Managerial styles and

behaviours

CMI LEVEL 4 MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP

1

Contents Assumptions about human nature and managerial behavior ...................................................................... 2

Models which make suppositions about nature and behavior at work ................................................... 2

How attitudes and assumptions can influence managerial behavior ....................................................... 6

A model of managerial style in which the manager can apply skills to identify, study and review their

patterns of behavior ................................................................................................................................. 6

How management style can influence managerial behavior ..................................................................... 13

Styles of management ............................................................................................................................ 13

Measures of managerial effectiveness ................................................................................................... 13

Links between management style and managerial effectiveness and efficiency ................................... 19

The need to apply a range of management styles ...................................................................................... 21

Situations which would require application of differing management styles and behavior .................. 21

The relationship between individual managerial performance and expected organizational managerial

performance and behavior ..................................................................................................................... 26

2

Assumptions about human nature and managerial behavior

Models which make suppositions about nature and behavior at work Theory X and Theory Y represent two sets of assumptions about human nature and human behavior that

are relevant to the practice of management. Theory X represents a negative view of human nature that

assumes individuals generally dislike work, are irresponsible, and require close supervision to do their

jobs. Theory Y denotes a positive view of human nature and assumes individuals are generally industrious,

creative, and able to assume responsibility and exercise self-control in their jobs. One would expect, then,

that managers holding assumptions about human nature that are consistent with Theory X might exhibit

a managerial style that is quite different than managers who hold assumptions consistent with Theory Y.

The first section explains the development of Theory X and Theory Y. Second, the effect of Theory X and

Theory Y on management functions is discussed. Third is a criticism of Theory Y followed by the concluding

section, Theory X and Theory Y in the twenty-first century.

CONCEPTUALIZATION

AND DEVELOPMENT

After the Hawthorne experiments and the subsequent behavioral research of the 1930s and 1940s, the

human relations approach to management joined the classical perspective as a major school of

management thought. Whereas the classical school as espoused by management pioneers such as

Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol focused on principles of management, scientific selection and training,

and worker compensation, the human relations approach emphasized behavioral issues such as job

satisfaction, group norms, and supervisory style.

The human relations model was hailed as a more enlightened management paradigm because it explicitly

considered the importance of individual and how managers could increase productivity by increasing

workers' job satisfaction. The end goal for management increased employee productivity; the assumption

was that satisfied workers would be more productive compared with workers who felt antagonized by the

companies they worked for.

In the 1950s, Douglas McGregor (1906-1964), a psychologist who taught at MIT and served as president

of Antioch College from 1948-1954, criticized both the classical and human relations schools as

inadequate for the realities of the workplace. He believed that the assumptions underlying both schools

represented a negative view of human nature and that another approach to management based on an

entirely different set of assumptions was needed. McGregor laid out his ideas in his classic 1957 article

"The Human Side of Enterprise" and the 1960 book of the same name, in which he introduced what came

to be called the new humanism.

McGregor argued that the conventional approach to managing was based on three major propositions,

which he called Theory X:

1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise-money,

materials, equipment, and people-in the interests of economic ends.

2. With respect to people, this is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling

their actions, and modifying their behavior to fit the needs of the organization.

3

3. Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive-even resistant-to

organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, and controlled.

Their activities must be directed. Management's task was thus simply getting things done through

other people.

According to McGregor, these tenets of management are based on less explicit assumptions about human

nature. The first of these assumptions is that individuals do not like to work and will avoid it if possible. A

further assumption is that human beings do not want responsibility and desire explicit direction.

Additionally, individuals are assumed to put their individual concerns above that of the organization for

which they work and to resist change, valuing security more than other considerations at work. Finally,

human beings are assumed to be easily manipulated and controlled. McGregor contended that both the

classical and human relations approaches to management depended this same set of assumptions. He

called the first style of management "hard" and identified its methods as close supervision, tight controls,

and coercion.

The hard style of management led to restriction of output, mutual distrust, unionism, and even sabotage.

McGregor called the second style of management "soft" and identified its methods as permissiveness and

need satisfaction. McGregor suggested that the soft style of management often led to managers' failure

to perform their managerial role. He also pointed out that employees often take advantage of an overly

permissive manager by demanding more but performing at lower levels.

McGregor drew upon the work of Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) to explain why Theory X assumptions led

to ineffective management. Maslow had proposed that man's needs are arranged in levels, with physical

and safety needs at the bottom of the needs hierarchy and social, ego, and self-actualization needs at

upper levels of the hierarchy. Maslow's basic point was that once a need is met, it no longer motivates

behavior; thus, only unmet needs are motivational. McGregor argued that most employees already had

their physical and safety needs met and that the motivational emphasis had shifted to the social, ego, and

self-actualization needs. Therefore, management had to provide opportunities for these upper-level

needs to be met in the workplace, or employees would not be satisfied or motivated in their jobs.

Such opportunities could be provided by allowing employees to participate in decision making, by

redesigning jobs to make them more challenging, or by emphasizing good work group relations, among

other things. According to McGregor, neither the hard style of management based on the classical school

nor the soft style of management inspired by the human relations movement were sufficient to motivate

employees. Thus, he proposed a different set of assumptions about human nature as it pertains to the

workplace.

McGregor put forth these assumptions, which he believed could lead to more effective management of

people in the organization, under the rubric of Theory Y. The major propositions of Theory Y include the

following:

1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise-money,

materials, equipment, and people in the interests of economic ends.

2. People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They have become so as a

result of experience in organizations.

4

3. The motivation, potential for development, capacity for assuming responsibility, and readiness to

direct behavior toward organizational goals are all present in people-management does not put

them there. It is a responsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognize and

develop these human characteristics for themselves.

4. The essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions and methods of

operation so that people can achieve their own goals by directing their efforts toward

organizational objectives.

Thus, Theory Y has at its core the assumption that the physical and mental effort involved in work is

natural and that individuals actively seek to engage in work. It also assumes that close supervision and the

threat of punishment are not the only means or even the best means for inducing employees to exert

productive effort. Instead, if given the opportunity, employees will display self-motivation to put forth the

effort necessary to achieve the organization's goals. Thus, avoiding responsibility is not an inherent quality

of human nature; individuals will actually seek it out under the proper conditions. Theory Y also assumes

that the ability to be innovative and creative exists among a large, rather than a small segment of the

population. Finally, it assumes that rather than valuing security above all other rewards associated with

work, individuals desire rewards that satisfy their self-esteem and self-actualization needs.

