Management Styles – An Alternate Paradigm
Management Styles – An Alternate Paradigm
Management literature is rich with details on various managerial & leadership styles (in business context) and theories and studies to explain them. As advocated by the renowned management experts There is no panacea style. As with human beings, organizations are also a subordinate to the circumstances with some in their control, and others beyond their control. Here's an attempt to view the management styles conveyancers (and not the managerial or leadership styles) through the eyes of the author. For some this could be seen as gathering of information already available and that's perfect. Nevertheless, if regrouping helps learn the concepts and details more effectively, why not tryit? Research has revealed that there are five primary styles of management, which can be used on a standalone basis or in conjunction, based on the size, complexity and the challenges of an organization. Let's take a look at each of these styles. Progression: The word implies that the management is developing business gradually or in stages. Based on the priorities and resources available, certain tasks of the company boiler service near me require to be refocused however, ultimately every aspect of the company must be in sync. The progressive model is suitable when there is enough room for market expansion and when there is a significant lack of competition either on the product / service basis or on a business. In the present economic and entrepreneurial environment it is likely to be suitable for new businesses or ideas with very high barriers to entry and exit. The challenge here is to increase the pace of operations once the business is at an amount of scale, since the barriers begin to disintegrate by that point. The biggest drawback to this approach is complacency, or even laxity. Regressive: The verb means returning or rolling back to an earlier condition or little developed. This is a common practice for organizations that are government-related and, in some cases, even for the government. Beyond the design itself is interesting to understand why, and when, this style is used. It somehow resembles the concept in self-fulfilling prophecy. In some instances it might be an informed management decision, supported by a comprehensive analysis. However, in the majority of instances, it's due to lack of foresight in internal controls, fudging of data & information that result in inaccurate MIS, promoters not being focused and the Board becoming lost in "other" important issues, etc. The way it works is that the regressive style comes into play more slowly and without management being fully aware. It's just an elude. If the competition , or the market expands faster than a specific company is managed by the company, then its approach to management could be termed as regressive in a sense. The most significant negative aspect of this type of management is an inexplicable loss of vital resources. Degressive: This style is a lateral form of regressive fashion. It is observed in many instances wherein, for no motives, the management abandons the focus of the existing & robust businesses, and suddenly expands its product or service offerings in terms of coverage, capacity, and other things without sufficient rationale decision-making or reasoning. These expansions invariably result in the reallocation and re-allocation of resources , regardless of their cost to the business. Many of the failed unrelated diversification can be attributed to the management style that is agressive. In certain instances it becomes extremely difficult to recoverif management is slow to understand the distance traveled. One of the causes for such a style is that they have numerous priorities and absence of timely decision-making. Additionally, the second or third generation of young entrepreneurs desire to try too many things at the same time. As with its vertical design however, the main drawback of this design is an unimaginable loss of key resources and also the likely deterioration of the existing and strong businesses. Agressive: Enron & Satyam are two classic cases in which the management became in a way that was transgressive. The top management executives of the companies did not just violate the law of the nation, but also strayed from moral lines and social norms. One need not be an expert in the field to recognize the underlying reasons that led to this behavior. They are clearly the result of greed, fearlessness and a lack of respect for established standards (legal or not). The recent instance of harsh punishment to a well-known financial expert (of Indian origin) in the USA could be attributable to his intransigent style. The main downside of this approach is the permanent loss of stake-holders' (employees, investors, government as well as society) trust in the Board and management, or in the supporters that support the leadership. aggressive: In business jargon the term "aggressive management" implies speed with determination and audacity. Few other words that match the concept are lively, dynamic, and entrepreneurial. The key is to make sure that the aggression is supported by robust decisions-making processes at all levels of the business because speed is what makes it necessary to make decisions on the spot. In sectors where there numerous players and with low entry and exit barriers, it's imperative for every manager to accept this way of working. In reality, the management of the leading companies must be more aggressive to keep the top position, i.e. the growth rate of business should exceed the growth rate of market. As speed increases, there are higher chances of accidents & even casualties. Therefore, the aggressive management style calls for a meticulous approach to all fronts. The major flip side of this approach is the inevitable bloodshed, mainly internally. By by the way: If the management understands its style and way forward or backwards based on the fashion, there will not be any problems. If the management is aware about the advantages and disadvantages of the style and disclosed them publicly, its decision to choose a style will be regarded as valid and acceptable, excluding the unconstitutional one. The most important thing to remember, to note, in essence, is that the amount of accountability required by external & internal environments has moved up substantially in recent years . This means that management is able to neglect this dimension of "accountability". The previous trend used to be "perform or perish". The current trend in the current era is "perform or perform & get punished or perish & get punished". The style of management matters in the present.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *