The Management Style Inventory ? 5 Different Management Styles. 12

Hard style Seen by others as authoritarian, autocratic, ?hard? Theory X, judgmental parent-child, ?taskmaster,? critical. This manager places production before people. ?Getting the work done is more important than being popular or keeping everyone happy,? says the?H?supervisor. This style is appropriate in emergency situations, such as when a manager must get employees out of a burning building, when a platoon lieutenant must get his men to move across a field under fire, or when a football coach must call the plays for a team that is trailing in the last quarter with five minutes left to play. The?H?style is likely to be found where there has been a militant union or where the work is routine and monotonous, or where workers are new, inexperienced, and less educated. It might also prevail where the workers expect it and regard it as a sign of strength (e.g., in traditionally male-dominated jobs: truck driving, construction, lumbering, oil rigging, marine-maritime, etc.). Most managers find that the?H?style can be effective?in the short run?to manage an unusual, onetime, extraordinary effort?military combat, a four-alarm fire, a sales manager running a campaign to get lagging sales up by the end of the quarter. But if?H?is the prevalent style of a supervisor, employees will become dependent and are likely to respond to the ?carrot and stick? of their boss rather than to the situation itself. And when they do become bruised or ?bent out of shape,? the supervisor is not likely to be very effective in restoring harmony. Soft Style Seen by others as permissive, democratic, ?soft? Theory X, nurturing parent-child, ?country club manager,? pampering. This manager is permissive, placing people before production. The S supervisor believes that ?Overemphasis on productivity, objectives, and standards will merely turn people off, and they won?t do their best work ? At least, it won?t be as good as you?ll get by taking care of your people and being popular with them.? This style is appropriate in situations where creativity, individuality, and relationships are important. A dean of faculty or department chairman at the university, the head of a team of research scientists, the supervisor of volunteers in a charity or social welfare agency, or the president of a local service club (Woman?s Club, Elks, etc.) are positions where a soft style might be preferable. The?S?style is likely to be found in situations where relationships are more important than output. But the?S?style will emerge whenever the supervisor has a strong need for acceptance (need to be liked, to be popular, to ?make up? for an unpopular prior action). Such supervisors tend to overlook human error: ?Everybody makes mistakes. If he does it again, we?ll have a talk.? Unfortunately, this increases the probability of future errors, which tends to fuel the supervisor?s belief that people depend on him or her to correct them and make things right. Both the?S?and?H?managers are Theory X managers in that both expect less of subordinates than they are capable of. The Hard manager sees workers as incompetent or lazy, while the Soft manager sees workers as prone to make mistakes or as feeling ?put upon? if extra demands come along. Thus, both the?H?and?S?managers end up doing much of the work themselves rather than delegating it. Middle-of-the-Road Style Seen by others as compromiser, manipulator, highly political, ?good guy,? juggler. This manager believes that it?s important to push for productivity, until people begin to feel ?put upon? or abused. Then the manager ?makes peace? or ?buys time? by paying some attention to relationships and ego needs. The high?M?believes ?It?s important to plant the seeds of change with employees so they?ll come up with ideas and feel a degree of ownership. They want to feel in on the decisions.? This style is manipulative. The manager is see-saw, balanced on the thin edge of trying to get the job done and keeping people happy. The high?M?style is quite common and can be effective if the manager has sound judgment (better than the group?s) and enough charisma and personality to get people to trust their leader. But the danger faced by high?M?supervisors is that they might be seen as insincere or manipulative. When this occurs, the supervisor?s effectiveness will diminish rapidly. The?M?supervisor believes that the needs of the organization and its employees are inherently in conflict. Thus, this supervisor becomes a compromiser, a referee, a juggler of advantages. (?I owe you one; I?ll make it up to you next week.?) Rather than seek the best situation from either a?production or a people standpoint (since this would take its toll on the opposite dimension), the high?M?tries to find a position that is in between?something that is halfway acceptable. The high?M?supervisor prefers one-to-one relationships with subordinates, which means that members of the work group usually do not function as a team. This supervisor often plays politics, both downward with subordinates and upward with the boss and upper management. Indeed, to the high?M,?it is more important to do what is expedient (acceptable and workable) then to do what is best for production and people. Ineffective Style Seen by others as abdicating, impoverished, impersonal, highly bureaucratic, paper shuffler. This manager, like the high?M,?sees a basic incompatibility between production needs and people needs. However, rather than seeking compromise, high?I?managers tend to back off and abdicate. They are reactive rather than proactive. They respond rather than provide leadership. They keep busy writing ?C.Y.A.? memos and looking up policy and procedures. They maintain a low profile and believe in the value of not rocking the boat. In some settings, the high?I?can be effective. Some departments or work units require a high attention to detail or to well established, tightly defined procedures (e.g., a quality control lab, accounting, purchasing, payroll, the military). At other times the high?I?style may emerge in response to dysfunctional organizational actions (e.g., where the supervisor is less competent than the employees who proceed on their own, or where the organization is highly bureaucratic, or where feather-bedding creates jobs and work units that have no functional utility). The high?I?manager has a strong need for security, and avoids risk at all costs. This manager avoids giving personal opinion, citing instead the organization?s policy, often by chapter and verse. This manager engages in ?we-they? thinking on downward communications: ?They say we have to clean up the situation by the 15th.? And on upward communication, the high?I?is likely to blame the troops for any failures or shortfalls: ?Well, with the kind of employees we?re getting ?.? In the long run, no profit-oriented business can exist for long with a high?I?style. However, the individual high?I?manager has tenacity and an ability to survive, especially under a management where ?no one is ever fired.? Team Builder Seen by others as participative, catalyst, coach, integrator, Theory Y, adult to adult. This manager shows maximum concern both for people and production, and is the most effective style one can have. There is no inherent conflict between the needs of the organization (production) and the needs of the workers (good relationships). Indeed, most people come to work expecting to be challenged. New problems, decisions, and goals are what a job is all about. They make the work interesting and provide the flame to temper each worker?s steel, the fuel for personal growth and development. As the high?T?puts it, ?My aim is to create a work environment that integrates individual creativity, high productivity, and job satisfaction. By building a team, my people can learn how to play the game and win through teamwork. It?s they who will take me to our organization?s superbowl ? not vice versa. The high?T?makes frequent use of words like: joint goal-setting, accomplishment, contribution, challenge, mutual benefit, orchestrate (or integrate), tracking of progress, rewarding performance. The goal of the high?T?is to foster participation and employee involvement in the planning of work so that everyone in the work group has an opportunity to invest of themselves and find meaning, commitment, purpose, and opportunity for personal growth and development in the group?s work. To achieve this end, the high?T?manager is in the game for the long run. Sometimes short-term efficiencies or gains are sacrificed for long-term effectiveness, such as in delegating to party B a job that could be done quicker and better by self or party A. Other styles ?come naturally? and are reactive; the high?T?style is proactive and must be cultivated. But over time it is the most satisfying and the most productive.

Source: http://onlinesuccesscentre.com/2012/07/the-management-style-inventory/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-management-style-inventory

hunger games movie review bats hunger games review jeff saturday jason smith jon corzine austin rivers