Although McGregor did not believe that it was possible to create a completely Theory Y-type organization

in the 1950s, he did believe that Theory Y assumptions would lead to more effective management. He

identified several approaches to management that he felt were consistent with the precepts of Theory Y.

These included decentralization of decision-making authority, delegation, job enlargement, and

participative management. Job enrichment programs that began in the 1960s and 1970s also were

consistent with the assumptions of Theory Y.

In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, McGregor's conceptualization of Theory X and Theory Y were often used

as the basis for discussions of management style, employee involvement, and worker motivation.

Empirical evidence concerning the validity of Theory X and Theory Y, however, was mixed. Some writers

suggested that organizations implementing Theory Y tended to revert back to Theory X in tough economic

times.

Others suggested that Theory Y was not always more effective than Theory X, but that the contingencies

of each managerial situation determined which of the approaches was more appropriate. Still others

suggested extensions to Theory Y. One of these, William Ouchi's Theory Z, attempted to combine the

strength of American management philosophies based on Theory Y with Japanese management

philosophies.

Along with writers such as Argyris and Likert, McGregor was one of several important humanist writers of

the mid-twentieth century who argued that traditional organizational hierarchies create a state of

dependence between subordinates and their managers and served as a bridge between the human

relations school and a new form of organizational humanism based on Theory Y.

5

EFFECT ON MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

In their well-known textbook, Harold Koontz and Cyril O'Donnell illustrated how the managerial functions

of planning, leading, and controlling might be affected by Theory X and Theory Y assumptions. In regard

to planning, Theory X assumptions might lead to the superior setting of objectives with little or no

participation from subordinates. Theory Y assumptions, conversely, should lead to cooperative objectives

designed with input from both employees and managers, resulting in a higher commitment by

subordinates to accomplish these shared objectives.

Under Theory X, managers' leadership styles are likely to be autocratic, which may create resistance on

the part of subordinates. Communication flow is more likely to be downward from manager to the

subordinates. In contrast, Theory Y may foster leadership styles that are more participative, which would

empower subordinates to seek responsibility and be more committed to goal achievement. Theory Y

leadership should increase communication flow, especially in the upward direction.

In regard to control, Theory X is likely to result in external control, with the manager acting as a

performance judge; the focus is generally on the past. Conversely, Theory Y should lead to control

processes based on subordinates' self-control. The manager is more likely to act as a coach rather than a

judge, focusing on how performance can be improved in the future rather than on who was responsible

for past performance. Although the conceptual linkages between Theory X and Theory Y assumptions and

managerial styles are relatively straightforward, empirical research has not clearly demonstrated that the

relationship between these assumptions and managers' styles of planning, organizing, leading, and

controlling is consistent with McGregor's ideas.

CRITICISM OF THEORY Y

The goal of managers using Theory X management styles was to accomplish organizational goals through

the organization's human resources. McGregor's research suggested that when work was better aligned

with human needs and motivations, employee productivity would increase. As a result, some critics have

suggested that, rather than concern for employees, Theory Y style managers were simply engaged in a

seductive form a manipulation. Even as managers better matched work tasks to basic human motivational

needs through participative management, job rotation, job enlargement, and other programs that

emerged at least partly from McGregor's work, managers were still focusing on measures of productivity

rather than measures of employee well-being. In essence, critics charge that Theory Y is a condescending

scheme for inducing increased productivity from employees, and unless employees share in the economic

benefits of their increased productivity, then they have simply been duped into working harder for the

same pay.

THEORY X AND THEORY Y

IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

McGregor's work on Theory X and Theory Y has had a significant impact on management thought and

practice in the years since he first articulated the concepts. In terms of the study of management,

McGregor's concepts are included in the overwhelming majority of basic management textbooks, and

they are still routinely presented to students of management. Most textbooks discuss Theory X and Theory

Y within the context of motivation theory; others place Theory X and Theory Y within the history of the

organizational humanism movement.

6

Theory X and Theory Y are often studied as a prelude to developing greater understanding of more recent

management concepts, such as job enrichment, the job-characteristics model, and self-managed work

teams. Although the terminology may have changed since the 1950s, McGregor's ideas have had

tremendous influence on the study of management.

In terms of the practice of management, the workplace of the early twenty-first century, with its emphasis

on self-managed work teams and other forms of worker involvement programs, is generally consistent

with the precepts of Theory Y. There is every indication that such programs will continue to increase, at

least to the extent that evidence of their success begins to accumulate.

How attitudes and assumptions can influence managerial behavior The basic question important attitude is whatever it possible to influence team by moving and

development. If our attitude could not be changed they should be considered in describing requirement

of a particular job and choosing manager but they could be ignored determined turning needs. There is

no single or sort answer to this question experience shows that attitude do not change easily but may

change under certain circumstances on the basic of one’s own experience and feedback from other people

if they individual concerned has enough will talent and interest to understand to modify his attitude.

For example if a manager “can organise teamwork and motivate people for working with him on difficult

new task under time pressure” skill there are underlying assumption concerning both his or her knowledge

and attitudes needed for work planning communicating with people and motivating, and organise team

and while respecting strict time schedules. Basically speaking, the skills involved in managerial jobs include

technical subject skills, general management an organisation skills, analytical subject skills, social and

cultural skills, management of people, communication and leadership skills, and political skills (Milan

Kubr,1989).

We can also look at the McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y (McGregor 1957) where the theory X suggest

that people have an inherent dislike for work and will avoid it whenever possible. It also states that people

prefer to be directed, do not want responsibility, and have little or no ambition and also seek security

above all else. These, specially the theory X suggest how the attitude and assumption can influence

managerial behaviour at the end of the day. Applying and controlling through these factors will give a

positive grip on managerial behaviours in workplace.

HOW TO CHANGE YOUR EMPLOYEE'S BEHAVIOR It doesn’t take long in management before you find yourself trying to change someone’s behavior. If

you’re lucky, it’s a small skill change. Often, though, you’re trying to encourage a larger, personality driven

change.

Yet many efforts to change others are unsuccessful. After all, it’s hard enough to change ourselves even

when we’re motivated. It can leave us wondering if we can actually change an employee’s behavior at all,

and further, could we be making the issue worse?

The way we coach employees may be part of the problem. We place considerable value on the power of

motivation, assuming that employees will change if we make a good case. We spend our energy showing

someone why they must change, when chances are, they already know.

7

Additionally, we tend to impose our coaching on others without invitation. We may not fully understand

the behavioral issue within a broader context and miss the larger picture. All of which can be demoralizing.

