristics you admire
French and Raven quoted in Daft (1994):
There was a time when the past was a good guide to the future. Experience was
important. Received wisdom - the voice of experience was important. Change
happened, but it happened relatively slowly - incrementally. Evolutionary change.
Page 9 of 30
However, technology and economics have combined to create a situation where
change is a constant and is far reaching. Change is no longer always continuous and
evolutionary. The past has stopped being such a good guide to the future. Charles
Handy (1995) has coined the term DISCONTINUOUS CHANGE to describe what
organisations are facing today. Once the most important thing in an organisation was
DOING THINGS RIGHT.
Management (including personnel management) was there to make sure that things
were done properly. Guidelines, rules, Efficiency, Economy.
But now, more important than doing things right is being sure we are actually
DOING THE RIGHT THING. MANAGEMENT as control suddenly seems to be
insufficient. We need people who can INFLUENCE people to do what they want,
without forcing them. We want people to share a sense of purpose and direction with
the people they are responsible for. Those are features of LEADERSHIP rather than
Leading From The Side
What is interesting about the definitions of leadership is that they suggest leadership
can take place at any point in the organisation. It isn’t dependent on seniority or
position. A feature of leadership is that it is not tied to status and rank. You can lead
from anywhere in the organisation.
Leaders produce quality work Treat their work as a reflection of themselves.
set expectations Help a meeting move through an agenda. check
treat people as individuals and equals Never belittle. See value in everyone
develop others Don’t hog decisions. Let people take risks.
Bring people in
are never destructive Don’t back-stab
find the middle ground Seek win-win solutions
treat failures as learning opportunities Don’t condemn
give credit to others Constantly and consistently
are flexible and pragmatic Grasp new ideas
listen to others Know their own limitations. Pursue others’ ideas
Of a good leader...when the work is done, they will say „We did this ourselves
Functions Of Leadership Today?
To articulate an organisational (and personal) vision
To empower employees to grow, develop, be creative
To exemplify organisational values and beliefs.
To promote a belief in the purpose of the organisation
Page 10 of 30
History: 20th century management theories
1900s: Scientific management
1920s: Bureaucracy, Universalism
1930s: Human relations
1960s: Complex man, Management by objectives
1980s: Populist approaches, Empirical approaches
Time and motion
Scientific Management: Frederick W Taylor, 1900s
Each task scientifically and rationally optimised to improve productivity, eg shoveling
optimum shovel size
ideal coal size and type
Monetary incentives (piece work)
Ford Motor Company embraced Taylor's work
lines moved increasingly quickly
workers could stand the pace for only a couple of years
many others ready to take their place
See also Accel-Team.com's notes on Scientific Management
A record of a discussion thread about using money as an incentive for software
Universalism: Henri Fayol, 1920s
Page 11 of 30
Gulick: Planning, organising, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, budgeting
Terry: Planning, organising, directing, coordinating, controlling, leading
Note: Studies by Mintzberg and Kotter found successful managers spend little time
doing these. Instead they cultivate networks and personal contacts
Chain of command
Unity of command (one boss)
Span of control (optimum subordinates)
Minimum authority levels
Line and staff
Bureaucracy: Max Weber, 1920s
The need to achieve consistency gave rise to need for rules and regulations.
All tasks routine, each person expert, all transactions written
Regular activities distributed as fixed official duties
All activities follow the organisational hierarchy
Operations receive equal treatment under consistent system of abstract rules
Officials operate as formalistic personalities without becoming emotionally
Invented before bureaucracy became a bad word!
This approach has become discredited due to its own success!
Organisations find bureaucracy so appealing that it grows uncontrollably. The
organisation becomes more important than its purpose
Page 12 of 30
Once, the Italian government had 20 bureaus studying how to cut out much of its
Question: How does this compare with growth in use of methodologies?
