Management styles are characteristic ways of making decisions and relating to subordinates. Management styles can be categorized into two main contrasting styles, autocratic and permissive. Management styles are also divided in the main categories of autocratic, paternalistic, and democratic. This idea was further developed by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt (1958, 1973), who argued that the style of leadership is dependent upon the prevailing circumstance; therefore leaders should exercise a range of management styles and should deploy them as appropriate. Appropriate leadership styles which complement management approach are outlined clearly within the article in the references section.
(Source: Management styles)
"Authoritative leaders inspire an entrepreneurial spirit and vibrant enthusiasm for the mission. It is not the best fit when the leader is working with a team of experts who know more than him or her." Sourced from Leadership styles
The case study is based on experiences during the induction stages where bonding and team dynamics were being put at risk with the inappropriate use of silence to withhold information from the subject. The lack of information was very useful as a "trap" that lead the project to fail, and, therefore are the persons who are withholding information responsible for the project failure, along with the failure of the project itself?
Is the employee in question really responsible for the project or is the subject simply a way to put a blame finger against a person, for the sake of sacking someone and make it appear as if it was for legitimate reason? If this were corruption, what kind of corruption would it be?
It might be assumed that the managers being studied with the nome de plume Michelle Martin assume that they are experts, and, that they are in a position to guide their team through their tasks. Having a look at their academia they would seem to be adequate for this role, if only we do not ignore the factor that they both demonstrate arrogance in their way of working. To make things worse, they are really bad at admitting the accountability coming from their decisions and keep finding faults in others for not carrying out work "as they have asked it to be done". It is also noted that at times, they forget risks which are relevant to the tasks being carried out, thus the lack of depth in their thinking leads them to wrongly assume that their subordinates are not performing simply because they are not taking all the complexity into consideration before making a judgement. We do not keep in mind that judgement is an interpretative science i.e. it is subject to interpretation and criticism, and, as managers we have to allow the feedback loop to be in place so that useful communication flows in both directions, and, unuseful communication is discussed in a civil manner with the originator to understand the motivation behind the message.
In layman's terms the practice of "tapping one's ears" and assuming that everyone MUST understand making doubtfully valid assumptions about communication gaps is known as "jumping the gun", and thus forgetting to maintain appropriate adequate communication styles which allows them to orchestrate resources, needs, and, expectations of different stakeholders more holistically. It is thus deduced that these styles are followed by project failure, based on experience, and, thus creating a crucial implication for communication, that avoids the act of using a scapegoat to cover the lack of their own incompetence i.e. cheap politics. The underlying coordination problem is that most workers seem to be aware of what they are responsible for, yet seem to fail in understanding basic etiquette in guiding fellow employees to understand how to walk in the right direction, which is a clear indication of individualistic attitude. This attitude has lead the researcher to appear as if s/he failed, when in reality this is clearly a communication problem. Communication is meant to flow both ways, and, when it does not, problems crop up and projects fail. Project failure is thus seen to be a direct consequence of poor communication and a strict adherence to bureaucracy and procedures without concern for human emotion and a lack of empathy, which makes some managers appear as cold to the point of suspecting whether their employees are working proficiently, without understanding their point of view completely.
The misunderstanding is then propagated across up the lines, in a way that makes the employee feel embarrassed, harassed and humiliated, at times. It is also noted that managers tend to be demanding, expectant and impatient, as they deem that their expectations are written in stone notwithstanding that anyone with a general level of education and a rational mind is in a position to distinguish between an expectation (plan) and actual work being carried out, particularly if we are discussing professional workflow management.
“Fuzzy business objectives, out-of-sync stakeholders, and excessive rework” mean that 75% of project participants lack confidence that their projects will succeed." Sourced from Why projects fail?
Although it has been attempted to bring about improved project management methodology and to propose improved communications directly and indirectly, the recommendations were coming too late in the schedule of the busy managers and somehow there seemed to be no time to plan IT management in a structured manner, and, to the necessary level of depth required to analyze each problem on a case-by-case basis.