Further, as Harvard’s Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey point out, people often possess an uncommunicated,

competing commitment to a change. A competing commitment is a subconscious goal that directly

conflicts with an individual’s stated goal. Take, for example, Jason, a project manager who’s failing to bring

a high-profile assignment to completion. While he’s a smart, talented, hardworking guy who regularly

volunteers to lead smaller projects, he may actually be slacking on this big assignment because he’s

worried about the risk of such a visible role at his company.

When employees have a competing commitment, they are immune to change. All of our best

protestations fall on deaf ears because the employee is committed more strongly to not changing – for

reasons he or she finds highly valid.

There’s no doubt that there are a number of factors at play that make change difficult. Yet people do

change, and they do so in predictable patterns. You can enhance your ability to support change in others

by expanding your repertoire of strategies. Here are five ways to support effective change in others.

As Karlyn Borysenko explains, there’s a difference between feedback and coaching, and both are required

to help an employee make important changes: “Feedback is top-down communication that is intended to

immediately adjust behavior. Coaching is a collaborative, ongoing process that is intended to develop

employees over time.”

In order to help your employee achieve performance improvement, “you want to immediately correct

behaviors that are getting in the way of success and help them to develop the skills that will move their

professional career forward.”

Put the ball in the employee’s court.

No one can force another person to change – it has to be voluntary. A manager can, however, greatly help

the employee see the path for change.

Provide coaching and feedback, then give the employee space. No one likes to be forced into doing things,

especially when it comes to altering entrenched behaviors. If the employee feels like you’re

micromanaging the change, they will often shut down and placate you.

Focus on one issue at a time.

Executive coaches structure engagements so that clients must focus on no more than three issues in a

typical six-month engagement. And sometimes that’s too many. When it comes to development, focus is

everything.

A manager may have identified a number of issues with an employee, but trying to fix all of them at once

will create more disaffection and overwhelm than change. Identify the primary behavior you’d like altered

and work on that only. If you have a few things you’d like the person to work on, then prioritize what’s

most important so they can time order the changes.

8

Identify the barriers to the employee’s success.

In Harvard Business Review, Joseph Grenny says that great managers focus on helping employees

overcome their “ability barriers” rather than placing too much emphasis on their lack of motivation.

For example, if an employee has trouble staying organized, it may be more effective to provide her with

tools and strategies for managing her calendar and to-do list. This approach works much better than

assuming that the issue is simply a matter of motivation. As Grenny aptly puts it, “If you try to motivate

people who lack ability, you don’t create change; you create depression.”

Focus on the bigger picture.

Context is critical. Most of the time, poor behavior doesn’t operate in a vacuum; there are likely other

individuals or circumstances supporting it. How are other employees reacting to this employee’s

behavior? Is he receiving promotions and accolades that make him think he is excelling? Are the

expectations of your workplace too demanding? Does he share certain big assumptions that affect his

views of the workplace? What competing commitments might be present?

Take a step back from the behavior and look at the larger context in which he’s operating. Being able to

see the environmental contributors, and to acknowledge them with the employee, can open the door to

a deeper conversation about how to move forward.

A model of managerial style in which the manager can apply skills to identify, study and

review their patterns of behavior What kind of leader are you? Do you follow the classic definition of a leader: someone who aims to

influence and motivate employees to meet organizational goals and effectiveness?

If you’re doing your job, then this definition might sound familiar. But let’s get more specific. Do you have

a particular leadership style that you usually use?

Most leaders generally adhere to one or two preferred styles of leadership with which they feel

comfortable. But the challenge is that great leaders have multiple leadership styles in their toolkit, and

they are adept at diagnosing situations and using the right leadership styles at the right times, according

to David Jones, associate professor of management at the University of Vermont.

Jones identifies five styles drawn from theory and research on leadership that he thinks are important for

all leaders to have in their toolkit:

• Directive: You’re no dictator, but you’re very clear in establishing performance objectives for your

team. You’re adept at providing structure and skilled at clarifying employees’ perceptions of their

roles. When needed – and this isn’t always a bad thing because some situations might require it

– you tend toward micro-managing.

• Supportive: If you’re approachable and empathetic, then you’re probably a supportive leader. You

show concern for employees, and you treat them with dignity and respect. Your employees, in

turn, feel valued and cared for. In times of change, they trust you to help them manage

uncertainty.

9

• Participative: If you’re someone who works hard for buy-in by soliciting employee input, then

you’re most definitely a participative leader. You encourage employee involvement in decision-

making and, more importantly, ensure they know that their views will be – and have been –

considered. Depending on the situation, you consult directly with employees; other times, you

delegate your authority to employees who engage in the decision-making.

• Achievement-Oriented: If you always think you and your team can do better, and you push

everyone to reach higher, then you clearly are achievement-oriented. You like to set “stretch”

goals, and you encourage continuous improvement. You also empower employees and give them

autonomy, assuming they’ll do their personal and team best. You constantly show confidence in

the ability of individual employees and teams.

• Transformational: Most leaders aspire to be transformational. If you are, you lead through vision.

You have your eye on the future, and you model and communicate your forward-thinking

commitment. You are an inspiration to employees, and they follow you because they believe in

the common goals that you’ve shared and articulated.

Even if you identify with just one or two styles, you can learn from – and apply – other styles, Jones says.

For every situation – whether it’s communicating with an employee about poor job performance, inspiring

a highly experienced team to achieve or guiding your organization through times of change and

uncertainty – there are particular leadership styles and corresponding tools you can use to accomplish

your objectives.

LEADERSHIP STYLES AND FRAMEWORKS YOU SHOULD KNOW A leadership style refers to a leader's characteristic behaviors when directing, motivating, guiding, and

managing groups of people. Great leaders can inspire political movements and social change. They can

also motivate others to perform, create, and innovate.

As you start to consider some of the people who you think of as great leaders, you can immediately see

that there are often vast differences in how each person leads. Fortunately, researchers have developed

different theories and frameworks that allow us to better identify and understand these different

leadership styles.

Here are just a few of the most prominent leadership frameworks and styles that have been identified.

Lewin's Leadership Styles

In 1939, a group of researchers led by psychologist Kurt Lewin set out to identify different styles of

leadership. While further research has identified more distinct types of leadership, this early study was

very influential and established three major leadership styles that have provided a springboard for more

defined leadership theories.

In Lewin's study, schoolchildren were assigned to one of three groups with an authoritarian, democratic,

or laissez-faire leader. The children were then led in an arts and crafts project while researchers observed

the behavior of children in response to the different styles of leadership. The researchers found that

democratic leadership tended to be the most effective at inspiring followers to perform well.

