# Management styles



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Another thread made me curious about this, in regards to management styles and which is best for the business / job at hand. Personally my style is more laissez-faire, with flattened hierachy and open door policy, emphasis on teamwork and personal responsibility of each of my staff.

To this day I noticed other styles, namely autocratic, is still prominent in today's leaders and quite frankly I can't justify hiring any of them. Likely because it just differs too widely for me to even appreciate the benefits of that structure. But what is your style? And how do you think it benefits your business best?


----------



## Quigster (Aug 1, 2015)

RandomDude said:


> But what is your style? And how do you think it benefits your business best?


I don't like a rigid management structure at all. The highly capable employees don't need it (because they're already doing the work they know they should be doing) and the incompetent employees don't benefit from it (because they only perform when a manager is watching, and slack off the rest of the time). That's a gross oversimplification, but I think it holds true.

I believe very strongly in the 80/20 rule; i.e., that it's 20 percent of the people doing 80 percent of the work. The best way for a manager to inspire his employees is to roll up his sleeves and do some of that work himself. I can't respect a manager who tells me, "This is really important, so go do it" and then sits in his office.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

I've only been a manager of more than one person once in my career, in 1986.

I was called in by the Vice President of the department to get a project that was already behind schedule back on track.

I said "Ok, I'll do it, but you have to give me anything I ask for in the way of equipment and the like."

He said he would, so I took the assignment, which was to manage the group that was writing test code.

One of the things that made it challenging, to say the least, was that I was a contractor and the people I was managing were employees.

If that weren't enough of a challenge, the company was a defense contractor that was so mismanaged that the programmers had joined a union.

Anyway, what I did as soon as I accepted the assignment was to ask each of the employees what was keeping them from getting their jobs done.

Apparently no one had asked that question before, as the answers were pretty simple:

1. There was only one machine (a EXORMACS minicomputer) and the developers were using it all day, so the testers had to come in at midnight to get any machine time.
2. The machine had "smart terminals" but the only storage that the testers had was one trashcan-lid-sized removable disk cartridge each. If anything happened to it, then their work would be lost.

So I told the VP that he needed to buy another EXORMACS, which IIRC cost $50K. He agreed and ordered it immediately.

I also said we needed to use PCs as terminals so that the testers could save their code on floppy disks instead of the trashcan-lids.

However, the EXORMACS didn't know how to talk to a PC. So the next thing I did was buy a terminal program that came with source code, and modified it to work with the EXORMACS.

Once the new EXORMACS and the PCs came in, the testers could get their jobs done, and we got it back on schedule.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Nice, that's what I was thinking like, throughout my years even before management I simply can't see why there needs to be managers breathing down employee's necks or to bark orders and then go sit in his/her office. Alot of the times too, like you mentioned technovelist, an open door policy could easily identify problems and solutions to get everyone back on schedule.

The problem I'm having at my business now since expanding is that all my staff who are highly qualified are so content with their roles they simply do not want the responsibility, so I have to hire externally, and it causes problems as I keep hearing "I did this" "I did that" "I raised revenue by 30%", how about the team? The "we". They weren't very happy that they didn't get the job but its so hard to find managers who can fit into our work culture. I'm no longer managing operations myself as my responsibility focuses on business development instead, but damn.

There has to be a reason why autocratic styles are still so prominent, common and popular, but I dunno, I just don't get it.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think it depends on the sort of people you are managing. I've managed small groups for many years - due to a deliberate effort to not move higher in the organization where I will be cut off form the real work. These are .. call the engineers. My thoughts on management is to :

Make sure the employees have what they need to work efficiently. This may include shielding them from upper management and doing random crap work so that they can concentrate on technical work

Stretch people technically. Give them jobs a bit above their ability - it hurts a little in the short term, but helps a lot in the long term. This is coupled with giving them as much responsibility as they can handle. 

Duty goes both ways - up the hierarchy, but also down - I try to make things better for my employees for their sake, not just the companies sake. The effect though is that they tend to be more motivated and loyal so it actually does help the company.