An analogy can be drawn if we think about the "crocodile mind" that seems typical within the public sector as the forgetful manager "jumps the gun" and assumes incompetence of the project manager as the cause of failure, without carrying out appropriate analysis of the cause and effect in a holistic manner. Then at the point when the decision is taken, justifications are deemed to be excuses if they are simply worded defensively, and, public administration managers tend to rush through decisions taken without looking back, in order to avoid unnecessary retrospective analysis, and seek to move forward to change what they deem to be faulty. In some cases this is the human being who is deemed to be faulty, and, then there is a follow-up which is completely ignored by everyone as everyone else seems to assume that the decision of blaming someone is a valid one. It would seem that the easiest decision one can take is to blame a person, and, move on and this scripted decision has over the years marked management as a science which is based on prejudice and other factors which are evidently discriminatory their original thought. Documentation reveals the level of influence that the majority of employees have over decisions taken at executive level, even when the opinions appear to be unfounded and detrimental to the dignity, reputation and well-being of the human being in question. The political problem becomes dirtier in the case of mobbing where conspiracy theory seems to find its roots in the negative minds and hearts of existing employees who deem themselves indispensable to the organization or to the public service based on claims of seniority that are supported by collective agreements. It is the existing collective agreements that sometimes act as an obstacle to fresh ideas (innovation), and, to the realization of meritocracy, however fair this is perceived particularly by the persons who have not been considered as meritorious of reward. Reasons may include fear induced by the uncertain economic environment or other day to day feelings of hatred that people might have for one another that provide a challenge for professional human resources managers to manage and to devise appropriate arbitrage procedures, which appear to be fair towards all the parties involved, particularly within the context of an employer-employee relationship.
Does then history repeat itself out of prejudice, or can people change? How does age influence the ability of persons to make rational decisions within an environment that requires rational thought, fairness and situational decisions in the best interests of the organization and of the employee?
Stigma is one reason why people suffer in silence and live their crisis for a long time. Hence addressing stigmas associated with mental health helps to address crises. Dr. Mark Xuereb, Psychiatrist, quoted online. Nadine Bonnici, therapist, confirms that impressions based on "what I know about Joe" tend to influence the human psyche where rational judgement would be a more reliable source of information, and, this is basically a bias.
While only 10% of CEOs claim to use fear as a motivating tool, leadership teams rank fear as their CEOs' primary "motivational" tool. Takeaway: You're the boss. People respect your opinions. They also fear your opinions. And, occasionally, they fear for their jobs. In isolated cases an employee should be concerned about his future... but fear is a creativity, motivation, and engagement killer. Sourced from Inc.com Was fear used to threaten the security of the employee in this case, and, is this a criminal offence? Why did the high-ranking officers referred to in this scenario shoot the messenger rather than tackling the problem?
Management style may or may not be adequate for managing an individual. During the period of study that lasted about a month, the subject of research who deemed himself as a creative would not initially embrace an autocratic management style, and, was prescribed the technology to use and the zero-budget upon which the task was based, as it was a software project.
Unfortunately, when the subject realized that the resources were not adequate, he was met with difficulties that seemed to indicate that the resources being requested were on hold and the subject sought to propose alternatives which were rejected by the manager in question. Rather than taking accountability for the decision, the manager reported other irrelevant factors to her superior as being evidence of the incompetence of the subject, purportedly to make it appear that the subject was incompetent, and, this was perceived as gossipy slander against the reputation of the subject, who was still learning the working environment as any new recruit would.
Her superior, an expert in public administration did not seem to understand the resources that were required, and, merely limited herself to blaming the subject for failing to deliver whilst resources were not available to him - which was the obvious responsibility of management, without taking responsibility for responding for the lack of resources provided for the employee and having the manager suggest the use of open source software - that is not always appropriate. Was there, therefore a lack in communication of the dependencies and resources required? Is it legitimate that managers keep firing and hiring people as if they were puppets on a string, without remaining accountable and responsible for their own authority as a source of authority, including consequential damages with the onus of proving themselves innocent since nobody will speak up unless an unusual event has occurred according to centuries of research in humanities, psychology and what we like to frame as "common sense"?
