8/7/2019 MgmtStyles

1/8

8/7/2019 MgmtStyles

2/82

Following the Industrial Revolution, oureconomy experienced rapid and broadgrowth. Such increases in size made itnecessary to appoint more vassals topositions of responsibility, and before long ahierarchy developed. Because those near

the top of the hierarchy feared their removalfrom control, there emerged a managerialstyle we now label bureaucratic. Thebureaucrat considers as his primeresponsibilities the continuation of thesystem within which he finds himselfemployed, and the development ofprotective barriers to guard him against thetyrannies of his superiors, or the ravishes ofthose he is supposed to serve.

As industrial growth occurred, so also did

economic growth. The general economicwell-being of society improved, which furtherstimulated the gradual rise in generaleducational levels. With the rising level ofeducation came a greater public awarenessand enhanced antiestablishment feelings.From this environment evolved thedemocratic style of management, wherecontrol rested within the combined and moreequal influence of committees and othergroups of individuals.

As the educational level increased evenfurther, it gave rise to the study of manhimself. Human wants, needs, and desiresbegan to appear for consideration inmanagement literature. Management nowhad to operate in close concert within theconfines of human psychological parametersand the basic physiological comforts. Thispractice became best known as theparticipative style of management and isusually defined as a balanced considerationof the individual and the requirements of the

organization. As concern for the humanelement grew to even greater extremes, thehumanist style then evolved.

There exists one other managerial style thatwe must consider even though it possessesno strong historical derivative. This style shallbe referred to as laissez faire. It has existed

throughout history whenever a manager hasshown full contentment with his station in life.Such a manager remains quietly in thebackground and rises to an occasion onlywhen directly threatened. He is a modern-daypractitioner of the Peter Principle, i.e., a man

whose job has outgrown him.

The Dominance Scale

As the managerial styles described hereinunfolded over time, they followed what mightbe called an evolutionary scale of decreasingdominance. In other words, if we definedominance to be the power to determine thefuture, it can be shown that the truly dominantforce moved from the singular leader to thesystem or organization, to the group, andfinally to the individual within the group orsystem.

It would only seem natural, therefore, that thevarious managerial styles adapt themselvesvery well to a dominance scale. In fact, twomanagerial theorists by the names ofTannenbaum and Schmidt have developedsuch a scale, where numerical reference ismade to the dominance factor (see Figure 1).

Scale 1-The Autocrat: How manyagribusiness managers do you know whoregularly make decisions and announce thembefore checking with anyone? He is theindividual who insists that all firm decisions,no matter how minor they may be, must berendered by his office. This manager retainsfull control of his organization, almost solelyas a result of his own charisma, his positionwithin the system, and his forcefulpersonality.

Scale 2-The Authoritarian: This manageralso insists that he fulfill the major role in thewhole decision-making process. Yet thedifference is that while the autocrat willimpose the decision on the organization, theauthoritarian will actually try to sell hisdecision to the organization. In brief, thismanager must at least recognize the desiresof the organization from which he derives hispower.

8/7/2019 MgmtStyles

3/8

3

Scale 3-The Bureaucrat: The bureaucraticmanager presents ideas and invitesquestions before decisions are made. Withthe bureaucrat, there is minimum use ofabsolute power. Instead, he exists as a

creature of the organization, whichsurrounds him. He exists to serve theorganization, strives to meet its objectives,and uses it for his own protection whenevernecessary. Performance is judged by thismanager to be consistent with the survivaland growth of the organization.

Scale 4-Laissez Faire: This managerialstyle is placed at the midpoint of ourdominance scale because it represents anull balance between leader domination and

worker domination styles. Within thisclassification, a combination of theorganization, the group, individual workers,and some unknown components, acttogether to fill in for the inactivity of theleader.

Scale 5-The Democrat: This managerdraws his power from what he sees or

determines to be the majority opinion. Thebasic mode is to present problems andopenly solicit suggestions. A majority votethen establishes the destiny of theorganization.

Scale 6-Participative: As shown in Figure1, the participative manager may definesome organizational limits, but he reliesheavily on groups and individuals within theorganization for definitive decisions. To adegree, his managerial style appears similarto Scale 5. The outstanding difference isthat individuals within a group are graduallygaining power over the wishes of the groupas a whole.

Scale 7-The Humanist: This managerialstyle results from an overreaction to thepreaching of human relationists. It setsindividual happiness as the ultimate goal. Insearch of this goal, the objectives of theorganization or groups within theorganization are relegated to a subordinateposition.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Dominance Scale:

Autocrat Authoritative Bureaucrat Laissez Faire Democrat Participative Humanist

Figure 1Tannenbaum and Schmidts

Dominance Scale of Managerial Styles

Leader Domination

Group Domination

Individual Domination

Organizational Domination

?