Hawthorne experiments: Elton Mayo, 1930s and 40s
Experiments with consulting workers about work-place lighting levels improved
productivity for both the experimental and the control groups. Similar experiments
found productivity always improved, no matter what one changed
People are not the rational and economic beings assumed by classical theorists
Social interaction is important, and people work well if they feel valued
Hierarchy of needs: A H Maslow, 1950s and 60s
1. Biological: Hunger, warmth, rest
2. Safety: Protection from danger
3. Socialization: Love, affection, affiliation
4. Self-esteem: Autonomy, dignity, respect
5. Self-actualization: Realise one's potential through competence, creativity, and
We have looked at people from economic, social and self actualising stand-points
All of these approaches may be considered too simplistic
No single management style can succeed in improving the performance of all
Page 13 of 30
The motives of an individual may be extremely complex, and liable to change
A high level of satisfaction does not necessarily lead to increased productivity
(the other way round?)
Complex man: EH Schein, 1960s
Management by objectives
Management fundamentals: Peter Drucker, 1960s and 70s
Setting objectives for staff, and assessing achievement
Managing in turbulent times
Preparing to deal with sudden changes and take advantage of new situations
Leadership cf. management
The two ideas are closely related, but...
Management is usually viewed as getting things done through other people in
order to achieve stated organisational objectives.
The emphasis on leadership is on interpersonal skills in a broader context. It
is often associated with the willing and enthusiastic behaviour of followers.
Leadership does not necessarily take place within the hierarchical structure of
Leadership can be seen primarily as an inspirational process.
Leadership and power
Power is based on the subordinate's perception of the leader (Mullins, 1996)
Reward power: ability and resources to obtain rewards for those who comply,
eg pay, promotion, recognition, privileges.
Coercive power: ability to punish or to bring about undesirable outcomes, eg
withholding pay rises & promotion, withdrawing friendship, formal
Legitimate power: the right to exercise power because of leader's position in
Page 14 of 30
Referent power: subordinate's identification with the leader because of
attractiveness, reputation, or charisma
Expert power: competence, special knowledge or expertise in a given area.
Expert power is normally limited to narrow, well-defined areas or specialises
The functional approach
Kretch et al (1962) identified 14 leadership functions
Both the official leader and the group member who happens to come up with
the right function at the right time are leaders for the moment
The official leader is just a safety net, someone who is expected to fill in the
leadership functions when needed
The styles of leadership approach
There are many versions of this:
Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1973) have a continuum
some similarity with Theories X and Y discussed later
o Tells: leader identifies problem, chooses a decision, announces to
subordinates, no participation
o Sells: leader chooses a decision but attempts to persuade subordinates
to accept it
o Consults: leader identifies problem, listens to advice of subordinates,
chooses a decision
o Joins: leader defines problem and the limits of possible decisions, the
group take decision with leader as just a member
The "styles" approach says the best point on the continuum depends on forces in the
leader, the subordinates and the decision
Employee-centred v production centred approach
Blake & Mouton (1964) and Likert (1961), use a two dimensional grid
Country club management Team management
Concern for people
Impoverished management Authority compliance
Page 15 of 30
Concern for production
The contingency approach
The style of leadership develops during the life of an organisation, for example
(Clarke & Pratt, 1985):
Champion: a new corporate venture needs a champion to fight for and defend
the seedling business. The champion needs the dash and energy to deal with a
range of different matters
Tank commander: the leader must develop a strong supportive team, and
have the qualities to be able to drive into readily exploitable parts of the
Housekeeper: when the venture runs up against its boundaries, the
housekeeper must ensure efficient and economic management of the business
(planning, cost control)
Lemon-squeezer: during decline, the leader must extract maximum benefit
from the situation. The lemon-squeezer must be tough and innovative
Theory X and Theory Y
Management styles: Douglas McGregor (1960) polarised (caricatured?) managers'
Average person has an inherent dislike of work
People must be coerced, controlled, directed, threatened with punishment
Average person prefers to be directed, and wishes to avoid responsibility
Physical and mental effort is as natural as play or rest
Man will exercise self-direction for objectives to which he is committed
Commitment to objectives is a function of reward
Average person learns to accept and seek responsibility
Imagination and creativity is widely distributed
People's potentials are only partially utilised
Theory X and Theory Y
One IT manager canvassed described how his boss would show displeasure by
emptying the contents of the wastepaper bin all over his desk (Lewis, 1995)
Page 16 of 30
Stress drives people towards X
Coming down hard on juniors when one's own boss is overbearing
Introducing rules for every eventuality
o Elaborate security rules after theft
o Written procedures after clerical error
o Cf. Californian Earthquake
Theory X: The lurch to the right
The litany of failed, over-budget, late projects is legendary and seems to be added to
The solution usually proposed is more and better management. Few people propose
the opposite: less management.