10

Let's take a closer look at the three styles Lewin identified:

1. Authoritarian Leadership (Autocratic)

Authoritarian leaders, also known as autocratic leaders, provide clear expectations for what needs to be

done when it should be done, and how it should be done. This style of leadership is strongly focused on

both command by the leader and control of the followers. There is also a clear division between the leader

and the members. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the

rest of the group.

Researchers found that decision-making was less creative under authoritarian leadership. Lewin also

concluded that it is harder to move from an authoritarian style to a democratic style than vice versa. Abuse

of this method is usually viewed as controlling, bossy, and dictatorial.

Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for group decision-making

or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group. The autocratic approach can be a

good one when the situation calls for rapid decisions and decisive actions. However, it tends to create

dysfunctional and even hostile environments, often pitting followers against the domineering leader.

2. Participative Leadership (Democratic)

Lewin’s study found that participative leadership, also known as democratic leadership, is typically the

most effective leadership style. Democratic leaders offer guidance to group members, but they also

participate in the group and allow input from other group members. In Lewin’s study, children in this

group were less productive than the members of the authoritarian group, but their contributions were of

a higher quality.

Participative leaders encourage group members to participate but retain the final say in the decision-

making process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative.

Democratic leaders tend to make followers feel like they are an important part of the team, which helps

foster commitment to the goals of the group.

3. Delegative Leadership (Laissez-Faire)

Researchers found that children under delegative leadership, also known as laissez-faire leadership, were

the least productive of all three groups. The children in this group also made more demands on the leader,

showed little cooperation, and were unable to work independently.

Delegative leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group

members. While this style can be useful in situations involving highly qualified experts, it often leads to

poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.

Lewin noted that laissez-faire leadership tended to result in groups that lacked direction where members

blamed each other for mistakes, refused to accept personal responsibility, and produced a lack of progress

and work.

11

Observations About Lewin's Leadership Styles

In their book, "The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications," Bass

and Bass note that authoritarian leadership is often presented solely in negative, often even disapproving,

terms. Authoritarian leaders are often described as controlling and close-minded, yet this overlooks the

potential positives of stressing rules, expecting obedience, and taking responsibility.

While authoritarian leadership certainly is not the best choice for each and every situation, it can be

effective and beneficial in cases where followers need a great deal of direction and where rules and

standards must be followed to the letter. Another often overlooked benefit of the authoritarian style is

the ability to maintain a sense of order.

Bass and Bass note that democratic leadership tends to be centered on the followers and is an effective

approach when trying to maintain relationships with others. People who work under such leaders tend to

get along well, support one another, and consult other members of the group when making decisions.

Additional Leadership Styles and Models

In addition to the three styles identified by Lewin and his colleagues, researchers have described

numerous other characteristic patterns of leadership. Here are just a few of the best-known:

1. The Transformational Leadership Style

Transformational leadership is often identified as the single most effective style. This style was first

described during the late 1970s and later expanded upon by researcher Bernard M. Bass. Some of the key

characteristics of his style of leadership are the abilities to motivate and inspire followers and to direct

positive changes in groups.

Transformational leaders tend to be emotionally intelligent, energetic, and passionate. They are not only committed to helping the organization achieve its goals, but also to helping group members fulfill their potential.

Research has revealed that this style of leadership resulted in higher performance and more improved group satisfaction than other leadership styles. One study also found that transformational leadership led to improved well-being among group members.

2. The Transactional Leadership Style

The transactional leadership style views the leader-follower relationship as a transaction. By accepting a position as a member of the group, the individual has agreed to obey the leader. In most situations, this involves the employer-employee relationship, and the transaction focuses on the follower completing required tasks in exchange for monetary compensation.

One of the main advantages of this leadership style is that it creates clearly defined roles. People know what they are required to do and what they will be receiving in exchange for completing these tasks. It also allows leaders to offer a great deal of supervision and direction if it's needed. Group members may also be motivated to perform well to receive rewards. One of the biggest downsides is that the transactional style tends to stifle creativity and out-of-the-box thinking.

12

3. Situational Leadership Styles

Situational theories of leadership stress the significant influence of the environment and the situation on leadership. Two of these theories include:

• Hersey and Blanchard's leadership styles: Hersey and Blanchard's model is one of the best-known situational theories. First published in 1969, this model describes four primary styles of leadership, including:

1. The telling style is characterized by telling people what to do.

2. The selling style involves leaders convincing followers to buy into their ideas and messages.

3. The participating style is marked by allowing group members to take a more active role in the decision-making process.

4. The delegating style involves taking a hands-off approach to leadership and allowing group members to make the majority of decisions.

• Blanchard's SLII leadership styles: Later, Blanchard expanded upon the original Hersey and Blanchard model to emphasize how the developmental and skill level of learners influences the style that should be used by leaders. Blanchard also described four different learning styles, including:

1. The directing style involves giving orders and expecting obedience but offers little in the way of guidance and assistance.

2. The coaching style means giving lots of orders, but leaders also give lots of support.

3. The supporting style is an approach that offers plenty of help, but very little direction.

4. The delegating style is low in both direction and support.

13

How management style can influence managerial behavior

Styles of management Management consists of the planning, prioritizing, and organizing work efforts to accomplish objectives

within a business organization. A management style is the particular way managers go about

accomplishing these objectives. It encompasses the way they make decisions, how they plan and organize

work, and how they exercise authority.

Management styles vary by company, level of management, and even from person to person. A good

manager is one that can adjust their management style to suit different environments and employees. An

individual’s management style is shaped by many different factors including internal and external business

environments, and how one views the role of work in the lives of employees.

Factors that shape the management style

Internal factors

Internal company factors that determine a management style include, but are not limited to, policies,

priorities, and corporate culture, staff skill levels and motivation, and management structures.

In order to be effective a manager’s style and outlook must fit into the businesses organizational culture.

Their style must adhere to the policies and procedures set forth by the organization, and they must be

able to achieve company objectives. They are responsible for controlling an effective work team and must

uphold organizational beliefs within that team. A manager who cannot do this would likely be deemed

ineffective and removed from the position.

Staff skill levels and motivation greatly affect management styles as it is necessary for a manager to

accomplish objectives while maintaining a content and effective work team. Less skilled or motivated

employees would require a style that is more controlling and fosters consistent supervision to ensure

productivity. Highly motivated or skilled employees require less supervision and direction as they are

typically more technically skilled than management and have the ability, and desire, to make more

autonomous decisions. These employees would benefit from a management style that is less controlling

or hands-off.

Hierarchical management structures call for decision to be made solely by upper management, and within

the scope of a manager’s position in the hierarchy. These types of organizations require more controlling

management styles in order to meet objectives and get things done as specified. Fatter structures with

more decentralized decision-making benefit from management styles that encourage team

communication and employee’s contribution with regard to decision-making.

