Management styles and their organizational impact

Management Styles

In the business world today, the old cliche, that change is the only constant, is more dynamically true at the beginning of the 21st century than ever before. Indeed, change has become so prevalent and multifaceted that specific management theories have been developed to focus on this phenomenon alone. In order to most effectively survive in the changing business world today, it is perhaps best to focus on not one single, but on a multiplicity of management styles. Below follows a description of the theories and philosophies behind four management styles, and how they integrate with the new modern business paradigm: Chaos Management; Entrepreneurship Management; Marionette Management; and Partnership Management.

Chaos Management

Dr. David E. Wojick (2007), addresses chaos management in terms of information overload. Information relates to issues, which tend to mushroom out of control, and management fails to maintain control. Wojick refers to this phenomenon as "issue storms." The combination of complex issues with the time limits often prevalent in a business creates situations that are difficult to manage, and a storm results. An element of such storms is their rapid consumption of cognitive resources by the lack of coordination and confusion they cause, with the ultimate result of chaos.

It is from such chaos that the theory of "chaos management" emerges. While Wojick emphasizes that the traditional concepts of management are by no means invalidated by the new business world, concepts such as planning, budgeting, scheduling, reporting and control should nevertheless be integrated with methods to help management handle issues storms and ensuing chaos.

The basic reason for the necessary shift in business paradigm is the shift in actual business from the physical in the workplace to the mental. Whereas labor in the past was mostly manual, this has been replaced by technology, leaving workers free to make more use of the mental paradigm in the workplace. The rapid advance of Information Technology has made this all the more complex and difficult to manage. Information, unlike physical labor, is a not a physical phenomenon that can be seen and quantified easily. This is why chaos so easily results. The traditional methods, while still valid, need to be supplemented to ensure that they can be adequately applied to the new business paradigm.

To develop additional strategies for chaos management, Wojick suggests a clear distinction between attention and thought: attention being the aspect of the cognitive industry that can be managed, while thought is mysterious, creative, often chaotic, and hence impossible to manage. Cognitive direction therefore has to be included in physical resource management and planning in order to mitigate the chaos ensuing from issue storms, which are inherently unpredictable.

This unpredictability lies at the root of the difference between the concrete and the cognitive business world. It is no longer valid to make assumptions of linearity or predictability in business. Unpredictability needs to be accounted for on the management level in order to reduce the risks related to issue storms and chaos. This is done via the concepts created to support the theory of chaos management.

In order to effectively manage chaos, techniques have been created to focus on the early identification of issue storms. These are then rapidly responded to, before they can grow into crisis situations. A realistic appreciation for uncertainty is combined with forecasting rather than prediction and individual autonomy in the workforce.

Wojick furthermore states that the most logical approach to cognitive problems such is issue storms is to use cognitive strategies to solve them. He suggests meta-level thinking in this regard: thinking about issue storms will reveal their patterns and how they will best be managed. In chaos management, tradition theories of management are therefore combined with the important aspect of thinking in order to more closely relate to problems arising in the cognitive industry.

Businesses where this management style is most prevalent will be those providing cognitive products, such as the publishing, copywriting and news industry. These industries are often chaotic with the sheer information overload as a result of advanced communication systems. The chaos management theory is particularly relevant for the 21st century, as the business paradigm is predominantly thought- rather than action-driven.

Entrepreneurship Management

Entrepreneurship is important in the business world. According to authors such as Heller (2007), an entrepreneurial spirit is vital to the survival of businesses. This is what will ensure the growth of a business in order to maintain a focus on the changing needs and trends of their customer base.

According to Heller, the most important aspect of entrepreneurship management is the ability of both managers and employers to identify entrepreneurial opportunities in the community and business world. The key to identifying these opportunities, according to the author, is recognizing a necessary product or service that is either not provided or not provided sufficiently to satisfy the potential market.

