Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

UNDERSTANDING MANAGEMENT time.

Beginning with the time of the Egyptian


STYLES pharaohs and extending through the Dark
Ages and the beginnings of the feudal
In the October 1974 issue of Administrative system, the only dominant managerial style
Management there appeared an article being practiced successfully was that of
titled, “Understanding the Natural Born autocratic rule. The autocrat was ruler
Leader That’s in You.” This article reviewed supreme. The system by which he ruled was
a mass of historical management literature inseparable from his own desires, whims,
in its attempt to uncover the origins of and fancies. His leadership was total and
numerous philosophies of managerial style. absolute.
Yet its major accomplishment was not in the
identification and description of these As time passed, the autocrat’s holdings (his
different styles, but rather its ability to show empire) began to expand in both material
how the various styles relate to one another, wealth and geographical scope. Before long
overlap, and fit a newly defined “scale of the autocrat found it necessary to delegate
dominance.” to a select few of his vassals, a modest
degree of authority, for the purpose of
Compositions on alternative management retaining control over a much broadened
styles would hardly be of any direct value to scale of operations. At this point, the
the average agribusiness manager. Yet after autocrat became an authoritarian, as
a further search into the literature on evidenced by his change in management
management styles, it becomes more and style.
more apparent that our current agribusiness
industry can lay claim to every style; even More time passed, and around the time of
those evolving centuries ago. Furthermore, I our own Industrial Revolution, there
would argue that as a manager develops a emerged this grass roots reaction to the
better understanding of the different styles, excesses of practicing autocrats and
he will be better able to appreciate his own authoritarians. Amongst our general society
personal style or adopt and use that style arose the views that child labor, worker
which seems to best fit the situation. exploitation, sweatshops, and the like were
morally unjust. The exercise of absolute
Anyway, please bear with me as together we authority was no longer to be tolerated in
plod through some lengthy, theoretical either industry or government. To avoid a
discussions. At the conclusion, I shall fate like that of the King of France and
attempt to assess the impact of the paper’s others, those in control realized they would
content on your own choice of managerial be forced to concede additional prerogatives
style. to the populace or labor force. Thus
emerged the era of the “enlightened
Management Styles-Their Evolutionary monarch” in government, or the
Origins “paternalistic capitalist” in industry. Only
If one returns to the time of early-recorded through their willingness to respond to some
history, it is not difficult to ascertain the societal pressures did they retain control
managerial style most in evidence at that over their domains.

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING


Following the Industrial Revolution, our throughout history whenever a manager has
economy experienced rapid and broad shown full contentment with his station in life.
growth. Such increases in size made it Such a manager remains quietly in the
necessary to appoint more vassals to background and rises to an occasion only
positions of responsibility, and before long a when directly threatened. He is a modern-day
hierarchy developed. Because those near practitioner of the Peter Principle, i.e., a man
the top of the hierarchy feared their removal whose job has outgrown him.
from control, there emerged a managerial
style we now label bureaucratic. The The Dominance Scale
bureaucrat considers as his prime
As the managerial styles described herein
responsibilities the continuation of the
unfolded over time, they followed what might
system within which he finds himself
be called an evolutionary scale of decreasing
employed, and the development of
dominance. In other words, if we define
protective barriers to guard him against the
“dominance” to be the power to determine the
tyrannies of his superiors, or the ravishes of
future, it can be shown that the truly dominant
those he is supposed to serve.
force moved from the singular leader to the
system or organization, to the group, and
As industrial growth occurred, so also did
finally to the individual within the group or
economic growth. The general economic
system.
well-being of society improved, which further
stimulated the gradual rise in general
It would only seem natural, therefore, that the
educational levels. With the rising level of
various managerial styles adapt themselves
education came a greater public awareness
very well to a dominance scale. In fact, two
and enhanced antiestablishment feelings.
managerial theorists by the names of
From this environment evolved the
Tannenbaum and Schmidt have developed
democratic style of management, where
such a scale, where numerical reference is
control rested within the combined and more
made to the dominance factor (see Figure 1).
equal influence of committees and other
groups of individuals.
Scale 1-The Autocrat: How many
agribusiness managers do you know who
As the educational level increased even
regularly make decisions and announce them
further, it gave rise to the study of man
before checking with anyone? He is the
himself. Human wants, needs, and desires
individual who insists that all firm decisions,
began to appear for consideration in
no matter how minor they may be, must be
management literature. Management now
rendered by his office. This manager retains
had to operate in close concert within the
full control of his organization, almost solely
confines of human psychological parameters
as a result of his own charisma, his position
and the basic physiological comforts. This
within the system, and his forceful
practice became best known as the
personality.
participative style of management and is
usually defined as “a balanced consideration
Scale 2-The Authoritarian: This manager
of the individual and the requirements of the
also insists that he fulfill the major role in the
organization.” As concern for the human
whole decision-making process. Yet the
element grew to even greater extremes, the
difference is that while the autocrat will
humanist style then evolved.
impose the decision on the organization, the
authoritarian will actually try to “sell” his
There exists one other managerial style that
decision to the organization. In brief, this
we must consider even though it possesses
manager must at least recognize the desires
no strong historical derivative. This style shall
of the organization from which he derives his
be referred to as laissez faire. It has existed
power.