If someone is doing a bad job, try to find them work that they are better matched to doing. This means taking into account the abilities of the employees when deciding how to solve a problem. 

I've never had a bad employee who I couldn't put to some valuable work by rearranging things.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Let me give another perspective. My role is regional in South East Asia so the style totally depends on the culture involved.

Korea, China, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, US, European countries, all have vastly differing styles.

And your question is also dependent on which industry you work.

If there was one way that worked, we'd all be following it.

This is why you need a good MIX of styles with people you trust under you to get things done.

Your own post shows a flaw we all make, and that is to just try and surround ourselves with people just like ourselves. Not the best way...


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

jdawg2015 said:


> Your own post shows a flaw we all make, and that is to just try and surround ourselves with people just like ourselves. Not the best way...


True, hence this thread.

My industry is traditionally autocratic and heirachal, I'm one of several others challenging the status quo. Unfortunately this means an influx of potential managers that I don't want managing my teams. But hey, as you mentioned - perhaps its just me. I started from the bottom so I'll always be 'one of the little people' I guess.

I've just never seen it work, and seen alot of evidence of the contrary. With the emphasis on team rather than structure I have low staff turnover, high levels of productivity, satisfied staff to the point they won't accept new responsibilities and save me the trouble of either having to do everything myself or hiring autocratic managers that they complain about later. Bah!

And they complain to me... and when I take their side, I undermine the authority of my own managers and might as well fking fire them. It's just getting too hard especially with investors always pushing me to grow and expand to maximise their ROI.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm a firm believer in managing by doing. I can't do everything my team does by myself but outside hardware I can do quite a lot...lots of one on one collaboration and such also.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

My management arena is a lot different, being an airline captain. I have to manage my team, which includes not just the flight deck and flight attendants, but ramp crew, gate agents, dispatchers, and mechanics. One cannot demand respect, but one can command respect. One can, however, always demand performance.

Most of the time I find flight crew very self motivated and highly demanding of their own performance. I simply have to lead with expectations so they know what the goal is. Maybe we have a short turn time and the goal is on time performance. So let's not spend too much time cleaning the cabin. Or maybe the goal is to maximize passenger (customer) satisfaction while dealing with challenging weather.

If someone is slacking, like a crewmember who is chronically late in the morning for the van at the hotel, I first give a calm explanation of the performance expectations.

But many other employees are just collecting a paycheck and waiting for the weekend. Those people need a more autocratic or demanding style of command. I never resort to loud or abusive language, but sometimes very direct communication and instructions are needed.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Thor said:


> If someone is slacking, like a crewmember who is chronically late in the morning for the van at the hotel, I first give a calm explanation of the performance expectations.
> *
> But many other employees are just collecting a paycheck and waiting for the weekend. Those people need a more autocratic or demanding style of command.* I never resort to loud or abusive language, but sometimes very direct communication and instructions are needed.


Yes that's what I understand of the logic behind autocratic management. But in the end my perspective is different, like I found by giving these people responsibility making clear my expectations yet giving them leeway in how they carry out their tasks - within guidelines, making them feel they are part of something, they longer work for the paycheck but they start working for the team. 

They no longer show up early in fear of losing their job, they show up early so they don't let down the team. I can't expect this type of 'unit cohesion' with autocratic management.

So yeah, I still fail to see the benefit of autocratic management I'm afraid


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm a commissioned sales person, so I only manage myself. I like by boss's management style. He asks me once a week for projections, other than that, he leaves me alone. Doesn't care what time I come in or leave or even if I just take a day off. As long as I make the numbers, it's all good.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Yeah that's how I operate, they don't need to get my permission for breaks and as long as they dont do it during service (common sense) and they get the job done, I'm happy. When I extend my hand like this too it lets me see who takes their responsibilities and duties seriously, without me supervising or breathing down their neck, and if I have to do the latter -> bye bye! Lower level staff are easy to replace, and the rest of the team supports my decisions when it comes to eliminating the weakest links. Team players are what I look for, but that's just me.

I guess the flaw of this, is that I can't whip incompetent staff into shape, as I rely heavily on their own personal responsibility and attitude when it comes to their work.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> I guess the flaw of this, is that I can't whip incompetent staff into shape, as I rely heavily on their own personal responsibility and attitude when it comes to their work.


This is where Sun Tzu applies. If the soldier does not perform his duties because he does not understand the orders, it is the General's fault. But if the soldier does not perform even though he does understand the orders, it is the soldier's fault.

Sometimes you may have to apply different methods to different people.

I know my situation is quite different in many respects but some of the principles are the same. Most of my crew are very highly motivated and professional. At most I may have to make them aware of some information so they can independently address it. But many of the ramp staff are only collecting a paycheck. Sometimes I just have to be very direct with them: "I need you to go get the external power cart. The other guy can finish this up". Sometimes I have to inform a crew member that they have to correct a particular behavior (like being late for the airport van at the hotel).

Some people need more hand holding and kindness, others only need to be monitored. Some need firm direction.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

True, hence why I mostly internalised my departments, but that was a compromise due to my lack of autocracy. Something to work on I guess, then again I dunno if I can even change who I am or work with people so unlike me in their management style when I'm going to be biased towards my long term staff rather than a manager I hire externally.

If only a few of them just take the damn job already, even after offers for substantial pay-rises they refuse. Why? To see me running around like a headless chicken? I'm tired of being on the road all the damn time whenever it's busy, calls after calls after calls in heavy traffic. *sigh*


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Broadly, I agree with the OP. However, it does depend. As Thor says, there are people who are just time serving and with them you have to be autocratic as there is no self-motivation. With others, you can sit down as equals, divide up the work and the respect for your decision when there is a disagreement comes from you being willing to take the responsibility. Others are just more comfortable someone being more formally boss like.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Thor said:


> This is where Sun Tzu applies. If the soldier does not perform his duties because he does not understand the orders, it is the General's fault. But if the soldier does not perform even though he does understand the orders, it is the soldier's fault.
> 
> Sometimes you may have to apply different methods to different people.


I don't have management or leadership experience... did I instantly lose the audience? I still have an opinion though and agree with this sentiment. In general, I'd personally question the need for managers. I also recognize this may be a short-sighted perspective and perhaps does indeed depend on industry and the people. 

Managers and leaders are not one and the same. My view on a good leader is one that supports the team in working towards a common purpose. And when the team contributes ideas, solutions, initiatives, changes, that is opportunity! When just one person is instructing and dictating and silent obedience occurs, I wouldn't consider that to be the makings of an empowered and enthused team. Then again, whadda I know?!

In my role, I primarily work autonomously yet there's always a team element involved. Everyday I'm amazed by the team around me and filled with the utmost respect. I've learned so much from them on a personal level - likely without them even realizing. I've requested fast-feedback from my manager and appreciate the open communication and trust. I get quite passionate with ideas for my work. Some ideas I'll bounce off her and others in the team. For larger initiatives, a more effective result then occurs. I acknowledge the motives of myself and the manager may differ slightly but so long as the end-result is achieved, or at the very least attempted and learned from, that's what matters. 


RD - maybe money isn't the main financial driver for the people in your team. It would be interesting to discover what motivates them and how they view the manager role you are trying to fill.


On a side note, I listened to a good 'Ted' podcast recently titled 'Disruptive Leadership' - recommended!


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Quigster said:


> I believe very strongly in the 80/20 rule; i.e., that it's 20 percent of the people doing 80 percent of the work. The best way for a manager to inspire his employees is to roll up his sleeves and do some of that work himself. *I can't respect a manager who tells me, "This is really important, so go do it" and then sits in his office*.


I'm not really understanding this. I see it as the manager ensuring that you find the project worthy enough to pursue. 

If the only projects in the office that got pursued were the ones that the manager spearheaded, it seems to me that a lot less would get done.

Is this what you meant?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

I formerly managed a staff of eight to ten. A lot of my management style (involving motivating thru inspiration) ran counter to the corporate management by intimidation method. I won contests, set corporate records, made bonus every year, but was told in no uncertain terms that I wasn't what they were looking for when it came time for promotion.
Since then I have left the corporate world and I am now happily self employed with only my own time to manage. I tried enlisting the aid of my ex in the endeavor, but she wasn't interested in anything other than imposing a corporate structure which I refused to accept. 
I could grow my business, but I have no interest in managing someone else's work and so I continue on my merry way. The effort required to manage others would only bring me incremental increases in income, so as far as I am concerned they aren't worth it.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I seem to have a long history of having to work for pathological micro managing control freaks. Which makes me just the reverse to the people who work for me. I expect competence but I'm not going to do your job for you to get it. Own your own responsibilities.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

heartsbeating said:


> RD - maybe money isn't the main financial driver for the people in your team. It would be interesting to discover what motivates them and how they view the manager role you are trying to fill.


They are very motivated and passionate in their roles, yet quite adamant about accepting too much responsibility. Several have worked with me for many years, even before my takeover, those have never changed. Others accepted supervisory positions but nothing more, having declined my offers to move up to middle management for various reasons. The rest are nowhere near qualified I'm afraid.

This is a problem that has plagued me for a while now, with no lasting solutions. Hiring externally has only led to new headaches, the common denominator being me. I reckon I've spoiled them somewhat with the flat structure, the only authority they respect is mine. Unfortunately this means I can't delegate operations management properly, hampering my ability to focus on business development which is vital at present times.

BDM for my business is a role no one can fill - if they can, they would have the connections necessary to open their own business than continue working for me. But I can't do everything at once.

May have to bite the bullet and risk staff turnover by forcing them to work under the managers I hire externally but doing that instead of undermining them might even inspire one of them to go for the job! Or they can blow up my business by leaving. Hell may even need to hire an OCM to deal with all that crap, even then can't guarantee it would work.

*sigh* So much for early retirement


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening heartsbeating
I see "management" as the necessary drudgery that has to go along with leadership. Someome needs to do performance reviews, ensure that peoples required training is complete, allocate projects, check schedules and budgets, make sure people have the resources they need, etc. The fun part is leadership where you get to inspire people to work together efficiently. Sadly you can't avoid the non-fun bits.

As you say, I think good managers / leaders recognize contributions from their team. Great managers make their teams think that they have come up with ALL the ideas, even the ones the manager has actually given them (people work much harder to make their own ideas succeed) :smile2:








heartsbeating said:


> I don't have management or leadership experience... did I instantly lose the audience? I still have an opinion though and agree with this sentiment. In general, I'd personally question the need for managers. I also recognize this may be a short-sighted perspective and perhaps does indeed depend on industry and the people.
> 
> Managers and leaders are not one and the same. My view on a good leader is one that supports the team in working towards a common purpose. And when the team contributes ideas, solutions, initiatives, changes, that is opportunity! When just one person is instructing and dictating and silent obedience occurs, I wouldn't consider that to be the makings of an empowered and enthused team. Then again, whadda I know?!
> 
> ...


----------



## Quigster (Aug 1, 2015)

NextTimeAround said:


> If the only projects in the office that got pursued were the ones that the manager spearheaded, it seems to me that a lot less would get done.


Obviously some delegation is necessary (and even desirable). If I'm told to drop everything and work on something that's super important, though, if my supervisor is sitting on his a$$ while I'm working up a sweat, I guess it wasn't all that important to begin with, huh?

Feel free to disagree.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Quigster said:


> Obviously some delegation is necessary (and even desirable). If I'm told to drop everything and work on something that's super important, though, if my supervisor is sitting on his a$$ while I'm working up a sweat, I guess it wasn't all that important to begin with, huh?
> 
> Feel free to disagree.


I would not expect my boss "to roll up their sleeves and get involved" in every project, either regular or special. But I would expect him / her to approve and facilitate resources going towards it.

I have learned to be careful in the workplace however. When I was younger, I assumed that when someone / anyone / including the boss failed to show interest in aproject that they assigned me, that that was their way of saying it got cut.

Boy, was I sorely mistaken. Even though memos (this was the pre-digital) would go unanswered, 6 months later my boss still had the nerve to come around and say, what happened to that project and still downgrade for it on the evaluation. Similar stuff has happened to me in my personal life...... ie "well, if you didn't try hard enough....."

You can be sure these days, that you have to send me in writing with a least one witness that "it ain't going to happen and I will not accuse you in the future."

My husband tried that on me when we were dating and he was fooling around with his special friend. He stopped responding to an e-mail exchange where I was suggesting that we get together the day I got back from a 3 week trip. He never hear the end of my fear that without proper closure, someone will tell me that "I didn't try hard enough."


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

I wish I could say that a manager that lets his/her employees do their own thing is the best but I've worked for two polar opposite managers/owners (in my position I usually report to president/owner positions).

The first guy I worked for was a great guy. Gave his managers a lot of leeway, trusted everyone to the point that many times he didn't even come to work. His employees ended up stealing from him and he had to sell the business.

Another guy I worked for was a hard-nosed manager. Always in your face, demanding things be done his way, hard on deadlines, ruled by intimidation. Company was wildly profitable. Employees stayed either three weeks or decades. Profit sharing was the best I've ever had.

I try to be somewhere in the middle by nature.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Chris Taylor said:


> I wish I could say that a manager that lets his/her employees do their own thing is the best but I've worked for two polar opposite managers/owners (in my position I usually report to president/owner positions).
> 
> The first guy I worked for was a great guy. Gave his managers a lot of leeway, trusted everyone to the point that many times he didn't even come to work. His employees ended up stealing from him and he had to sell the business.
> 
> ...


Well, in whose way would you do it?

I remember once complaining about a boss who became angry because he saw that I was writing out a draft in longhand. He wanted me to start my draft in Word.

I remember complaining about this with friends. A couple people said, if that's what wants, then do it.....


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
When I'm managing people, I try to let them solve problems their way. Then it becomes a matter of pride for them to make their solution work. 




NextTimeAround said:


> Well, in whose way would you do it?
> 
> I remember once complaining about a boss who became angry because he saw that I was writing out a draft in longhand. He wanted me to start my draft in Word.
> 
> I remember complaining about this with friends. A couple people said, if that's what wants, then do it.....


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> When I'm managing people, I try to let them solve problems their way. Then it becomes a matter of pride for them to make their solution work.


I suppose that can work in certain offices.

But when a boss / business owner is trying to regularise the costumer experience, letting an employee doing it their own way may not work.

I think it's very dangerous to tell young people just getting onto the job ladder to be independent; creative; do it your own; succeed on your terms ; and so on.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening heartsbeating
> I see "management" as the necessary drudgery that has to go along with leadership. Someome needs to do performance reviews, ensure that peoples required training is complete, allocate projects, check schedules and budgets, make sure people have the resources they need, etc. The fun part is leadership where you get to inspire people to work together efficiently. Sadly you can't avoid the non-fun bits.
> 
> As you say, I think good managers / leaders recognize contributions from their team. Great managers make their teams think that they have come up with ALL the ideas, even the ones the manager has actually given them (people work much harder to make their own ideas succeed) :smile2:


Richard, I was considering my current manager and I think she is the necessary 'glue' connecting the different areas and with the authority to do so.

With some of the tasks you mentioned, I question some of these as being needed. Performance reviews, for example, I feel are redundant. My manager feels the same. We communicate regularly enough that it's not needed... aside from creating admin/paperwork along with a tick-box to provide head office. Still, we go along with it. This is how it's been with most places I've worked. 

I agree that people work harder to make their own ideas happen. And the most helpful thing I've learned about ideas is not to be 'attached' to them. I disagree that a good manager has their team thinking they have come up with ALL the ideas. Allowing room for the team to come up with a solution, idea, etc rather than dictating (basically trusting in the team) can certainly help to encourage empowerment and often brings a greater variety of thought. Sure, the manager prompts and discusses ideas, but from my perspective, just as much as anyone else in the team. Yesterday I experienced a domino effect of small ideas coming together to reach a wonderful end result.

From what I have briefly read of organizations without managers, or middle-management, there can be chaos and disorganization along with productivity and greater innovation. I think it was Ricardo Semler (please correct me if I'm wrong) who has a unique approach with management whereby the team hire and review the manager, rather than the other way around. It's an interesting approach. 

No doubt there are industries and individuals that may prefer to be directed and have a certain type of structure. It's a mixed bag out there!


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

> To this day I noticed other styles, namely autocratic, is still prominent in today's leaders and quite frankly I can't justify hiring any of them. Likely because it just differs too widely for me to even appreciate the benefits of that structure. But what is your style? And how do you think it benefits your business best?


I'm retiring at the end of next week from my longtime employment but I've managed people for years.

I've been kind of lucky that I've never needed to be autocratic and that's good because I detest being managed that way and its not my personality type to do that to anyone else.

I also find that autocratic management styles tend to suppress the natural idea generating process and my career is design/manufacturing oriented so we need people to think outside of the box which sometimes means sometimes people come with an idea that seem kind of loopy at the time but can turn into genius later.

Plus, I've always found that when I'm kind to others and am grateful when they help me...my career does better and so does theirs. It just creates more productive workers. I've always done best under managers who lead by example and are working their butts off and asking for my help. I loathe someone who dictates while not knowing their butt from a hole in the wall and doesn't understand the extent of what they're asking you to do. 

I will however say, that I've been lucky because I've always worked with very talented, hard-working people so I've never had to be autocratic either. I've only fired two people in my life and both were brand-new people who just weren't catching on and were probationary anyway.

At the beginning of February though, my husband and I are ramping up our new business full-time and technically I own the company. If he doesn't do everything I say, I'm planning on using "spanking" as my main motivational method. (I'm just not sure who's getting the spanking yet).


----------



## Lionelhutz (Feb 2, 2012)

I've had a fair amount of management experience in the past and I have gone through several different pet theories about the best type and style of management.

Currently my thoughts are best summed up as "It Depends"


You need flexibility. Different problems, different tasks and different groups of workers require different approaches. In my experience the "kick ass and take names" school of management is least effective and most destructive but there are times and places when it can be essential. 

Even "roll up the sleeves" "hands on" management has its limitations when what the organization needs is a strategic long term thinker.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I pretty much agree with all that, and especially agree that performance reviews are unnecessary. Unfortunately they are often required from much higher up in the management chain.





heartsbeating said:


> Richard, I was considering my current manager and I think she is the necessary 'glue' connecting the different areas and with the authority to do so.
> 
> With some of the tasks you mentioned, I question some of these as being needed. Performance reviews, for example, I feel are redundant. My manager feels the same. We communicate regularly enough that it's not needed... aside from creating admin/paperwork along with a tick-box to provide head office. Still, we go along with it. This is how it's been with most places I've worked.
> 
> ...


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I tend to give people jobs that are over their heads to force them to learn something new and cope with it. It's not a workload thing it's brain thing. I also evaluate failure in terms how I predict it would turn out the NEXT time, not this time. If you screw it up this time but you have a good shot at improving it a great deal the next time, I'm generally fine. Screw the same thing twice though, please go work for someone else.


----------



## Lionelhutz (Feb 2, 2012)

Runs like Dog said:


> I tend to give people jobs that are over their heads to force them to learn something new and cope with it. It's not a workload thing it's brain thing. I also evaluate failure in terms how I predict it would turn out the NEXT time, not this time. If you screw it up this time but you have a good shot at improving it a great deal the next time, I'm generally fine. Screw the same thing twice though, please go work for someone else.


I have very often told my staff that. Screw-ups are to be expected. Most serious problems come from hiding, blaming, deflection and denial because nothing is learned and everything is made worse.


----------

