’s And Beyond Essay, Research Paper
Before we can dive into the subject of managerial styles ? what they were and where they?ve come, we first need to distinguish what a management style is. A management style, to us, and therefore, to the rest of this paper, is defined as a set of expectations an individual has, as to how they are to use their leadership position to involve themselves and to involve other people in the achievement of results.
Various aspects, such as value systems, technology, organizational design, and globalization, all affect the culture of an organization and come into play when determining what managerial style is best to use. As we move through the years, these components develop, resulting in the need for managerial styles to change too. If managerial styles are not developed along side with these aspects, the manager will be ineffective and fail.
Management ideas inherently go through a process of distillation before they attain widespread usage and become famous in stature. This process generally takes into consideration five key attributes; a) It has to be timely, that is it must address the problems of the current age. b) It must be brought to the attention of the audience. c) It must refer to organizational requirements in a way that meets the individual needs and concerns of the managers themselves. d) It must meet the needs of potential users with essential ingredients. e) It must be verbally presentable in a capturing way. The process can be viewed much like a funnel as in Figure 1.
Only a small number of management ideas make it through this filter and become mainstays in our society. It can be stated that there are approximately six management ideas that have successfully made it through this filter in the past 100 years.
These ideas or concepts include bureaucracy, scientific management, administrative management, human relations management, neo-human relations management, and guru theory management. The many writers and theorists of management philosophies are placed throughout these categories and will be mentioned in this paper. We will now briefly consider in rough chronological order each of these key management ideas.
Bureaucracy
Weber?s theory of bureaucracy is often presented alongside the works of Fayol and Urwick who, discuss administrative management. We will go into more depth with them later. Weber?s main interest was in the process of social change and in the effect of rationality on religious thought and capitalism. The key to bureaucracy is authority. From a historical perspective authority is based on the belief in the sacred or the extraordinary characteristics of the person giving the orders (e.g. Christ). In a more traditional form, authority was established through the belief that the person giving the orders had done so through tradition (e.g. King or Duke). Finally, the legal form of authority implied that the person giving the orders was acting in accordance with or under established rules or laws.
The Weberian model of bureaucracy offers a stable and predictable world that provides the blueprint for rationally designed structures in which rational individuals carry out their prescribed actions and tasks. The bureaucratic form of the organization posses specific features such as specialization, hierarchy, rules, impersonality, full time officials, career focus, and a split between public and private activity. Bureaucracy exists in its purest form in public organizations such as the government. This can be accounted for by the statement that the larger an enterprise is, the more complicated it becomes. Although one of the oldest management ideas, the appeal of bureaucracy to certain managers is still present today.
Scientific Management
The next popular management style to be discussed is scientific management. This focused upon the shop floor and upon the techniques that could be used to maximize productivity of workers doing manual labour. It is not likely to be applied in its purest form, although, it does make a template for a good number of job design work throughout the twentieth century. In a typical manufacturing firm one will see scientific management techniques on the shop floor while bureaucratic management would be applied in the office areas.
Fredrick Winslow Taylor originally developed this theory during the early years of this century. Taylor was an American engineer who established the foundations of the process of work management. The reason why his ideas were considered a science was his use of time and motion study techniques. He based his work upon the accurate and scientific study of unit times. His aim was to increase productivity by increasing the performance of workers by selecting manual tasks and fragmenting them into their simplest and smallest components.
Taylor is best known for his book, The Principles of Scientific Management, which was published in 1911. This book explained that in order to increase the productivity of labour, it was necessary to highlight the national loss being incurred through inefficiency. Systematic management could remedy this inefficiency and that the best management was a true science and rested upon a foundation of clearly defined laws, rules, and principles.