External factors

External factors affecting management styles are those that are outside of the control of the organization.

These include, but are not limited to consumers, suppliers, competitors, the economy, and the law.

14

Some examples of these factors are a competitor who offers a more autonomous environment for skilled

employees and control the job pool; the economy for a specific manufactured good result in a spike in

demand causing a production crisis; the laws for a specific industry change and require employees who

have extensive knowledge and certification causing the company employees talent and motivation to

change.

Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor introduced Theory X and Theory Y in 1957. This psychological concept proposed that

how one viewed human relationships to those of an enterprise determined their style of management.

Theory X proposes that people inherently lack the motivation and desire for responsibility and need to be

closely supervised, directed, and tightly controlled in order to achieve team objectives. Without it,

workers may become unwilling to work. This is considered the more conventional theory and results in

management styles that have high degrees of control over employees.

Theory Y conversely suggests that it is human nature to be motivated by objectives and gain satisfaction

through the completion of work. Those who believe in Theory Y believe that it is the responsibility of

management to foster environments where employees can develop potential and utilize their skills to

achieve objectives. This perspective leads to management styles that give the workers more decision

making control and provide less supervision.

Types of management styles

All management styles can be categorized by three major types: Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez-Faire,

with Autocratic being the most controlling and Laissez-Faire being the least controlling.

Autocratic

Autocratic management is the most controlling of the management styles. Variations of this style are

authoritative, persuasive, and paternalistic. Autocratic managers make all of the decisions in the

workplace. Communication with this type of management is one way, top-down to the employees.

Employee ideas and contributions are not encouraged or necessary. Roles and tasks are clearly defined,

and workers are expected to follow these directions without question while being consistently checked

and supervised.

This type of style is particularly useful in organizations with hierarchical structures where management

makes all of the decisions based on positioning in the hierarchy. Employees that benefit from this style of

management include those who are new, unskilled, or unmotivated, as they need the supervision and

clear direction. Managers can benefit greatly from using this style in times of crises or serious time

constraints.

The advantages of the autocratic management style are little uncertainty, clearly defined roles and

expectations for employees, and the speed of decision-making. All decisions are made by the manager

and employees are expected to be compliant leaving little room for variation or confusion. Decision-

making speed is ideal and is not slowed by conflicting thought or agendas.

15

Disadvantages include lack of staff input with ideas are not encouraged or shared. This can lead to job

dissatisfaction, absenteeism, and employee turnover. Because managers make all of the decisions, the

employees is not inclined to act autonomously and may become too dependent on the manager. Not all

employees want or need supervision, and as a result can become resentful and unhappy. Too many

dissatisfied employees and the separation of power with an autocratic management style can lead to an

‘us vs them’ mentality.

Variations

Authoritative

With this management style there is little trust or confidence in employees. This manager dictates orders

to employees and expect that they do exactly as required. These employees are unskilled. This requires

constant teaching and coaching of the staff as well as consistent supervision.

Persuasive

Using this management style, the manager still makes all decisions for employees but then convinces

employees that these decisions were made in the best interest of the team. The only real difference here

is that it can establish a higher level of trust between management and staff.

Paternalistic or Exploitative/Authoritative

The manager still makes all of the decisions in this style of management and treats the employees in a

condescending or paternalistic way. The decisions are made in the best interest of the employees and the

manager explains these decision and the importance of them to the employees. These employees may

feel well taken care of and looked after by the paternalistic manager but may become resentful of not

being taken seriously. This style breeds highly dependent employees.

Democratic

The democratic management style involves managers reaching decisions with the input of the employees

but being responsible for making the final decision. There are many variations of this style of management

including consultative, participative, and collaborative styles. Employee ideas and contributions are

encouraged, but not necessary. Communication is both top-down and bottom-up and makes for a

cohesive team.

This type of style is versatile with the advantages being more diverse perspectives involved in decision

making. As employees are being taken into account before the manager makes decisions, the employees

feel valued which increases motivation and productivity.

Disadvantages of the democratic management style are the time it takes to make a decision due to the

gathering of ideas and opinions. There is also the potential conflict of different viewpoints playing a role

in the decision making and as a result, employees can feel less valued if their input is not taken, leading

to decreased moral and productivity.

16

Variations

Consultative

With this management style trust and confidence is place in the employees and management actively

seeks out their opinions.

Participative

Similar to consultative, management trusts the employees, but trusts them completely and not only seeks

out their opinions and ideas, but they act on them. They work together to make decisions as a group and

the staff is highly involved. As a result the employees feel valued, and show increased motivation and

productivity. However a drawback to this style is that some employees do not want to be involved in

decision making and can come to resent a manager with this style

Collaborative

Managers with the collaborative style communicated extensively with employees and make decisions by

the majority. The manager believes that involving everyone and making the team take ownership with

result in the best decisions made. The main disadvantage of this style is that it is time consuming, and

sometimes the majority decision is no the best decision for the business entity, in which case, the manager

should take control of the final choice.

Laissez-faire

The laissez-faire management style involves little or no interference from management. The staff do not

need supervision and are highly skilled which allows management to take the hand’s off approach and

leave the problem solving, and decision making to the staff. Variations of this style include the delegative

style and what is referred to as bossless environments or self-managed teams.

This type of style works best in organizations with flatter decentralized management. Typically, the staff

is highly skilled, more so than the management, and is trusted with setting the bar for innovation and

setting the objectives.

The advantages of the Laissez faire are increased innovation and creativity through the autonomy of

expert staff. Some examples of this type of employee are be teachers, creatives, and designers.

Disadvantages include the risk of low productivity by unsupervised staff, loss of direction due to the hands-

off style of management.

Variation

Delegative

A delegative management style allows employees to take full responsibility of their work areas. The

manager assigns tasks with little or no direction and expects the staff to achieve results of their own

accord. The manager retains responsibility for meeting objectives. The major drawbacks of this style are

lack of uniformity among team members and uncoordinated efforts toward productivity. Also because

little direction and guidance is given the team can lack direction and focus.

Bossless or self-managed teams

17

Although self managed teams (SMT) and bossless environments are not management styles, they are a

style of management chosen by an organization. Like the Laissez-Faire management style, employees in

these environments are highly skilled and motivated, but take it a step further as they are also highly

educated, self directed, and know a great deal more about the work than management. SMT’s can report

directly to directors or can have managers who follow the delegative, or participative style,[7] but these

teams require more leadership than management to remain productive.