Another key to entrepreneurial management is implementing business ideas once they have been identified. This, according to the author, is often the most difficult part of entrepreneurship. This is also where managers can play a key role in the potential success of entrepreneurship within a company. The reason for this is a central lack of persistence. It is very easy to despair and move to other ventures during the first months of an entrepreneurial venture. Nevertheless, Heller states that there are two kinds of persistence that are important in this regard: persistence in the face of adversity and persistence beyond adversity. This means that, to survive, the business must provide its utmost in quality and service, even when financial stability is reached. A lack of persistence in business excellence will lead to an inevitable loss of customers and hence also a loss of business and eventual failure.

Heller cites the example of Camborne Fabrics as a company who consistently attempts improvements on an already excellent record of 97% next-day delivery. Better business and more satisfied customers need to be the top priority of entrepreneurial management. In this, Heller emphasizes the importance of customer satisfaction. The wide range of product and service choices has driven competition to much higher levels in the entrepreneurial world. Part of persistence beyond adversity, as seen above, is therefore providing a product or service from the basis of excellent customer satisfaction. Good products ensures customer numbers, while good customer service ensures returning customers and increased sales.

Entrepreneurship management therefore entails several aspects: identifying opportunities, persistence in the face of and beyond diversity, and maintaining excellent customer service. In modern business, entrepreneurship management has become vital for the survival of companies.

Marionette Management

Marionette management refers to the autocratic leadership style, where the leader alone has the power of decision making, policy and duty assignments. Members of staff are not consulted in any of the business processes, and they are expected to do their work without asking questions. There is a bureaucratic hierarchy, and staff members are managed from the top down. This is a management style that is perceived to be somewhat outdated for the modern business world. However, Michael Nowicki and Jim Summers (2003) suggest that this leadership style may enjoy a revival in the face of changing times and paradigms.

Change brings about a large amount of uncertainty. Uncertain employees often prefer to reassured and led to new solutions by a leader who understands the importance of accurate and wise decision making. Because of the rapid changes in both society and business, the authors hold that employees are moving towards a paradigm of greater dependence upon the hierarchical structure at the workplace. Other dynamics that play a role include the employee's tendency to have concerns outside the workplace, and would often do only the work required up to a certain level in order to leave time for other activities.

Marionette management is then often required in order to ensure discipline in the workplace within a world and workforce that has become increasingly diverse in its activities, interests, and wealth levels. Nowicki and Summers emphasize the importance of the employer/employee contract in this environment. The contract provides employees with the certainty of stability from management, while management is assured of a certain level of work excellence as per the contract.

Marionette management is however little used in the general workplace in the face of the more popular employee empowerment management styles. Nevertheless, it does provide stability during times of instability and uncertainty. The maturity level of employees should also be taken into account in terms of leadership style. New employees, for example, who do not yet have the skills or expertise to provide the level of work necessary are managed in this way. Institutions such as schools are also mostly managed in the marionette style.

In general, however, I tend to disagree with Nowicki and Summers in their assessment of this style's importance for the modern business world. Work satisfaction plays a significant role in the level of work an employee provides. Some employees provide levels of work beyond the call of duty simply because they love what they do. I therefore believe that the Marionette management style should be used sparingly, and only when estimated as absolutely necessary to further a company's chances of success.

Partnership Management

As the workplace and management techniques have developed over the decades, employees have enjoyed an increasingly powerful position in their companies. According to Eisler and Montuori (2001), the changes in both business and its surrounding environment in terms of society, the economy and the environment have necessitated new paradigms of the employer-employee relationship. It is no longer sufficient to mindlessly follow traditional methods such as marionette management. Instead, the workplace needs to be assessed in terms of which management styles will most efficiently drive the specific business.

Partnership management is one of these new paradigms. In partnership management, it is acknowledged that employees are more than entities to perform specific functions for a specific time during the day. In this management style, employees are recognized as an important part of business growth and success. As such, they are expected to provide input that would be valuable for the future success of the company. Partnership managers therefore rely heavily upon their employees for help with the decision-making process.

This is especially important, as previously clearly defined concepts such as order, control and prediction are no longer intrinsically reliable (Eisler and Montuori, 2001). Workers are no longer required only to be obedient to leaders. Instead, as Eisler and Montuori point out, more demands are made of workers in terms of pro-active decision making, empowerment and the ability to handle, accept and use change for the benefit of the company.