Taylor was appalled by the inefficiency of industrial practices and set out to demonstrate how managers and workers could both benefit by adopting his scientific approach. At the turn of the century in North America, managers expected their employees either to posses the appropriate skills for the work they were doing or to learn them from those who were around them. Notions of systematic job specifications, clearly established responsibilities, and training needs analysis were all unknown. It was Taylor?s plan to change this. He argued that mental and manual work should be separated. Management should specialize in planning and organizing the work, while workers should specialize in actually doing it. He believed there were clear advantages to specialization of activities – becoming an expert as well as becoming highly proficient at the task.
Taylor?s theory was based on four key principles; a) The development of a science for each element of a persons work which would replace the old rule-of-thumb methods. b) The scientific selection, training, and development of workers to replace the previous practice of their choosing their own work methods, and training themselves as best they could. c) Co-operating with the workers so as to ensure that all the work was done in accordance with the scientific principles developed. d) An equal division of work and responsibility between management and workers.
Taylor?s ideas came to be incorporated in organizational design throughout the twentieth century. His principles were instituted regularly and extensively for over seventy years and continue to be applied today. In many cases it was the non-application of his ideas that received attention, such as the Volvo car plant in Kalmar. The work of Taylor was developed and extended by Gilberth and Gantt to name a few.
Administrative Theory
The primary focus of this idea is the determination of what types of specialization and hierarchy would optimize the efficiency of organizations. The application of these two concepts produced a very mechanistic form of organizational design, which paid little attention to the people and saw them more as parts of a machine. Administrative management is built around four key pillars. These are the division of labour, the scalar and functional processes, organizational structure, and the span of control. Additional concepts include discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, compensation, subordination of the individual interest to the general interest, centralization, and esprit de corps (group spirit).
The writer who is most closely associated with this system of management is Henry Fayol. He believed that the techniques of successful management could be described and taught and that managerial organization was as valid an area of study as worker organization. He sought to discover a set of principles, which would enable a manager to build up the formal structure of a firm and to administer it in a rational way.
Those who followed Fayol took these concepts, refined them, added to them, and often stressed a particular part of them. Mooney and Riley for example, emphasized the co-ordinative principle seeing it as the central point. Other classical writers such as Gulick and Urwick developed the notion of rationalizing the work process by bringing it together in as centralized an area as possible.
Administrative management has received extensive critical analysis, nevertheless, the majority of practices recommended by this system continue to be the central way in which modern firms are organized. Administrative management is not a historical fossil but continues to represent a major model for the design of large, highly integrated organizations of today.
Human Relations
Human relations arose from the American wish to humanize their society without interfering with the free operation of market forces. This idea promised a land in which everybody accepted that it was socially and economically desirable that there should be the greatest degree of competition outside the firm, but that any competitive or contentious elements within it were both socially and economically undesirable.
Taylor (Scientific Management) may well have known the potential dangers for management of work groups. In place of his attempt to destroy work group solidarity, the human relations went the alternative route to attain the same goal. That goal was to control the work group by integrating it into the organization. This focus on people also meant that fundamental structure redesigns were avoided.
The human relations? movement drew heavily on academic sustenance, mainly through a series of famous studies known as the Hawthorne experiments. These research projects began in 1924 at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric, company just outside of Chicago. They are linked to Elton Mayo, a Harvard Business School professor. The initial aim of the research was to examine the relationship between working conditions and output. To this day, the Hawthorne studies remain among the most diverse and most controversial pieces of social science research ever conducted.
Reduced to its essentials, the human relations? message was carried by six prepositions:
1.A focus on people, rather than upon mechanics or economics.
2.People exist in an organizational environment rather than an organizational social context.
3.A key activity in human relations is motivating people.
4.Motivation should be directed towards teamwork, which requires both the co-ordination and the co-operation of the individuals involved.
5.Human relations through teamwork, seeks to fulfill both individual and organizational objectives simultaneously.
6.Both individuals and organizations share a desire for efficiency, that is, they try to achieve maximum results with minimum inputs.