Management by walking around (MBWA)

Management by walking around is not an actual management style, it is more of a practice, but still it is

labeled as such. Managers who practice MBWA place importance on rich levels of interpersonal

communication. They believe that managers have a tendency to become separated from staff and should

focus efforts on understanding employees’ work and being visible and accessible. Managers walk around

the premises checking with employees and on the status of ongoing projects. This practice can be helpful

in maintaining contact with employees and offering guidance as well as mitigating problems, however

MBWA may also lower productivity levels by distracting employees.

Measures of managerial effectiveness Measuring manager effectiveness is like trying to measure how much snow has fallen when the blizzard

isn’t over. You can’t see; the wind obscures your readings; there’s a lot more coming down. A manager’s

effectiveness can be equally tricky because his/her role is so complex and multifaceted. Sometimes, it is

only in hindsight that you can see if a manager has done the job well or not. At the same time, measuring

effectiveness is essential because businesses don’t have the luxury of hindsight. They cannot afford to

wait until it’s all over to assess performance. So, how do you do measure if you can’t wait until the storm’s

over?

The role of the manager has four different dimensions, and within each one, there are ways to gauge

effectiveness:

1. Managerial duties. How effective is this person in areas such as setting context and boundaries,

planning, and delegating? Are these things being done?

2. Team work. How effective is the team as a whole? What is their level of performance? Are projects

and work being completed on time? On budget? In accordance with quality standards

3. Distribution of work across the team. Are the right tasks being given to the right people? Is the

manager correctly identifying the work that he/she must personally do to add value? Is the team

working together? Is employee morale high? Are individuals’ capacities balanced

4. Appropriate delegation. Is the manager correctly identifying the work that he/she must personally

do to add value? Of the work that is delegated, is it appropriately sized for the team member that

is to do the work?

18

It is a given that these are not entirely precise measurements: the team could be dysfunctional for reasons

other than their manager, for instance; or projects could be off-budget because of factors beyond their

control. But, in general, these are useful factors to consider when measuring manager effectiveness,

which must be monitored by the manager’s manager. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the

people with the appropriate capability for leading be positioned in managerial roles; that goes a long way

in boosting effectiveness, efficiency, and the quality of work done by the entire team.

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS? Many organizations expect managers who manage employees to exhibit both management and

leadership qualities. They are required to build relationships among direct-report employees and to

motivate them to achieve individual and group goals. The degree to which managers can successfully

manage their staff's performance will be important for evaluating their worth to the organization.

A Combined Effect

Defining managerial effectiveness depends on an organization's management model. One way to look at

managerial effectiveness is this: it's the combined effect of a manager who uses different management

tools and techniques. Phillip G. Clampitt's model includes communication technologies, data, knowledge,

action, performance feedback, boundary spanning, change and innovation. In this model, a manager

brings all his actions together, providing different kinds of assistance to employees, such as helping them

adjust to change and come up with new ideas that lead to innovation.

Planning and Execution

Another way to look at managerial effectiveness concerns the approach a manager takes to get people to

produce desired outcomes. Some managers are less focused on interpersonal skills, perhaps having zero

charisma, and are keenly focused on planning and execution. They set goals, create a plan for

implementing those goals, assume responsibility for their decisions and share the implementation plan

with employees through effective communication. If they have a high degree of managerial effectiveness,

the results will follow from their systematic style.

General Versus Situation-Specific

There are two ways to look at managerial effectiveness across different types of organizations. Some

"aspects of generic performance" that embody managerial effectiveness might be found in an

organization's definition of an ideal manager. These qualities are prized in managers across the

organization. Other similarities between managers that represent managerial effectiveness depend on

the situation in which they occur. Organizations can recruit managers with different effective qualities

based on the situations they might face in their roles or based on their apparent fit to the in-house concept

of an ideal manager.

19

Qualities of Effective Managers

Managerial effectiveness may include a list of qualities or skills associated with effective managers.

Whetton and Cameron's definition focuses on these skills: "verbal communication, managing time and

stress, managing individual decisions, recognizing, defining and solving problems, motivating and

influencing others, delegating, setting goals and articulating a vision, self-awareness, team building and

managing conflict." This list shows how a manager must have a wide range of skills and must effectively

multi-task. These skills can be summarized as planning, delegating, troubleshooting and using

interpersonal skills to get people to achieve goals.

Links between management style and managerial effectiveness and efficiency What is the difference between effectiveness and efficiency? They are two buzzwords that are popularly

used by CEOs and Sales VPs in charting the course of their organization. Yet, they are also commonly

misused and misinterpreted, not just in the lexicon of business-speak but also in daily use. For all intents

and purposes, let’s begin by defining efficiency and effectiveness in general terms, borrowing from

Dictionary.com:

Effective (adj.) – Adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result.

Efficient (adj.) – Performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and

effort.

The difference between effectiveness and efficiency can be summed up shortly, sweetly and succinctly –

Being effective is about doing the right things, while being efficient is about doing things right.

Another way to illustrate efficiency vs. effectiveness is with the 2×2 grid below. By referring to this

chart, CEOs and sales leaders can find an optimal balance between effectiveness and efficiency:

20

Companies usually seek to increase and improve the efficiency of their operations and sales processes.

After all, when working with limited resources, they would prefer to maximize the use of each of these

resources, from budget and technology to time and sales reps. However, by pursuing efficiency at all costs

(irony intended), some of these companies are missing a valuable chance to take a step back and look at

their overall effectiveness from a big picture perspective.

The Holy Grail for every company is to always pursue the top right box – pursuing the right goals and being

efficient, by making use of technological advances, not wasting time, and having better alignment and

collaboration of between employees. Many companies have their hearts in the right place – they know

what goals they want to achieve, but are inefficient in achieving those goals. Other companies are tightly

run ships, with all employees working together, humming along and all singularly focused on the task at

hand…but what if the task at hand is the wrong goal?

An Example

For a practical example, consider the differences between activity effectiveness and activity efficiency

among your sales reps. Every sales team has daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly goals that, when

achieved, are representative of the effectiveness of their roles. If your reps are tasked with making 70

calls each day, and they easily hit their numbers, they are effective at their jobs. Some might even go

above and beyond and make 80 or 90 calls each day. But what if those dials are producing few connects

and even fewer deals?

That’s where activity efficiency ratios come in. For a sales manager, having reports that track how many

calls lead to connects, how many connects lead to demos and how many demos lead to deals can be an

incredibly powerful indicator of which of your reps are not only effective at their jobs but efficient

in performing them.