(The former) approach requires a great deal of resources for planning, coordination
Highly qualified and skilled people for not generally respond well to being closely
managed. They prefer to be set objectives, provided with the necessary resources and
left to deliver the goods.
Theory X investigated
Harry's boss was a hard taskmaster, driving his employees to exhaustion. In the
middle of a project, Harry dropped dead.
The boss visited a medium to see if he could contact Harry's spirit. "You may speak to
him now," said the medium.
"Harry, how is it going?" shouted the boss.
"It beats the office," Harry answered.
A bit miffed by his response, the boss asked, "Can you see from heaven where you
left the Wilson cost study?"
"Heaven?" replied Harry. "Who says I'm in heaven?"
(Phil Hartman, quoted in Reader's Digest, December 1995)
Page 17 of 30
"The One Minute Manager", Kenneth Blanchard etc, 1980s
Three secrets of management
One minute objective setting
One minute praising
One minute reprimand
Activators - actions taken by manager before some can accomplish a goal
Behaviour - what the person says or does
Consequences - actions by manager (praising / reprimand / new objective)
Authorising employees to do their work without the need to seek approval from
gives a sense of responsibility and achievement to employee
reduces delays in flow of work
reduces work-load on manager
Used widely in Business Process Reengineering projects
Theory Z: WS Ouchi, 1980s
Well managed companies in US and Japan had lifetime employment, collective
decision making, promotion from within, non-specialised career paths
Characterised as a "democratic" management style
Page 18 of 30
An American rowing team challenged a Japanese team to a 10 mile race
The Japanese wins by more than a mile.
A management consultant is called in to help the Americans. He finds that the
Japanese boat had two people overseeing six rowers, while the Americans had seven
managers and one rower. The consultant suggests a radical reengineering program,
then calls for a rematch.
This time the Japanese team defeats the Americans by two miles. More consultants
are called in. They find that the Japanese team were now using one manager and
seven rowers, while the U.S. team employed six management consultants, one senior
manager and one rower.
The U.S. team immediately fires the rower and calls for another restructuring.
The role of leadership in management is largely determined by the organisational
culture of the company. It has been argued that managers' beliefs, values and
assumptions are of critical importance to the overall style of leadership that they
There are several different leadership styles that can be identified within each of the
following Management techniques. Each technique has its own set of good and not-
so-good characteristics, and each uses leadership in a different way.
The Laissez-Faire Manager
Page 19 of 30
The autocratic leader dominates team-members, using unilateralism to achieve a
singular objective. This approach to leadership generally results in passive resistance
from team-members and requires continual pressure and direction from the leader in
order to get things done. Generally, an authoritarian approach is not a good way to get
the best performance from a team.
There are, however, some instances where an autocratic style of leadership may not
be inappropriate. Some situations may call for urgent action, and in these cases an
autocratic style of leadership may be best. In addition, most people are familiar with
autocratic leadership and therefore have less trouble adopting that style. Furthermore,
in some situations, sub-ordinates may actually prefer an autocratic style.
The Laissez-Faire Manager
The Laissez-Faire manager exercises little control over his group, leaving them to sort
out their roles and tackle their work, without participating in this process himself. In
general, this approach leaves the team floundering with little direction or motivation.