8/7/2019 MgmtStyles

4/8

4

Other Managerial Theories

Now that a basic model of managerial stylehas been prepared, lets consider thewritings of other managerial theorists tocompare and review their relevance to

agribusiness practices.

Frederick Taylor, of course, was the firstgreat theorist. His work formed the basicdisciplines in the field of industrialengineering. More important is the fact thatTaylor is referred to as the father ofscientific management. This reputation wasestablished as a result of Taylorsintegration of the following four majorprinciples:

1. With some thought and effort, one couldscientifically dissect each element of amans physical labor. Such dissectionand analysis would, thereby, establish amethodology for the replacement of theold rule-of-thumb practices.

2. Manager can scientifically select andtrain people. As a result, managementdevelops its own workmen. (Prior to thistime, it was assumed that people wouldchoose their own work and trainthemselves.)

3. The manager must cooperate with hisemployees to ensure that all work isdone in accordance with the scientificprinciples developed.

4. There should be an equalitarian divisionof the work and responsibility betweenmanagement and workers. Managementshould take over all work for which theyare best fitted, replacing the pastpractice wherein almost all the work was

thrown upon the employees.

Taylors views are now considered to fallwithin the autocratic or authoritarian styles.In spite of his softening ideas of cooperationbetween management and workers, he leftno doubt as to who remains in the positionof power. This philosophy should not be too

surprising, when one realizes that Taylorlived in an autocratic era, when kings,robber barons, and cartels were still verymuch in existence.

Douglas McGregor is assured of a place in

the history of managerial thought as a resultof his so-called Theory X-Y. McGregordefines Theory X as the conventional viewof management; one which is held by themajority of practicing managers. It providesbroad justification for managers to pursuethose patterns associated with either theautocratic or authoritarian styles. YetMcGregor then argues that Theory Y is thebetter way. If brief, Theory Y is consistentwith the participative management style andis the most successful means for satisfying

the individual's needs. Its components areas follows.

Theory X:1. The average human being has an

inherent dislike of work and will avoid it ifpossible.

2. Because of this dislike, most people willhave to be controlled, coerced, directed,and threatened with punishment to getthem to put forth effort toward theachievement of organizational

objectives.3. The average human being prefers to

avoid responsibility, needs to bedirected, has little ambition, and wantssecurity above all.

Theory Y:1. The expenditure of physical and mental

effort in work is as natural as play orrest.

2. External control and the trust ofpunishment are not the only means for

spurring effort organizational objectives.Many will exercise self-direction andcontrol in pursuit of objectives to whichthey are committed.

3. Commitment to objectives is a functionof the rewards associated with theirachievement.

8/7/2019 MgmtStyles

5/8

5

4. The average person learns under properconditions not only to accept but to seekresponsibility.

5. The capacity to exercise a high degreeof imagination, ingenuity, and creativityin the solution of organizational

problems is widely, not narrowly,distributed among people.

6. Under conditions of modern industriallife, the intellectual potentialities of theaverage human being are only partlyutilized.

The System 4 theory of managerial stylesbecame popular as a result of the writings ofRensis Likert. Figure 2 describes, in brief,the four systems of Likert.

Figure 2Rensis Likerts System 4

Authoritative Permissive

System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4

System Description1 Explorative Authoritarian2 Benevolent Authoritarian3 Consultative4 Participative

Generally speaking, the two authoritativesystems of Likerts would be comparable toTannenbaum and Schmidts dominancescales 1 through 3. His system 3 describesa form of consultative leadership and mightbe considered to be a form of thedemocratic style earlier discussed. System4 is directly comparable with dominanceScale 6.

As shown, the System 4 theory of Likert isquite fundamental and, perhaps, lacking adegree of comprehensiveness. A somewhatmore complex and comprehensive theoryhas been developed by Blake and Moulton.Their theory is expressed in the form of amanagerial grid (see Figure 3), whichemphasizes the human relations aspect. Inthis system, the bureaucrat is seen as amiddle-of-the-road manager who

compromises his concerns for both peopleand production for the sake of theorganization, thereby, accomplishing verylittle. The laissez faire managerial stylemight also be viewed as Blake andMoultons impoverished leader; a person

little concerned about either people orproduction. The autocrat and authoritarianstyles would be typified with over concernfor production and are labeled as taskmasters. It is the view of Black and Moultonthat the well-balanced ideal is referred toas the team manager and would fit bestthe participative style.