21

The need to apply a range of management styles

Situations which would require application of differing management styles and behavior Management style ties in very closely with communication style. There isn’t necessarily one management

style that is better than another; they are simply different and might be used in a variety of situations. HR

managers can provide training on each of these areas since management style impacts the ability and

motivation of employees to do their jobs. This is addressed in Chapter 7 “Retention and Motivation”.

Fortune 500 Focus

One of the most famous Fortune 500 management styles is the GE Way, which has been discussed in

numerous books and articles. In fact, GE has traditionally been the recruiting ground for other companies’

CEO searches. When Jack Welch, the famous GE CEO known for several books on his management style,

including Winning, retired and was replaced, it took less than a week for the two runners-up for his job to

be offered jobs at other Fortune 500 companies. Home Depot recruited Robert Nardellia and 3M recruited

W. James McNearney (Deutsch, 2007). However, the command-and-control management style

responsible for the success of GE did not work out well for several former GE executives. Command-and-

control style is based on military management. The idea is to get people to do what you tell them to do,

and if they don’t, there are major penalties, similar to an autocratic style. Many say that Nardellia was

unsuccessful at Home Depot because of this ingrained management style learned at GE (Deutsch, 2007).

For example, Nardellia insisted that shelves be stocked during off hours, and he instituted formal

inventory control. Unfortunately, he didn’t understand most employees were not looking to rise within

the organization, so the extra work didn’t provide any upside for the individuals, causing high turnover.

An autocratic style may work well in some organizations, well enough for numerous books to be written,

but management style isn’t always transferable to other organizations, as Nardellia found out at Home

Depot.

22

Management styles are one of the most challenging topics we can deal with in a work setting. Everyone

is different; everyone has a preference for which style motivates them the best in a variety of situations.

Oftentimes managers make the mistake of using the same style for everyone, regardless of ability or

motivation. In this section, we will discuss some of the main management styles and how to know which

one to use in a specific situation.

Task Style versus People-Centered Style

When we look at the styles of management, we see that most styles fall into one of two categories, a task-

oriented management style or a people-centered style.

A manager with a task-oriented style will focus on the technical or task aspects of the job. The concern

for this manager is that employees know what is expected of them and have the tools needed to do their

job.

A people-oriented style is more concerned with the relationships in the workplace. The manager

emphasizes the interpersonal relations, as opposed to the task. The manager is most concerned about

the welfare of the employee and tends to be friendly and trusting.

Understanding these two main differences in management style, we will now look at other possible styles

a manager might use.

Participatory, Directing, or Teamwork Styles

Utilization of a participatory management style involves both a task-oriented style and a people-centered

style. This style emphasizes how the employee’s assigned task fits into the bigger picture. This style will

provide support and input where needed. As a result, the focus is on the task but also on the person and

the relationships required to get the task done. This style might be used when the employees are

experienced and the deadlines reasonable enough to provide the time needed to focus both on the task

and the person. If more hands-on management is required1, might be appropriate. Consider a very tight

deadline or an emergency situation in which someone needs to be calling the shots. For example, in your

doggie treats business, you just received an order for one hundred dog cookies by later this afternoon.

You might consider using a directing style to make sure it gets done on time. This style doesn’t focus on

the person, but rather focuses on getting the task done; hence it tends to be more of a task-oriented style.

A manager who uses a teamwork management style believes there is a value (or necessity) in having

people work in teams. As a result, this style tends to require a people-centered approach. Relationships

are most important, and assuming the individuals work well together, the task will be successfully

accomplished. The advantage to this style, given the type of task and situation, is that as a manager you

are able to pool resources and abilities from several different people. Use of a team style can also provide

big benefits for the company. For example, Google uses a teamwork approach it calls “grouplets.” Google

believes that individuals should be able to spend time on something that interests them and is also

company related. Engineers at Google spend 20 percent of their time on this endeavor. As a result,

grouplets are formed, and the grouplet works on their idea with no specific budget. Some of the best

ideas from Google have come through this teamwork process. Gmail, in fact, was developed using a

grouplet (Mediratta, 2007).

23

Autocratic, Participative, and Free-Reign Styles

An autocratic style of management involves the task-oriented style. The focus is on getting things done,

and relationships are secondary. This type of manager tends to tell people what to do and takes a “my

way or the highway” approach. Another description for this type of manager is a taskmaster. This person

uses his or her authority and makes all the decisions as to who does what, how it is done, and when it

should get done.

On the other hand, a participative style constantly seeks input from the employees. Setting goals, making

plans, and determining objectives are viewed as a group effort, rather than the manager making all the

decisions.

At the other extreme, a free-rein style gives employees total freedom to make decisions on how things

will get done. The manager may establish a few objectives, but the employees can decide how those

objectives are met. In other words, the leader tends to be removed from the day-to-day activities but is

available to help employees deal with any situation that may come up.

Path Goal Model for Leadership

The path goal theory says that the role of a leader is to define goals and lay down the path for the

employees to meet those goals. Aspects include clarification of the task and scope of the process.

Clarification of the employee’s role and clarification around how the success of the task will be measured

are key aspects in this model. The leader also is involved in guidance and coaching surrounding the goal

and removes obstacles for employees that might affect the completion of the task. The path goal theory

says that if employees are satisfied by the leadership style, they will be motivated toward the goals of

leadership. Part of the model also stresses that the skills, experience, and environmental contingencies of

the job play a role in the success of the leader.

24

Applying Management Styles

It is great to talk about management style, but application of that management style, especially in an HR

environment, is just as important as knowing the management styles. In this section, we will discuss how

and when you might use each style when managing people.

Another way we can view leadership is through the situational leadership model(Blanchard, 2000). This

model, developed by Ken Blanchard (author of the One Minute Manager series of books), does a good job

explaining how we might use one type of management style versus another.

The model looks at three areas: the relationship behavior of the manager, the task behavior of the

manager, and the readiness of employees. The relationship behavior means how supportive the manager

needs to be in helping employees. Task behavior refers to the type of style the manager should use when

managing employees, based on their readiness level. Readiness includes the willingness and skills to

perform the task at hand. Depending on where the employees fall in each of these areas, you might use

a different management style:

• D4—High Competence, High Commitment—Experienced at the job and comfortable with their

own ability to do it well. May even be more skilled than the leader.

• D3—High Competence, Variable Commitment—Experienced and capable, but may lack the

confidence to go it alone or the motivation to do it well/quickly.

• D2—Some Competence, Low Commitment—May have some relevant skills but won’t be able to

do the job without help. The task or the situation may be new to them.

• D1—Low Competence, High Commitment—Generally lacking the specific skills required for the

job at hand but has the confidence and/or motivation to tackle it.