The growth of this style was promoted by the problem of motivating employees to share in the goals of the organization. The objective was to maintain both hierarchy and specialization while forming the equivalent of the ?family? in the workplace. This ?family? concept gave further justification to treating competition between departments as taboo within the same company.
Human relations represented just the first of many attempts to bring social science into the service of management. Despite numerous disappointments the applications of this theory continue to this day because of the hope that it offers. The hope of increased efficiency, increased satisfaction and finally the hope of management contribution. All of this can be attained through its (human relations) control of work, management then controls human happiness, fulfillment and perhaps sanity of their subordinates.
Neo-Human Relations
The basic thesis of Neo-Human Relations (NHR) was that the worker wanted the opportunity to grow and develop on the job. The theorists believed that it was this that would bring an end to industrial conflict. They assumed that if employees were allowed to do responsible meaningful work, their attitude towards the company would become entirely positive and they would come to share the goals of management.
During the 1950?s and 1960?s the human relations movement had become socially unacceptable. This increased the adoption rate of NHR and because of the elimination of hierarchy and specialization; people were not only given room to grow but also became involved in a co-operative process.
While building on the views of Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne studies, NHR emphasized the contribution of Abraham Maslow. All of the NHR supporters established the need for acceptance, status and recognition. They then went further to argue that employees wanted to develop and apply their full range of abilities and obtained satisfaction through achieving demanding but worthwhile objectives.
NHR ideas were put into practice through the techniques of organizational development (OD). A major aspect of OD was the involvement of senior managers in the change programs. NHR offered specific techniques such as laboratory training. This was used in the belief that managers could become more authentic, increase their interpersonal skills, change their values and ultimately their behaviour.
The idea of NHR has been compiled using the writings of many well-known management experts. These experts include Abraham Maslow (Hierarchy Of Needs, 1943), Douglas McGregor (Theory X and Theory Y, 1960), Rensis Likert (System 4 Theory, 1967), Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (Managerial Grid 1964), Chris Argyris (Goal Congruence Theory 1964) and last but not least Paul heresy and Kenneth Blanchard (Situational Leadership Theory 1969). The combination of all of these and many other writers has led to the formulation of NHR through recurring features and relations.
Guru Theory
In order to bring popular management culture up to date, it is necessary to consider developments in management thought that have occurred since 1980. At first glance it appears that Guru writings represent a random collection of diverse contributors with no real link between them. However upon closer inspection there is a central theme. That theme states that the only object of business is to compete with others for the favours of the customer.
There are five main beliefs associated with the guru theory:
1.The innovation that leads to improved products services cannot be planned, but is dependent on many attempts by many employees.
2.You are more likely to ?act yourself into a feeling? than ?feel yourself into action?.
3.An organization can be effectively co-ordinated through its value system and culture, rather than through rules and commands.
4.Customers are the main source of innovation.
5.Strong customer orientation is important and has implications for management attitudes and behaviour towards staff.
The guru theory seeks to help managers build strong business systems, which can successfully compete in their chosen segments. Each guru idea relies upon the individual who developed and popularised it for authenticity. The term guru theory is used as a convenient label to refer to these contributions over the past twenty years. The label encompasses a grab bag of attributes including innovation, teamwork, empowerment, participation, fewer levels of hierarchy and less bureaucracy.
A useful way of considering guru theory authors is to differentiate between academic gurus, consultant gurus and hero-managers. As the label suggests, academic gurus are business school professors and others who have an educational affiliation. Consultant gurus are independent writers and advisors. Hero-managers are current or past CEO?s who are acknowledged to have been successful.
The most modern contributors to the guru theory are those in the hero-management sector. They are represented by the tycoon texts of individuals such as Lee Iacocca, Harold Geneen, Mark McCormack and john Harvey-Jones. The modern contributions in this area are currently practicing or recently retired successful managers who write down their secrets of success and also take the opportunity to expound their philosophy of life.