Figure 3The Managerial Grid

ConcernPoint

DominanceScale

1,9 Overconcern for people,humanist

7

1,1 Impoverished leader,laissez faire

4

5,5 Bureaucrat, compromise

for the system

3

9,1 Overconcern forproduction, autocrat orauthoritarian

1 or 2

9,9 Well-balanced ideal,participative

6

Middle ofthe Road

(5,5)

TaskManager

TeamManager

Country ClubManager

ImpoverishedManager

1 Degree of Concern for Production 9

9

(1,1)

(9,9)

(9,1)

1

(1,9)

Degree

of

Concern

forPeople

8/7/2019 MgmtStyles

6/8

6

Figure 4

The Multicrat Spectrum

DominanceScale Style Source of Power

Method ofCommunication

1 Autocrat Self Orders and directives

2 Authoritarian Position Orders and directives

3 Bureaucrat Regulations Explains

5 Democrat Majority Discusses

6 Participative Group Jointly determines

4 Abdicrat Informal organization Random

Hard

No

Nose

Nose

One final contributor to this composite ofalternative theories was Clark Caskey.

Caskeys theory is referred to as theMulticrat Approach, and argues thatmanagerial styles range from the hard-nosed autocrat to the no-nose, apatheticabdicate, with various intermediarystages. His idea was that a truly adeptmanager was one who practices variousstyles, rather than trying to perfect asingle best style. His multicrat matrix,shown in Figure 4, not only addresses thedifferences in alternative managerialstyles, it also considers the related source

of power and the method ofcommunication.

Combining the Philosophies

We have now reviewed the basiccomponents of different managerial stylesas theorized by numerous writers in thefield. Our purpose now is to combine allthe different theories, place them within acomparative framework, and then attemptto summarize the results into a singlepractical theme. Figure 5 provides us with

a convenient vehicle for comparing thecomponents of at least seven alternativetheories. The overlap is both obvious andhelpful in identifying common elements.

From Figure 5, it could be determined thatall theories of managerial style contain

three major components, to which each isattached a central theme:

1. Situational Dominance: The firstcommon component rests on the realworld premise that for any operationalsituation, a particular managerial stylemay be either effective or ineffective.The manager who adheres to thisgeneral theme must, if he is to besuccessful, have the flexibility to adoptany of the basic styles, as the occasionrequires.

2. Personality Dominance: A secondcommon component calls for the closeobservation of the manager as hehandles the various situations he faces.This theme maintains that early in one'syouth, one makes critical appraisals ofhow to get people to do things. Itsuggests that managers adopt aparticular style (or range of styles) onthe basis of their past record ofsuccess or failure.

3. Optional Dominance: The third majorcomponent rests on the belief that theparticipative style of management is,indeed, optimal. There does exist somesupporting research, which shows that,in specific situations, this managerialstyle does yield greater employeeproductivity. Unfortunately, we have noclear-cut measure of total managerial

8/7/2019 MgmtStyles

7/8

StyleDescription

1rat 2

Authoritarian3

Bureaucrat

4Laissez

Faire

5Democrat P

DominanceFactor

(9,1) (5,5) (1,1) (9,9) The Grid

Multicrat

1 4

System 3

Theory X

Authoritative Bureaucrat Abdicrat Democrat Autocrat

56

23

Cooperative ScientistTaylor

Tannenbaumand Schmidt

TheoryX Y

LikertSystems

Leader

OrganizationGroupVoid

1Autocrat

System 1

System 2

8/7/2019 MgmtStyles

8/8

8

effectiveness, and continued difficulty indetermining whether it is the manager orhis team of workers who are mostdeserving of high marks.

What Are the Answers?

We find it not very difficult to accept thatthe participative style of management isvery effective in those special situationswhere diverse human inputs are requiredin the decision-making process. Yet weare also quick to point out that there areother situations where this style would bemost inappropriate, e.g., in the military, orin the middle of open-heart surgery, as inother instances where time andenvironment require immediate decisions.So what are the answers? Whichmanagerial style will prove most suitableto your particular situation in theagribusiness industry? Should yousharpen your skills in each of severalalternative styles or specialize in one?

In my opinion, the answers to thesequestions lie within an improvedunderstanding of managements naturalbehavior patterns at all points on thestyles continuum. This rather long andcomplex review of alternative theories hasled to a single practical conclusion, i.e.,the most realistic approach to theselection of an appropriate managerialstyle is one which selects the moreacceptable features of each of the threethemes noted herein. In brief, I wouldadvocate the following:

1. Stop trying to be or create super-sensitive managers. Even if we weresuccessful, we would not like the endresult. To become overly sensitiveabout his own human behavior andthat of others is to invite neuroses and

anxieties not warranted or neededwithin a firm or industry.

2. Dont try to plug yourself or othersneatly into a prescribed style. Helpyourself to determine where you nowlie on the dominance continuumwithout concern for itsappropriateness. Use this naturalstyle as the base from which tobroaden your abilities andeffectiveness.

3. Concentrate less on trying to adoptthe best style for each specificsituation. Concentrate more on yourability to assemble and coordinate theindividual analytical tools called for bythe situation.

4. Instead of looking at the participativestyle as a universal answer, restore itto the rightful position as anacceptable style. We must recognize

that the effectiveness of this particularstyle is also constrained by specificsof situation confronted bymanagement.

Ken D. DuftExtension Marketing Economist