Based on the readiness and commitment of the employee, the leader can see what management style

and level of support the employee should experience (Situational Leadership Grid, 2008):

• S1—Telling/Directing—High task focus, low relationship focus—Leaders define the roles and tasks

of the “follower” and supervise them closely. Decisions are made by the leader and announced,

so communication is largely one way. This style can be used with people who lack competence

but are enthusiastic and committed and who need direction and supervision to get them started.

• S2—Selling/Coaching—High task focus, high relationship focus—Leaders still define roles and

tasks but seek ideas and suggestions from the follower. Decisions remain the leader’s prerogative,

but communication is much more two-way. This approach can be used with people who have

some competence but lack commitment and who need direction and supervision because they

are still relatively inexperienced. These individuals may also need support and praise to build their

self-esteem and involvement in decision making to restore their commitment.

25

• S3—Participating/Supporting—Low task focus, high relationship focus—Leaders pass day-to-day

decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower. The leader facilitates and takes

part in decisions, but control is given to the follower. This style can be used with people who have

the necessary competence but lack confidence or motivation. These individuals may need little

direction because of their skills, but support is necessary to bolster their confidence and

motivation.

• S4—Delegating—Low task focus, low relationship focus—Leaders are still involved in decisions

and problem solving, but control is with the follower. The follower decides when and how the

leader will be involved. This style would work with people who have both competence and

commitment and who are able and willing to work on a project by themselves with little

supervision or support.

The bottom line when discussing management style is that no one style works best in all situations. We

may be more comfortable with one style versus another, but we need to change our management style

depending on the person and task we are working with. For example, if you have an employee who is

brand new, you will likely work with that person using a more directive style. As she develops, you might

change to a participative style. Likewise, someone who does good work and has lots of experience may

prefer a free-rein style. Many managers make the mistake of trying to use the same style with every

person in every situation. To be a great manager, we must change our styles based on the situation and

the individual involved.

26

How does this relate to human resources? First, in HR, we are the “go to” people when there are

communication issues or issues between management and employees. By understanding these styles

ourselves, it will be easier to communicate with and provide solutions for the people we work with. We

might even be able to use this information to develop management training, which can result in better

communication and higher productivity.

The relationship between individual managerial performance and expected

organizational managerial performance and behavior Is there any organizational practice more broken than performance management? Not if you concur

with Marc Effron & Miriam Ort who state “perhaps no talent management process is more important or

more reviled than performance management.” In fact, it draws universal agreement on several fronts:

• everyone hates it – employees and managers alike

• nobody does it well – it’s a skill that seemingly fails to be acquired despite exhaustive training

efforts, and

• it fails the test of construct validity – it doesn’t do what it was designed to do, i.e. increase

performance

Traditional performance management programs have become organization wallpaper. They exist in the

background with little or no expectations for impact. Yet despite its poor popularity, the concept of

performance (at an individual and organizational level) is critical to business success. It can’t just be

ignored.

Why is it so broken?

In a large survey conducted by WorldatWork, 58% of organizations rated their performance management

systems as “C Grade or below.” That gets a giggle. The performance management process itself gets

subjected to its own methods of setting criteria and rating performance against them – and fails.

I believe there are three reasons almost all current performance management systems are broken:

1 People have changed

2 Technology has changed

3 People’s relationship with their technology has changed

Repairing the damage? In order to compete in today’s market, companies must move to adopt a much

more agile performance management approach.

27

People HAVE CHANGED

Employee expectations have changed. It’s not just Gen Y – employees everywhere and of every generation

expect more. More involvement, more accountability, and more transparency. When it comes to

managing their performance, employees have shifted from being passive recipients to active agents. Not

satisfied with a one-way download of performance feedback, employees want to participate in the

performance data collection process. And they liken the ‘annual event’ of a performance review to arriving

at the pearly gates on Judgment Day.

Managers have changed too. Command and control is no longer cutting it – managers are expected to

guide and coach, provide balanced constructive feedback and inspire, rather than enforce, performance.

Add to that what science is now telling us about what really drives human motivation. Like, goal pursuit

motivates performance much more than goal achievement, peak performance is best achieved in states

of flow, and multi-tasking only dilutes performance on all tasks undertaken concurrently.

Key Changes for High Performance?

Paradigm shift. What used to work no longer does. Managers need to:

1) be real - communicate openly and often.

2) set stretch goals and inspire individuals to work to their potential.

3) get out of the way - trust their teams and empower employees with accountability.

Technology HAS CHANGED

We’re reaching a tipping point for technology in the talent management arena. It began with simple

automation: take the paper processes and put them on a computer. Fine, but that left us with so many

spreadsheets, Word templates, proprietary systems and disconnected point solutions that we were

drowning in complexity and data overload. It also highlighted that many of the processes we were

automating actually needed to be revised, simplified or eliminated altogether.

Baffled by the complexity we created, focus in recent years has been on process simplification, user-

friendliness and redirecting attention to what actually matters. A good step forward, but we still suffer

from too much data, too little meaningful information.

The “big data & analytics movement” has now really raised the bar – not just in terms of what data can

be gathered, aggregated and analyzed but also how it is filtered and presented to audiences to provide

immediate management insights. Activity lists are being replaced by composite dashboards, lengthy

reports by simple performance heat maps – yes, pictures, literally replacing thousands of words.

Key Change for High Performance?

A shift in focus from process to outcomes. Burn the forms. With technology finally up to the task of

producing meaningful information, managers can turn their attention to driving performance outcomes

rather than being bogged down in laborious processes.

28

The relationship between people and their technology

On demand.

Ubiquitous.

Better, faster, cheaper.

It’s really not so long ago that your only likely encounter with a computer was when you went to work,

laptops were expensive and rare, and mobile devices were pagers and Walkmans. Today, can you even

imagine getting past 10:00 a.m. without having accessed a myriad of your online applications? We work

online, shop online, socialize online, we are connected 24/7 – online.

Enterprise technologies are not far behind. Perhaps you are still in a workplace that restricts or bans social

media, but they are in decline. Perhaps your organization refuses cloud-based applications for privacy or

security reasons, but they are in decline. The fact is: organizations that try to block out the world simply

ostracize themselves. And they are in decline.

Key Change for High Performance?

An agile, social and mobile work environment. You will set dynamic goals and adjust them in response to

change; your manager will provide just-in-time coaching wherever you are; skills and knowledge you need

will be recommended and streamed to you; your performance journal will continuously capture and

cluster feedback, ideas and suggestions from your peers and customers; your formal annual performance

review will be permanently deleted from your calendar…and you will finally be in a position to manage

your own career.