Again, there are situations where the Laissez-Faire approach can be effective. The
Laissez-Faire technique is usually only appropriate when leading a team of highly
motivated and skilled people, who have produced excellent work in the past. Once a
leader has established that his team is confident, capable and motivated, it is often
best to step back and let them get on with the task, since interfering can generate
resentment and detract from their effectiveness. By handing over ownership, a leader
can empower his group to achieve their goals.
The democratic leader makes decisions by consulting his team, whilst still
maintaining control of the group. The democratic leader allows his team to decide
how the task will be tackled and who will perform which task.
The democratic leader can be seen in two lights:
A good democratic leader encourages participation and delegates wisely, but never
loses sight of the fact that he bears the crucial responsibility of leadership. He values
group discussion and input from his team and can be seen as drawing from a pool of
his team members' strong points in order to obtain the best performance from his
team. He motivates his team by empowering them to direct themselves, and guides
them with a loose reign.
However, the democrat can also be seen as being so unsure of himself and his
relationship with his sub-ordinates that everything is a matter for group discussion
and decision. Clearly, this type of "leader" is not really leading at all.
Page 20 of 30
Group Leadership: McCann
McCann: The Team Management Wheel
Dick McCann is a management consultant, who, together with Charles Margerison
developed the so-called Team Management Wheel in 1984. The aim of the Team
Management Wheel is to place at the centre of management teams the fundamental
insight that people like to work in different ways. It tries to make explicit what those
different preferred styles are and to show how they relate to one another. Thus,
McCann's ideas, which derive from 'neurolinguistic programming', do not in fact
constitute a theory of personality types, but a theory of people's working preferences.
However, you should find similarities between it and Albrecht's model as well as trait
theories of personality.
Preferred working styles
According to McCann and Margerison, there are essentially four sliding scales which
indicate how people prefer to work. They are:
How people prefer to relate to others
INTROVERTED <===> EXTROVERTED
Some people will have an extroverted approach, talking things through with
others and enjoying a wide variety of different asks; others will prefer to think
things over and won't have a high need to discuss things with others.
Page 21 of 30
How people prefer to gather and use information
PRACTICAL <===> CREATIVE
Practical people prefer tried and tested ideas, paying attention to the facts and
details; creative people will be less constrained by tradition, will be future-
oriented, won't mind ambiguous situations and will enjoy looking at
How people prefer to make decisions
ANALYTICAL <===> BELIEFS
Analytical people will gather the information and then set up objective
decision-criteria, trying to find the solution which maximises the pay-off;
others will be more constrained by their beliefs, principles and values.
How people prefer to organize themselves and others
STRUCTURED <===> FLEXIBLE
Some like a structured environment, where everything is neat and tidy and
decisions are made quickly; others prefer to be more flexible and make sure
that all possible information has been gathered before decisions are reached -
they'll tend to put off 'concluding' until they have gathered all the information
The Wheel provides a visual representation of the key differences between people.
Generally people show a preference for one of the key positions on the Wheel and
two related 'backup' rôles. For example, they might see themselves as a 'creator-
innovator' with related backup rôles as 'thruster-organizer and 'concluder-producer'.
You can see fairly easily how the positions on the Wheel relate to the working styles
outlined above. For example, the 'explorer-promoter' is the result of an interaction
between the extrovert and creative dimensions, giving people a preference for selling
ideas and generally being entrepreneurial.
Page 22 of 30
Distribution of rôles
McCann's and Margerison's work has produced the following data on a population of
3730 managers from the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South-
Team rôle Proportion (%)
71% of the sample falls on the right of the Wheel since they have a common
preference for organizing. However, as McCann points out, these people do not
always have a natural capacity for listening and their general weakness in
communication is responsible for failing to achieve a truly high performance. Further,
a company which fails to listen to the creators and innovators can find itself in trouble
in the long run.
Finally, it's well worth taking a look through the characteristics of the people on the
Wheel, if you haven't done so already. See if you can recognize yourself and people
People in Organisations
Revision Rough Guides
To ensure that you get the most out of these guides, the following is advised:
The guides give an outline of the syllabus
Follow the links to the Times 100 if you require examples or more details of a
Attempt the revision questions which relate directly to the syllabus
What is management?