Guru theory took off at a time when managers appeared to need extra guidance and ideas. The rise of modern management guru theory can be dated to the early 1980?s. The movement is still strong; just look at the best sellers? lists with business books topping the charts. At one level, guru theory represents a break with the academically dominated neo-human relations? movement. At another level it represents a continuation of those ideas simply adapted to the circumstances of the modern era. It can be seen in today?s employees that the theme of commitment, responsibility, creativity, and putting people ahead of bureaucracy are still very much in style.
Handy?s View
Charles Handy has an interesting but differing view on management. He states that ?[t]here is no one right way to manage anything.? ?If you can find the right culture[/]style for your situation, you will thrive, and if not, you will struggle.? (Handy v) Therefore, his view is that the management style should alter/conform to changing situations, i.e., different organization types. He believes there to be four different management styles and four different organizational types, and has classified them by using the personalities of four ancient Greek gods, Zeus, Apollo, Athena, and Dionysus. Handy?s reason for doing this is to emphasize ?that the management of organizations is not a precise science but more of a creative and political process, owing much to the prevailing culture and tradition in that place at that time.? (Handy 3)
Each of the gods ?works on quite different assumptions about the basis of power and influence, what motivates people, how they think and learn, and how things can be changed.? (Handy 5) Handy feels that the culture of the organization reveals the best management style that should be used.
The symbol for Zeus is a spider?s web. This spider web represents the organization in which Zeus belongs, and therefore, the networking styled manager operating in the center of the network organization. Zeus is the king of gods, the patron god. He was a feared, respected, and occasionally loved god. The culture, and therefore style, associated with Zeus is the club culture and is frequently found in the small entrepreneurial organization. It is formed of close friends and family members. Other areas that this culture/style is present are in brokerage firms, investment banks, and many political groupings.
One aspect of the management style associated with this culture is speed of decision.
If the Zeus manager is incompetent, aging, or disinterested, then quality will be a serious issue and if not taken into consideration, will adversely affect the organization. It is therefore vital to ensure that if a Zeus type manager is taken on, he must be completely competent, young, and interested in his field of work.
Apollo, on the other hand, was the god of order and rules. The symbol for Apollo is a Greek temple. These ?temples draw their strength and beauty from their pillars. The pillars represent the functions and divisions in [the] organization?, a bureaucracy, if you will. The Apollo manager operates at the top of the role culture, which is concerned with the role of the job to be done, not the personalities of the employees. The Apollo manager is assumed to be rational ?and that everything can and should be analyzed in a logical fashion.? (Handy 17) The style, therefore, is extremely systematic with specific job descriptions given. The manager has specific rules and procedures and operates from within these boundaries. The Apollo manager operates with stability and predictability always in mind. The Apollo manager is very impersonal and employees are considered a part of the whole operation, not individual, thinking, feeling, people. Efficiency is viewed as meeting standard targets, if they?re beat, then it is assumed that the targets need revising. In the mind of the Apollo manager, you do your job as required, no more, no less. Apollo managers hate change because it means that things can no longer be predictable and therefore operations can?t run at full efficiency. When drastic changes occur, the Apollo manager will set ?up a lot of cross-functional liaison groups in an attempt to hold the structure together.? (Handy 19) If this fails then the management will fall. Managers, therefore, who fall under this style are very closed minded and unimaginative. Life insurance companies, civil services, state industries, and local government are examples of these types of organizations
The Athena manager takes a very different approach to management. They are concerned with ?the continuous and successful solution of problems.? (Handy 21) First they define the problem, then allocate the appropriate resources to the solution. They give the ?go-ahead? and then waits for the solution. Athena managers judge performance based on results, or solved problems. The symbol for this task culture is the net. ?Power lies at the interstices of the net, not at the top, as in the Apollo culture, or at the center, as in Zeus organizations.? The Athena style concerns itself with having a network of loosely linked units (groups), each ?being largely self-contained but having a specific responsibility? (Handy 21) within the organization. Athena was the warrior goddess, arch problem solver of craftsmen and pioneering captains. Expertise is the only base of power or influence. Managers look for talent, creativity, a fresh approach, and intuition when hiring. The Athena manager incorporates a sense of enthusiasm and joint commitment when motivating his employees. The managerial style is one of ?mutual respect and a desire to help rather than exploit when others get into difficulties? (Handy 22), and they believe in teams and teamwork. Consultancy companies, research and development departments, and advertising agencies are examples, which incorporate this type of culture/style.
