Leadership Styles and Management

¶ … Management Style Whereas there is no single universally appropriate management style, the authoritative style is arguably the best management style. An authoritative manager assertively and enthusiastically communicates the mission and vision of the group or organisation, clearly provides direction, and unambiguously articulates expectations. This ensures perfect, quick, and systematic execution of tasks. Though considered an authority, an authoritative leader allows their followers to use their own approaches in accomplishing the set goals and assigned tasks. Annotated Bibliography Zhang, J., Ahammad, M., Tarba, S., Cooper, C., Glaister, K., & Wang, J. (2015).

The effect of leadership style on talent retention during merger and acquisition integration: evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(7), 1021-1050. With evidence from mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in Chinese firms, the article argues that authoritative leadership, together with task-focused and relationship-focused leadership, positively affects talent retention as well as post-M&A integration. M&A's are crucial corporate-level strategies, and if not properly handled may not generate the desired outcomes.

The authors of the article are affiliated with reputable institutions of higher learning in the UK, notably Nottingham Trent University, University of Sheffield, Lancaster University, University of Warwick, and University of Nottingham. This shows the credibility of the article. The article is important as it illustrates the significance of authoritative management in generating positive employee and organisational outcomes. It shows the appropriateness of the authoritative style of management, making it an ideal source of information for the research paper. Gonos, J., & Gallo, P. (2013). Model for leadership style evaluation.

Management: Journal of Contemporary Management, 18(2), 157-168. This article compares the prevalence of four styles of management in firms: exploitative-authoritative, benevolent-authoritative, consultative, and participative. The survey indicates that authoritative management (exploitative-authoritative and benevolent-authoritative combined) was the most common style of management amongst the included firms. Though the study may not be representative of all firms, it shows the popularity of the authoritative management style. The authors of the article are management professors in Slovakian universities, meaning they have extensive knowledge of the subject.

The relevance of the article stems from the fact it compares the authoritative style with other management styles. It provides important insights about why the authoritative management style may be the best compared to other styles. This makes the article ideal for the research paper. Cenkci, A., & Ozcelik, G. (2015). Leadership styles and subordinate work engagement: the moderating impact of leader gender. Global Business & Management Research, 7(4), 8-20. This article considers the implications of authoritative leadership versus benevolent leadership on employee outcomes.

With evidence from 350 employees working in Turkish firms, the article shows that compared to authoritative leadership, benevolent leadership is more positively associated with work engagement and dedication. In other words, as subordinates are insignificantly involved in decision-making, the authoritative style of management may not empower employees or generate feelings of attachment to the organisation. One of the authors is a leadership and management professor at Wright State University (U.S.), while the other one is a professor of administrative sciences at Okan University (Turkey).

This shows that both authors are adequately knowledgeable in the subject matter. The article is relevant to the research paper as it demonstrates the negative implications authoritative management may have on an organisation, especially in terms of employee outcomes. It would be important to consider both sides of the debate. Sternberg, R. (2013). Leadership styles for academic administrators: what works when? Change, 24-27.

This article, a perspective paper, provides a description of four leadership styles, and their appropriateness within the context of educational of administration: authoritarian, administratively-based authoritative, faculty-based authoritative, and laissez-faire. The general argument is that there is no single style that may fit all situations or produce optimal outcomes for all stakeholders. This means that the authoritative style may not be appropriate in some situations in spite of its advantages.

The author of the article is the president of the University of Wyoming, and has served as a professor of psychology and education for more than three decades. This evidently demonstrates the author's extensive mastery of the subject. The article is relevant for the research as it provides a comprehensive description of various management and leadership styles, including the authoritative style. Yu, P., Fang, S., & Wang, Y. (2016). Improving IT professionals job skills development: the use of management styles and individual cultural value orientation. Asia Pacific Management Review, 21, 63-73.

With reference to 280 professionals working in the information technology (IT) industry in Taiwan, this article demonstrates how the effectiveness of participative and authoritative management styles may vary with contextual factors such as organisational culture. The article specifically shows that authoritative tends to be more effective in a low innovation culture, while participative management tends to be more effective in a high innovation culture. In essence, the article demonstrates that authoritative management may at times hinder a culture of innovation and creativity in an organisation.

The authors of the article are affiliated to the Department of Business Administration, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. This enhances the credibility of the article. The article is relevant for the topic as it extends the debate on the appropriateness of the authoritative style of management. Chapman, A., Johnson, D., & Kilner, K. (2014). Leadership styles used by senior medical leaders: patterns, influences and implications for leadership development. Leadership in Health Services, 27(4), 298-283. This article argues that leaders generally do not have a preference for a certain style of leadership.

With reference to leaders in the health care context, the article specifically shows that leaders rely on various leadership styles, with organisational culture, individual preference, and nature of the task at hand being the major determinant factors. This furthers amplifies the argument that the authoritative style may not be appropriate for all situations. The authors of the article are affiliated to some of the top research and higher learning institutions in the UK, notably Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation, Sheffield Hallam University, and Centre for Health and Social Care Research.

This eliminates doubts about the credibility of the publication. The article is relevant for the research topic as it focusses on both sides of the argument -- the appropriateness and inappropriateness of various management styles, including the authoritative style. Zhang, Y., Lin, T., & Foo, S. (2012). Servant leadership: a preferred style of school leadership in Singapore. Chinese Management Studies, 6(2), 369-383. This study sought to compare the effectiveness of servant leadership and authoritative leadership with a focus on school leadership.

The study shows that servant leadership is more acceptable and effective than authoritative leadership as the former mirrors a better utilisation or exertion of the leader's power. This further demonstrates the demerits of authoritative leadership. The authors of the study have extensive knowledge and expertise in leadership and management. The three are reputable professors at Singapore's Policy and Leadership Studies (PLS) Academic Group. The relevance of the article for the research topic stems from the fact that it pays attention to the other side of the coin.

It shows why the authoritative style of management may not be the best. This will contribute to a more balanced discussion. Bielous, G. (1994). Why we should become an authoritative manager and not an authoritarian one. Supervision, 55(9), 11-13. This article provides the key differences between permissive (democratic), authoritarian, and authoritative management styles. The overall argument is that authoritative leadership is the most appropriate style as it provides a middle ground between democratic and authoritarian leadership. An authoritative manager exerts authority while at the same time giving subordinates some autonomy.

At the time the article was authored, the author was a college graduate and a supervisor at a manufacturing company. This may raise some doubts regarding the credibility of the article given the author's somewhat limited knowledge and expertise in the topic. Nonetheless, article is quite useful as it not only highlights the importance of authoritative leadership, but also provides a succinct distinction between authoritarian and authoritative leadership. There is often confusion over the definition of the two. Jimenez, M., Fasci, M., & Valdez, J. (2009).

A comparison of management style for Mexican firms in Mexico and the United States. International Journal of Business, 14(3), 251-263. This article compares the use of the authoritative and consultative management styles in Mexican and American firms. Contrary to literature, which shows that Mexican firms tend to be inclined to the authoritative style while American firms tend to be inclined towards the consultative style, the article shows that there is widespread use of the consultative style in both contexts. This shows that country culture may not always predict management style.

Two of the authors are professor affiliated to the University of Texas at San Antonio, while.