Difficult to define - refer to job title?
Act on behalf of owners
Page 23 of 30
Manage others to achieve objectives
Ensure that corporate values are maintained
Fayol: The function of management
Henri Fayol, French managerial theorist, lists a number of functions or elements:
o Setting objectives/strategies
o Set by department management
o Management with expertise may advise
For more information and greater detail, check out the Jaguar Case Study.
o Jobs within departments
o to achieve goals
e.g. goal is quality - might ensure that packaging is controlled as part
o Manager has authority
o instructs subordinates
o Bringing together activities
o common approach
o correct activities of individuals
Drucker - The management process
Peter Drucker, 1940s/50s US business advisor, created the idea of management by
Organising the work
Motivating employees and communicating information
yardsticks of performance
observe targets reached
Every manager performs these
Page 24 of 30
Bad manager will perform them badly
Basic management function
Business manager justifies role through this
Handy: Being a manager
Charles Handy argues that defining management is too broad.
What is involved in being a manager?
Manager as general practitioner
Identification of the symptoms
cause of trouble
e.g. poor motivation - poor wages
Introduction of a rewards system
The dilemma of different cultures
Behaviour varies in different positions and areas
The trust - control delegation dilemma
Greater trust leads to less management control
The commando leaders dilemma
Project work outside the firms bureaucratic structure
Managers as people
development of professional skills
Mintzberg - Managerial roles
Henry Mintzberg suggests:
Managers carry out functions
Also fulfil three roles
Act as channels of information
Decision making roles
Access to information for decision making
Systematic planning is a myth
Planning is done on a day-to-day basis
No routine duties is a myth
Some duties done as ceremonial tasks
Page 25 of 30
Management prefer verbal communication
Qualities of leadership
Positive self image
Get to the core of problem
Specialise in areas
Creative and innovative
Sense and respond to change
Management set objectives and control
Can lead to dissatisfaction
Motivation can drop
Good for armed forces
encourages decision making
Persuasive to managers
Consultative to workers
employees act freely without limits
without rules can result in poor productivity and motivation
Factors affecting leadership styles
Type of labour force
easier to change a role than leadership style
Hersey and Blanchard
leaders style should take into account the maturity of those led
Wright and Taylor (1984)
The situation or maturity of those led ignores skilful leadership
For more information and greater detail, check out the Cummins Case Study.
Page 26 of 30
The ‘good enough’ manager
Good management incorporates a wide range of attributes: common sense, sensitivity,
confidence, commitment to the organisation’s ethos and values and good management
practice. No-one is perfect in all of these areas, so this section suggests how to be a
‘good enough’ manager - how to use their strengths, skills and style to their best
Here, ‘management’ refers to an activity, rather than ‘the management’, ie the
Having authority or being in authority means having the power or right to do
something, or having the right to require others to do it. It can be used positively or
Having responsibility means being obliged to do something. Taking responsibility
means doing something even if one does not have responsibility for it.
Being accountable means being answerable to those who give authority or
The ability to inspire and influence people, and develop their confidence, so that they
want to carry out necessary tasks.
‘Control’ can be negative, eg controlling meetings by never allowing staff to speak, or
positive, eg ‘being in control’ of a situation: being aware and responding
Power can mean ability (ie to do something). Power over something is the ability to
make others do something. It can be used positively or negatively.
However much they argue that they only exercise their legitimate authority, all
managers have access to power, authority and control. By not acknowledging their
power, they risk misusing it. In egalitarian groups in which no one takes legitimate
authority, decisions are made by the misuse of power. The person with the loudest
voice, the most authoritarian manner or the most manipulative temperament takes
control, with no accountability, and no legitimate authority.
Page 27 of 30
How an organisation is managed depends on its culture, its developmental stage, its
structure, and the managerial style of individual managers.