And last but not least, we have Dionysus, the god of wine and song. The culture associated with this god is the existential culture. This culture states that we ?are in charge of our own destinies.? (Handy 25) In the other cultures, ?the individual is there to help the organization achieve its purpose? (Handy 25). But in existential culture ?the organization exists to help the individual achieve his purpose.? (Handy 25) Doctors, architects, lawyers, professors, and artists are examples of people who thrive and operate in this type of culture, and in essence are the managers. In this culture, all individuals in the organization can be seen as a manager: a manager of themselves, left to manage their self and their operations. The Dionysus recognizes no one ?boss?.
After identifying these four gods, their managerial styles, and their corresponding cultures and organization types, we can now go back to Handy?s theory, that there is no one managerial style that is the perfect fit. One must be able to identify their managerial tendencies and place themselves in that organization type or at least in the department that incorporates that style behaviour.
The first six managerial styles mentioned are founded in an academic and/or scientific method. The foundation of these styles are not fixed but have developed through changes in time, technology, values, and culture. Handy?s view, the Gods of Management, is a more ideological view, where the managerial styles are concrete in existence and are unaffected by time and technology. This allows for flexibility and movement within the four Gods styles described by Handy.
The new-found view of leadership, the engine of management, is that ?[t]he whole point of leadership is having power with people ? not lording it over them. Everyone has leadership capabilities, and a true leader is one who encourages others to discover and utilize their talents. If you define yourself by your whole person and not just your job description, you are more apt to make a difference.? (Fast Company 47)
Stephen Zades, chairman and CEO of LHC, initiated the Creative Odyssey in 1996, to answer such questions as, ?Where do idea companies get their ideas?? and ?How do they tap into something that?s on it?s way in, rather than already passed?? What is the odyssey, you ask? Well, it?s a survey of pop culture at its newest and rawest. When Creative Odyssey was first in operation, it was composed only of LHC staff, but a problem occurred. Zades realized that even though his team saw, felt, and discovered incredible things, they were farther away from their clients than before. They were trying to unleash and reveal new ideas that were way beyond the concepts and mind frames of their clients. Since then, LHC tries to do everything with their clients. And that includes the Creative Odyssey. ?The Creative Odyssey is the brainchild of Long Haymes Carr (LHC), an advertising agency based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Each odyssey takes agency staffers, along with executives from client companies, to New York for a four-day whirlwind of cutting-edge art exhibits, ground-breaking theater, hip clubs ? and very weird shoes.? (Fast Company 54) The odyssey not only enables the client to grow with the agency, it allows them to develop themselves both personally and professionally, allowing for creativity and inspiration to dance around within them. After experiencing the odyssey, Margaret Urquhart, president of Lowes Foods, learnt that, ?tapping into the passions of each person in your organization helps you differentiate yourself from the competition.? And Stephen Zades agrees: ?You need to do things that you would never do otherwise. Unless, you keep challenging yourself, you?re not going to grow.? Even though this seems a bit extreme, the underlying principles are what really matter ? the world is an ever-changing phenomenon, and as an organization, if you want it to function smoothly within and rise above the competition, you need to change too. By using an approach that not only involves your staff but your clients too – and taking them away from the work environment, letting them release, explore, and discover – you, as a manager, your staff, your clients, and therefore, the organization as a whole, can learn from and with each other, and grow.