2
Figure 1
Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s
Dominance Scale of Managerial Styles

Autocrat Authoritative Bureaucrat Laissez Faire Democrat Participative Humanist

Organizational Domination
Leader Domination

Individual Domination

? Group Domination

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dominance Scale:

Scale 3-The Bureaucrat: The bureaucratic determines to be the majority opinion. The
manager presents ideas and invites basic mode is to present problems and
questions before decisions are made. With openly solicit suggestions. A majority vote
the bureaucrat, there is minimum use of then establishes the destiny of the
absolute power. Instead, he exists as a organization.
creature of the organization, which
surrounds him. He exists to serve the Scale 6-Participative: As shown in Figure
organization, strives to meet its objectives, 1, the participative manager may define
and uses it for his own protection whenever some organizational limits, but he relies
necessary. Performance is judged by this heavily on groups and individuals within the
manager to be consistent with the survival organization for definitive decisions. To a
and growth of the organization. degree, his managerial style appears similar
to Scale 5. The outstanding difference is
Scale 4-Laissez Faire: This managerial that individuals within a group are gradually
style is placed at the midpoint of our gaining power over the wishes of the group
dominance scale because it represents a as a whole.
null balance between leader domination and
worker domination styles. Within this Scale 7-The Humanist: This managerial
classification, a combination of the style results from an overreaction to the
organization, the group, individual workers, preaching of human relationists. It sets
and some unknown components, act individual happiness as the ultimate goal. In
together to fill in for the inactivity of the search of this goal, the objectives of the
leader. organization or groups within the
organization are relegated to a subordinate
Scale 5-The Democrat: This manager position.
draws his power from what he sees or

3
Other Managerial Theories surprising, when one realizes that Taylor
lived in an autocratic era, when kings,
Now that a basic model of managerial style
robber barons, and cartels were still very
has been prepared, let’s consider the
much in existence.
writings of other managerial theorists to
compare and review their relevance to
Douglas McGregor is assured of a place in
agribusiness practices.
the history of managerial thought as a result
of his so-called “Theory X-Y.” McGregor
Frederick Taylor, of course, was the first
defines Theory X as the conventional view
great theorist. His work formed the basic
of management; one which is held by the
disciplines in the field of industrial
majority of practicing managers. It provides
engineering. More important is the fact that
broad justification for managers to pursue
Taylor is referred to as the “father of
those patterns associated with either the
scientific management.” This reputation was
autocratic or authoritarian styles. Yet
established as a result of Taylor’s
McGregor then argues that Theory Y is the
integration of the following four major
“better way.” If brief, Theory Y is consistent
principles:
with the participative management style and
is the most successful means for satisfying
1. With some thought and effort, one could
the individual's needs. Its components are
scientifically dissect each element of a
as follows.
man’s physical labor. Such dissection
and analysis would, thereby, establish a
Theory X:
methodology for the replacement of the
1. The average human being has an
old rule-of-thumb practices.
inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if
2. Manager can scientifically select and possible.
train people. As a result, management 2. Because of this dislike, most people will
develops its own workmen. (Prior to this have to be controlled, coerced, directed,
time, it was assumed that people would and threatened with punishment to get
choose their own work and train them to put forth effort toward the
themselves.) achievement of organizational
objectives.
3. The manager must cooperate with his 3. The average human being prefers to
employees to ensure that all work is avoid responsibility, needs to be
done in accordance with the scientific directed, has little ambition, and wants
principles developed. security above all.