An organisation’s culture depends on the way it has developed, the kind of work it
does, its priorities, and the types of people involved (workers and users). The culture
depends on the organisation’s attitude towards change and whether it is formal or
informal. If there is external pressure on an organisation to behave in a way that does
not fit in with its culture (such as pressure from funders to change a self-help group
into a service-provider), there may be serious friction.
Every work group goes through a number of stages:
1. Forming - getting to know each other and deciding priorities
2. Storming - coming to terms with differences in the group
3. Norming - agreeing objectives, priorities and ways of interaction
4. Performing - getting on with the job
5. Mourning/reforming - restructuring after a change, eg someone leaving
There are two kinds of management structure: a ‘flat’ management structure, with no
one person responsible for managing anyone else, and a hierarchical organisation,
with several tiers of management. There are also varying kinds of departmental
structure, with divisions according to geographical location (eg Asia team) or user
groups (eg youth workers), for example. Management problems are caused by a
mismatch between organisational culture and the approach of the individual manager.
Management style is formed by the interplay between the organisational culture and
the approach of each manager to management. There are commonly thought to be six
styles, and most organisations employ more than one:
Authoritarian - repressive, using authority and power to dominate and negatively
control, expecting unquestioning obedience. May get the job done, but it will be done
unwillingly, and can lead to alienation or rebellion
Authoritative - uses legitimate power and authority, but allows others to question
decisions if there is a good reason. An essential style for major decisions where
involving everyone in the decision-making process is impracticable
Participative/democratic - similar to authoritative but heavily based on the opinions
of those the situation will affect. Everyone concerned, or their representatives, are
involved in decision-making
Page 28 of 30
Individualistic - a form of illegitimate authority, in which a manager steps in
because of a gap in authority, or usurps someone else’s legitimate authority. Intrusive
managers often interfere with the work of others or do it themselves. A very
charismatic manager may overshadow everyone else
Laissez-faire - operates in denial, hoping that if a problem is ignored it will go
away. Claims a lack of responsibility or authority to make a decision
Chaotic - lacks any consistent style, so people do not know what to expect, or who
is responsible for making decisions and taking action.
The best styles are authoritative and participative. Some consider authoritarian and
individualistic approaches necessary, but these are inappropriate for most voluntary
organisations. Laissez-faire and chaotic approaches can cause damage in the long-
Good managers know when to make decisions on their own, when to consult others,
and when to involve all the workers, providing adequate opportunities for staff,
volunteers and users to contribute to discussions and decisions, but not wasting
people’s time by calling unnecessary meetings.
Knowledge, skills and qualities
A good manager should know about the organisation, the field of work, and
managerial functions (eg monitoring and evaluation) as well as communication skills,
and ability and willingness to learn sensitivity, flexibility, and leadership.
Being good enough
So as a manager, how can you know what is right for you? Trust your instinct, and try
and be consistent, which will give your staff confidence in you. Do not aim for
perfection - by targeting a few goals you can be good enough:
Good enough managers:
Help individuals and groups identify goals and priorities and develop
Consult, listen, learn and share
Take responsibility, make decisions and get things done
Are firm but not rigid, and understanding but not soft
Manage their own time and energy effectively
Trust people to get on with their work, and support without being intrusive
Are appreciative when people produce good work, and constructive when
they do not
Inspire confidence in themselves, in the management process and the
Page 29 of 30
Abdicate responsibility and are indecisive, unreliable and uninformed
Undermine and obstruct other people
Will not consult, listen, learn or share
Make judgements about people based on stereotypes and prejudices
Create a ‘blame culture’, so people are not encouraged to admit and learn
from their mistakes
Generate a lack of confidence in themselves, management and in the
This article is a summary of the chapter ‘The good enough manager’, from Just About
Managing? by Sandy Adirondack (1998), £14.95, LVSC.
For a four page summary of the basics of management styles why not download
the pdf file at
For real life examples of how organisations see themselves, carry out a search with
Google of Yahoo or Ask Jeeves for Organisational Structure and find lots of real live
examples of what organisations think of themselves!!
12 November 2002
Page 30 of 30