In order to change the direction of his company and manage it effectively and efficiently, Tom Gegax, ?head-coach? of Team Tires Plus Inc., realized that he first needed to change himself, to be able to manage by example, altering his physical, mental, and spiritual paths. He feels that there should ?be no division between who you are at work and who you really are.? (Fast Company 60) He believed that it goes much deeper than calling it just a job. So? with this new view that a company should embrace customers and employees, or ?teammates? as Gegax calls them, as ?whole people?, he started up a company wellness center that provides monthly classes in healthy cooking and nutrition. In addition, the company now offers Shiatsu massages at headquarters and retail stores and courses on work-life balance. One of Gegax?s reasons for this fine tuned approach is that feeling and living healthy and working in a good environment all alters how one sells. And if he can use simple techniques to increase these variables and to heighten productivity ? then it?s all good! ?You manage fixed assets. You coach people.? (Fast Company 60)
Some feel that although this move towards the ?today?s? management techniques is great and definitely needed, it is felt that it only works in certain types of industries. On the contrary, the General Electric plant in Durham, which manufactures jet engines, is a truly special example of today?s management being implemented and working. This plant was opened in 1993 and still operates to this date as a totally self-managing facility.
There are more than 170 employees and just one boss ? the plant manager. Everyone reports to her. Therefore, on a day-to-day basis, the people who work there have no boss. They essentially run themselves. Teams of nine people are formed and given just one directive ? the day that their next engine must be loaded onto a truck. All other decisions like who does what work; how to balance training, vacations, overtime against work flow; how to make the manufacturing process more efficient; and how to handle teammates who are slacking off; all stays within the team. The workers manage everything from process-improvement and work schedules to overtime budgets.
Traditionally assembly line techniques of Ford are not used in this plant. Rather, multi-skilling. ?That?s how the place is kept together.? (Fast Company 188) Each team ?owns? an engine from the beginning to the end of assembly. Members of the team do the jobs that interest them and no one ever does the same job shift after shift, day after day. They alternate ? learning and teaching each other as they go. There are no time clocks to check in and out, giving the workers freedom to leave to go to their children?s school functions.
The plant manager is situated in an open cubicle that?s located right on the factory floor. She sits there and does her own work, making herself available to them but never walks around checking up on them. This empowers the employees and they don?t feel that they are being scrutinized, being forced to work efficiently and effectively. This complete hand-off technique allows for the worker to gain a pride in what they?re doing for they feel that they?re doing it for themselves, not a boss who is scouring above them. This is the highest motivation you can achieve. The employee mind frame is one that they are there to help improve the organization as a whole and they believe in what they do. Employees want to create perfect engines. They strive to produce perfect engines expecting no reward other than their own satisfaction. There are no performance incentives. The result ? ? of the jet engines have just a single defect, something cosmetic, the other ? are perfect. How is all this possible you ask? It can?t just be because the boss leaves them alone, you say. Well, it also has a lot to do with trust. Trust is the most important word in this plant. The boss trusts the employees and they in return trust her and each other. One worker expressed his feelings, ?I was never valued that much as an employee in my life.? ?I had never been at the point where I couldn?t wait to get to work. But here, I couldn?t wait to get to work everyday. That?s no BS!?
The culture at GE/Durham is one where they consider themselves, not as a team environment, but as a tribal community. Daily meetings are held to get updates of the day?s progress and problems, to hip-check morale, conflict, hiring, overtime, technical snags, and to plan for the future. At one point in time, everyone serves on one of several work councils that cut across team lines. These councils handle such matters as Human Resource issues, supplier problems, engineering challenges, computer systems, discipline, and rewards.
Consensus is another founding principle of GE/Durham. Every decision made by the team is done so by consensus. When people are hired they go through extensive training on how to reach a consensus and how to work with people.