4. There should be an equalitarian division Theory Y:


of the work and responsibility between 1. The expenditure of physical and mental
management and workers. Management effort in work is as natural as play or
should take over all work for which they rest.
are best fitted, replacing the past 2. External control and the trust of
practice wherein almost all the work was punishment are not the only means for
thrown upon the employees. spurring effort organizational objectives.
Many will exercise self-direction and
Taylor’s views are now considered to fall control in pursuit of objectives to which
within the autocratic or authoritarian styles. they are committed.
In spite of his softening ideas of cooperation 3. Commitment to objectives is a function
between management and workers, he left of the rewards associated with their
no doubt as to who remains in the position achievement.
of power. This philosophy should not be too

4
4. The average person learns under proper compromises his concerns for both people
conditions not only to accept but to seek and production for the sake of the
responsibility. organization, thereby, accomplishing very
5. The capacity to exercise a high degree little. The laissez faire managerial style
of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity might also be viewed as Blake and
in the solution of organizational Moulton’s “impoverished leader”; a person
problems is widely, not narrowly, little concerned about either people or
distributed among people. production. The autocrat and authoritarian
6. Under conditions of modern industrial styles would be typified with over concern
life, the intellectual potentialities of the for production and are labeled as “task
average human being are only partly masters.” It is the view of Black and Moulton
utilized. that the well-balanced “ideal” is referred to
as the “team manager” and would fit best
The “System 4” theory of managerial styles the participative style.
became popular as a result of the writings of
Rensis Likert. Figure 2 describes, in brief, Figure 3
the four systems of Likert. The Managerial Grid
9 (1,9) (9,9)
Figure 2
Rensis Likert’s System 4
Country Club Team
Authoritative Permissive Manager Manager
System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4
Concern for People

Middle of
System Description the Road
1 Explorative Authoritarian (5,5)
Degree of

2 Benevolent Authoritarian
3 Consultative Task
4 Participative Impoverished
Manager Manager

Generally speaking, the two authoritative 1 (1,1) (9,1)


systems of Likert’s would be comparable to
1 Degree of Concern for Production 9
Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s dominance
scales 1 through 3. His system 3 describes
a form of consultative leadership and might
be considered to be a form of the Concern Dominance
Point Scale
democratic style earlier discussed. System
4 is directly comparable with dominance 1,9 Overconcern for people, 7
humanist
Scale 6.
1,1 Impoverished leader, 4
As shown, the System 4 theory of Likert is laissez faire
quite fundamental and, perhaps, lacking a 5,5 Bureaucrat, compromise 3
degree of comprehensiveness. A somewhat for the system
more complex and comprehensive theory 9,1 Overconcern for 1 or 2
has been developed by Blake and Moulton. production, autocrat or
Their theory is expressed in the form of a authoritarian
managerial grid (see Figure 3), which 9,9 Well-balanced ideal, 6
emphasizes the human relations aspect. In participative
this system, the bureaucrat is seen as a
middle-of-the-road manager who

5
Figure 4

The Multicrat Spectrum

Dominance Method of
Scale Style Source of Power Communication
1 Autocrat Self Orders and directives

Hard
Nose
2 Authoritarian Position Orders and directives
3 Bureaucrat Regulations Explains
5 Democrat Majority Discusses

