الوسم: management

There’s an astonishing paragraph in Steven Weinberg’s review of a biography of Robert Oppenheimer. (Found through Butterflies and Wheels.)

Oppenheimer never used his position of leadership in physics research to play the part of a mandarin who tries to control what other physicists do. In that regard, he presents a sharp contrast to Werner Heisenberg, a greater physicist, but one who did what he could after the war to force German physicists to work on his ideas. I am convinced that one of the reasons the US was successful in developing nuclear weapons during the war and Germany was not is that we had Oppenheimer while the Germans had Heisenberg.

It’s astonishing because there are so many other explanations: Michael Frayn’s play Copenhagen is about Heisenberg and the Bomb; also most of the talented pre-war physicists were Jewish, naturally they left Germany as soon as they could, and one hopes that others would have been reluctant to work for the Nazis. But Weinberg, who remains one of the smartest people I’ve ever read, puts it down to management style.

Well, he met Oppenheimer. Not that Oppenheimer was happy.

Managers have to perform many roles in an organization and how they handle various situations will depend on their style of management. A management style is an overall method of leadership used by a manager. There are two sharply contrasting styles that will be broken down into smaller subsets later:
[LIST][*] Autocratic [*] Permissive[/LIST]Each style has its own characteristics:
Autocratic: Leader makes all decisions unilaterally.
Permissive: Leader permits subordinates to take part in decision making and also gives them a considerable degree of autonomy in completing routine work activities.
Combining these categories with democratic (subordinates are allowed to participate in decision making) and directive (subordinates are told exactly how to do their jobs) styles gives us four distinct ways to manage:
Directive Democrat: Makes decisions participatively; closely supervises subordinates.
Directive Autocrat: Makes decisions unilaterally; closely supervises subordinates.
Permissive Democrat: Makes decisions participatively; gives subordinates latitude in carrying out their work.
Permissive Autocrat: Makes decisions unilaterally; gives subordinates latitude in carrying out their work.
In what situations would each style be appropriate? Inappropriate?

Managers must also adjust their styles according to the situation that they are presented with. Below are four quadrants of situational leadership that depend on the amount of support and guidance needed:
Telling: Works best when employees are neither willing nor able to do the job (high need of support and high need of guidance).
Delegating: Works best when the employees are willing to do the job and know how to go about it (low need of support and low need of guidance).
Participating: Works best when employees have the ability to do the job, but need a high amount of support (low need of guidance but high need of support).
Selling: Works best when employees are willing to do the job, but don’t know how to do it (low need of support but high need of guidance).
The different styles depend on the situation and the relationship behavior (amount of support required) and task behavior (amount of guidance required).
Can you guess which management styles would work best for each situation listed above?

Listed below are a few situations and options for what you would do. Try to decide which of the four situational styles would work best in each situation. Then pick the option that best fits that style.
Situation 1
The employees in your program appear to be having serious problems getting the job done. Their performance has been going downhill rapidly. They have not responded to your efforts to be friendly or to your expressions of concern for their welfare.
Which style would you pick? What would you do?
[LIST=1][*]Reestablish the need for following program procedures and meeting the expectations for task accomplishment.[*]Be sure that staff members know you are available for discussion, but don’t pressure them.[*]Talk with your employees and then set performance goals.[*]Wait and see what happens.[/LIST]Situation 2

During the past few months, the quality of work done by staff members has been increasing. Record keeping is accurate and up to date. You have been careful to make sure that the staff members are aware of your performance expectations.
Which style would you pick? What would you do?
[LIST=1][*]Stay uninvolved.[*]Continue to emphasize the importance of completing tasks and meeting deadlines.[*]Be supportive and provide clear feedback. Continue to make sure that staff members are aware of performance expectations.[*]Make every effort to let staff members feel important and involved in the decision making process.[/LIST]Situation 3

Performance and interpersonal relations among your staff have been good. You have normally left them alone. However, a new situation has developed, and it appears that staff members are unable to solve the problem themselves.
Which style would you pick? What would you do?
[LIST=1][*]Bring the group together and work as a team to solve the problem.[*]Continue to leave them alone to work it out.[*]Act quickly and firmly to identify the problem and establish procedures to correct it[*]Encourage the staff to work on the problem, letting them know you are available as a resource and for discussion if they need you.[/LIST]Situation 4

You are considering a major change in your program. Your staff has a fine record of accomplishment and a strong commitment to excellence. They are supportive of the need for change and have been involved in the planning.
Which style would you pick? What would you do?
[LIST=1][*]Continue to involve the staff in the planning, but direct the change.[*]Announce the changes and then implement them with close supervision.[*]Allow the group to be involved in developing the change, but don’t push the process.[*]Let the staff manage the change process.[/LIST]

Various management styles can be employed dependent on the culture of the business, the nature of the task, the nature of the workforce and the personality and skills of the leaders.

This idea was further developed by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt (1973) who argued that the style of leadership is dependent upon the prevailing circumstance; therefore leaders should exercise a range of leadership styles and should deploy them as appropriate.

An Autocratic or authoritarian manager makes all the decisions, keeping the information and decision making among the senior management. Objectives and tasks are set and the workforce is expected to do exactly as required. The communication involved with this method is mainly downward, from the leader to the subordinate, critics such as Elton Mayo have argued that this method can lead to a decrease in motivation from the employee’s point of view. The main advantage of this style is that the direction of the business will remain constant, and the decisions will all be similar, this in turn can project an image of a confident, well managed business. On the other hand, subordinates may become highly dependent upon the leaders and supervision may be needed.

A more Paternalistic form is also essentially dictatorial, however the decisions tend to be in the best interests of the employees rather than the business. A good example of this would be David Brent running the business in the fictional television show The Office. The leader explains most decisions to the employees and ensures that their social and leisure needs are always met. This can help balance out the lack of worker motivation caused by an autocratic management style. Feedback is again generally downward, however feedback to the management will occur in order for the employees to be kept happy. This style can be highly advantageous, and can engender loyalty from the employees, leading to a lower labour turnover, thanks to the emphasis on social needs. It shares similar disadvantages to an authoritarian style; employees becoming highly dependent on the leader, and if the wrong decisions are made, then employees may become dissatisfied with the leader.

In a Democratic style, the manager allows the employees to take part in decision-making: therefore everything is agreed by the majority. The communication is extensive in both directions (from subordinates to leaders and vice-versa). This style can be particularly useful when complex decisions need to be made that require a range of specialist skills: for example, when a new ICT system needs to be put in place, and the upper management of the business is computer-illiterate. From the overall business’s point of view, job satisfaction and quality of work will improve. However, the decision-making process is severely slowed down, and the need of a consensus may avoid taking the ‘best’ decision for the business. It can go against a better choice of action.