So how is this all possible? How was something so perfect and unique able to function smoothly? The answer to these, lie in the four basic principles that GE/Durham was built on. They include a layerless organization, people being paid according to their skills, all employees must be a FAA power plant mechanic and therefore highly skilled, and incorporating a team environment that requires a highly involved workforce. Furthermore, to ensure this the interview selection process is very rigid and precise. All interviewees are measured on 11 areas ? only one of these involves technical competence and experience. They must grade above the bar on all 11 areas, if not in one, then they don?t get the job. Through this grueling elimination process, GE/Durham is able to surround themselves with only the best.
Present employees are also included in the hiring process. Both the technicians and the plant manager must agree on the hiring of a person. Even at the level of hiring the manager, are the GE technicians are involved. The ?big boys? want the advice of the technicians, and let them interview manager applicants, but the final say of course, is up to the ?big boys?. And this is an interesting twist. It makes the manger dependent on the employees rather than the employees dependent on the manager letting a whole different relationship able to occur.
The new strategy for deciding what managerial style was best to use, Canada Post?s new outlook is that ?If our employees are happy and satisfied, then our business will grow and we will achieve our goals,? according to Doug McLelland of Canada Post Employee Communications. Through a customer-first approach, Canada Post has implemented a number of programs developed to boost staff morale and make the working environment more comfortable. Canada Post is now a good example of a bureaucratic corporation gone ?modern management style? mode. Some of the locations have self-directed work teams that have replaced the typical supervisor-worker arrangement. This gives staff more authority, holding them accountable for their own work. Award programs are employed to recognize the contributions of employees and continuous training keeps the staff up-to-date and informed. In this more web-like structure, there are more opportunities for staff to become directly involved in the running of the corporation. This hands-off approach, enables managers to recognize the knowledge and expertise of front-line employees and production workers. In this new mode, there is more opportunity for everyone to communicate and contribute ideas.
Other industries are keeping up with this trend towards new age management. A branch manager at the Bank of Montreal?s, Theresa Wyss, has updated her ways of managing. She once could sum up her style of management in one word ? autocratic. But these days she believes in the value of the team. One of Wyss? techniques is that she leads by example, acting as more a facilitator than a manager and coaches her employees to build on their strengths. This new style made some employees feel awkward participating in decision making at first, but after Wyss made her commitment, everyone else just joined in.
Why have these changes in managerial styles occurred? An interesting approach to the cause for this shift into the modern management style, is that the ?today?s trend toward empowering others rather than leading by authority has been fueled by the increasing economic activity of women.? (Fast Company 49) Now although this narcissistic, naive, and disillusioned woman may feel she has a point, the fact of the matter is that the Western world was really the only one who failed to keep up with their people?s changing minds and ways, and it was only when they realized how insuperior they were to the Asian parts, that they copied their ways. It was not because of women!
The real reason for the shifting of management styles is the changing value systems, technology, organizational design, and globalization. Today, people are seen as real individuals who have needs, wants, and desires of their own. These people, who make up the workforce, are no longer there for the sole purpose of having a job and getting paid. They are there to develop themselves and to grow as individuals. This has brought about a change in the value systems of organizations, they realize that personal growth leads to happier, and therefore, more effective and efficient employees. As a result managers are more socially responsible and in effect need to mange differently. As technology advances, all businesses where employees can operate independently will virtually become home based. This eliminates all need for direct management. As organizations become flatter there is less need for managers. With increasing globalization comes the possibility of increased distance between company branches and their employees. This in effect forces managers to develop their styles to be able to manage across continents successfully.
Where is management, and specifically management styles, heading to? Well, Associate Professor Bill Waters, of UBC?s Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, seems to think that ?we are currently in a transition period between the old management and the new.? Therefore, we can expect to see more of this radical change ? to maybe complete empowerment to employees, eliminating the entire need for a manager? well no, not that drastic. But, it is definitely felt that there will be a complete shift ? not bits and pieces here and there which fluctuate from company to company as we are seeing now ? to the other side of managing as shown in Appendix A.