Nose
6 Participative Group Jointly determines

No
4 Abdicrat Informal organization Random

One final contributor to this composite of three major components, to which each is
alternative theories was Clark Caskey. attached a central theme:
Caskey’s theory is referred to as the
“Multicrat Approach,” and argues that 1. Situational Dominance: The first
managerial styles range from the hard- common component rests on the “real
nosed autocrat to the no-nose, apathetic world” premise that for any operational
abdicate, with various intermediary situation, a particular managerial style
stages. His idea was that a truly adept may be either effective or ineffective.
manager was one who practices various The manager who adheres to this
styles, rather than trying to perfect a general theme must, if he is to be
single “best” style. His multicrat matrix, successful, have the flexibility to adopt
shown in Figure 4, not only addresses the any of the basic styles, as the occasion
differences in alternative managerial requires.
styles, it also considers the related source
of power and the method of 2. Personality Dominance: A second
communication. common component calls for the close
observation of the manager as he
Combining the Philosophies handles the various situations he faces.
This theme maintains that early in one's
We have now reviewed the basic
youth, one makes critical appraisals of
components of different managerial styles
how to get people to do things. It
as theorized by numerous writers in the
suggests that managers adopt a
field. Our purpose now is to combine all
particular style (or range of styles) on
the different theories, place them within a
the basis of their past record of
comparative framework, and then attempt
success or failure.
to summarize the results into a single
practical theme. Figure 5 provides us with
3. Optional Dominance: The third major
a convenient vehicle for comparing the
component rests on the belief that the
components of at least seven alternative
participative style of management is,
theories. The overlap is both obvious and
indeed, optimal. There does exist some
helpful in identifying common elements.
supporting research, which shows that,
in specific situations, this managerial
From Figure 5, it could be determined that
style does yield greater employee
all theories of managerial style contain
productivity. Unfortunately, we have no
clear-cut measure of total managerial

6
1
rat 4
Style 1 2 3 5 6 7
Laissez
Description Autocrat Authoritarian Bureaucrat Democrat Participative Humanist
Faire

Dominance
Leader
Factor Individual
Organization
Void Group

Comparative Analysis of Alternative Styles


Taylor Cooperative Scientist

Tannenbaum 1 2 4 5 7
and Schmidt 3 6

Figure 5
7

Theory
Theory X Theory Y
X Y

Likert System 1
System 3 System 4
Systems System 2

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

Multicrat Autocrat Authoritative Bureaucrat Abdicrat Democrat Particicrat


effectiveness, and continued difficulty in 1. Stop trying to be or create super-
determining whether it is the manager or sensitive managers. Even if we were
his team of workers who are most successful, we would not like the end
deserving of high marks. result. To become overly sensitive
about his own human behavior and
What Are the Answers? that of others is to invite neuroses and
anxieties not warranted or needed
We find it not very difficult to accept that
within a firm or industry.
the participative style of management is
very effective in those special situations
2. Don’t try to plug yourself or others
where diverse human inputs are required
neatly into a prescribed style. Help
in the decision-making process. Yet we
yourself to determine where you now
are also quick to point out that there are
lie on the dominance continuum
other situations where this style would be
without concern for its
most inappropriate, e.g., in the military, or
appropriateness. Use this “natural
in the middle of open-heart surgery, as in
style” as the base from which to
other instances where time and
broaden your abilities and
environment require immediate decisions.
effectiveness.
So what are the answers? Which
managerial style will prove most suitable
3. Concentrate less on trying to adopt
to your particular situation in the
“the best” style for each specific
agribusiness industry? Should you
situation. Concentrate more on your
sharpen your skills in each of several
ability to assemble and coordinate the
alternative styles or specialize in one?
individual analytical tools called for by
the situation.
In my opinion, the answers to these
questions lie within an improved
4. Instead of looking at the participative
understanding of management’s “natural”
style as a universal answer, restore it
behavior patterns at all points on the
to the rightful position “as an
styles continuum. This rather long and
acceptable style.” We must recognize
complex review of alternative theories has
that the effectiveness of this particular
led to a single practical conclusion, i.e.,
style is also constrained by specifics
the most realistic approach to the
of situation confronted by
selection of an appropriate managerial
management.
style is one which selects the more
acceptable features of each of the three
themes noted herein. In brief, I would
advocate the following: Ken D. Duft
Extension Marketing Economist

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi