A management style is a distinctive way in which Planning, Organising, Actuating, Controlling and other management functions are performed. Given the many choices in the performance of each management function, an almost limitless number of management styles can be visualized. In reality, however one encounters far fewer styles.
This is because styles tend to be internally coherent. If a management chooses to coordinate activities participatively, it is also likely to set goals, develop strategies, control operations, etc. participatively rather than in an authoritarian manner. Styles tend to crystallize around major management convictions and commitments. That is, their cores tend to be ideological in character, and commitment to a core management ideology- of risk-taking in business or conservatism, professionalism in hiring staff or intuitive choices, and so on- is likely to shape the rest of the style.
These commitments are not randomly generated. Nor are they exclusively the commitments of the person who happens to be the CEO, although undoubtedly the CEO usually does play a significant role in the evolution of a style of management. The style evolved has to be viable, that is it has to be able to measure up to real-life situations.
A good deal of learning from experience plays a major part in the styles emergence. Social processes within the ranks of management, such as information and experience sharing, advocacy of points of view, political deals and so forth, also play a part. The purpose for which the organisation is set up and the social, legal and economic environment, in which it operates, too contribute to the viability of the style of management.
Good and Bad styles of Management
Human beings are an interesting species; they often talk about lofty ideals and perfection but practice quite the opposite.
Determined by the super-ego and identity, human behavior may be repulsive or sublime.
Hence the style of management adopted is an expression of the thoughts in the mind of the decision makers and leaders.
Depending upon these thoughts the style could be good or bad. i.e. socially desirable or undesirable. In society, ‘good styles’ are referred as professional and participative. If there is variety in excellence, there is variety in incompetence. The corporate sickness and dysfunctional forms of bureaucracy and professional management have uncovered a large number of bad forms of management.
This is because styles tend to be internally coherent. If a management chooses to coordinate activities participatively, it is also likely to set goals, develop strategies, control operations, etc. participatively rather than in an authoritarian manner. Styles tend to crystallize around major management convictions and commitments. That is, their cores tend to be ideological in character, and commitment to a core management ideology- of risk-taking in business or conservatism, professionalism in hiring staff or intuitive choices, and so on- is likely to shape the rest of the style.
These commitments are not randomly generated. Nor are they exclusively the commitments of the person who happens to be the CEO, although undoubtedly the CEO usually does play a significant role in the evolution of a style of management. The style evolved has to be viable, that is it has to be able to measure up to real-life situations.
A good deal of learning from experience plays a major part in the styles emergence. Social processes within the ranks of management, such as information and experience sharing, advocacy of points of view, political deals and so forth, also play a part. The purpose for which the organisation is set up and the social, legal and economic environment, in which it operates, too contribute to the viability of the style of management.
Good and Bad styles of Management
Human beings are an interesting species; they often talk about lofty ideals and perfection but practice quite the opposite.
Determined by the super-ego and identity, human behavior may be repulsive or sublime.
Hence the style of management adopted is an expression of the thoughts in the mind of the decision makers and leaders.
Depending upon these thoughts the style could be good or bad. i.e. socially desirable or undesirable. In society, ‘good styles’ are referred as professional and participative. If there is variety in excellence, there is variety in incompetence. The corporate sickness and dysfunctional forms of bureaucracy and professional management have uncovered a large number of bad forms of management.