Therefore the subject felt irritated when confronted with the lack of understanding of the problem at the right level and the arrogant attitude to ignore his justifications, notwithstanding that he had communicated them to his superior. Given the qualifications of the managers themselves, there was not even the need to question or to justify the need for such resources, but nevertheless, the managers needed to take into account the effect of their own decisions before taking a leap in the air and pointing their finger at the employee, rather than taking responsibility for their own lack of ability in decision making and delegation amongst other managerial competences expected.
The subject had also advised his superior to provide the resources, and, this was to be reported by the superior, presumably. It seems logical to think that the 'oops' factor came into play in this situation as the managers involved forgot to make in-depth cause-and-effect analysis and to meet the subject personally to discuss - notwithstanding the invitation was made by the subject - and to ask him to leave.
This attitude comes across as an ignorant attitude that is made to appear more unprofessional by the arrogant and stubborn belief that the initial ignorant assumption was valid and did not require a review. The leadership style seemed to vary between authoritative and coercive, depending on the situational demands (e.g. time, place, mood - Catania 2006) of the managers being studied.
Corruption is defined as dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people at Mirriam Webster online. The author questions the public what their perception of corruption is and how it may affect their lives, as, this may be deeply ingrained even within the, structural and day to day management within the public and the private sector. The perception is confirmed by perceptions published in the press. "Moreover, it confirms a trend seen ever over the past years – when Malta joined the EU in 2004, the country ranked 25th. The comparison with other EU member states is even less favourable, with the island ending up 18th in the 27-member bloc." Sourced from www.timesofmalta.com
Formosa (2011) categorizes politics into politics that influence nations, and, politics that influence how the office works, and albeit there being subtle connections between one and the other in multinational corporations and other organizations, both have to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Office politics is found to lead to mobbing. Corruption emanating from unclean politics can have different often more wide-reaching consequences, and, not just in the public eye. Money gets thrown down the drain as investigations take months and evidence is hard to find as the guilty have craftily hidden their traces behind them and flushed down all computer records leading the tracks back to them. Today's criminals are smart, and, being smarter than them does not necessarily eradicate the problem, which leaves room for legal experts to draft policies for cleaner politics, within and outside the macro-political environment. Stakeholders include the general public, employees of a firm, and, other organizations with which an organization or an individual deemed to have acted dishonestly are affiliated or connected.
Management style, attitude and emotional intelligence (or the lack thereof) all influence decisions taken wrongly when people jump to incorrect conclusions without carrying out appropriate analysis before making decisions. Unfortunately, the lack of thinking (absence of understanding, focus and the obvious absence to take on the role of the other and to understand the risks from their point of view in depth) has also been confirmed as a common trait in modern-day managers, including managers in the public sector and managers within the private sector - including the financial services sector which remains highly conservative in its business philosophies, notwithstanding that the economic crisis has brought about an increased need for flexibility.
Unfortunately, again, employees do not have the necessary legal authority to exercise veto in this respect, particularly if they work in an organization - such as the public sector - where executives taking decisions and employees executing them may be wide apart in thought and thus incorrect interpretations may lead to unproductive conflicts, which would be more productively communicated if one simply picked up the phone rather than making extensive use of memoranda and formal communication that unfortunately remains to pile dust as employees tend to abide by their day to day duties, leaving the onus of communication upon the managers. The extent of a manager's time spent on communicating official, officious and other important matters is still seen to be relevant in today's hectic world, notwithstanding the reductionist philosophy. Amongst other reasons why communication fails to deliver haughty attitude and the lack of empathy are considered to be amongst the most common of reasons, as managers fail to explain the underlying reasons and provide sufficient background information with sufficient flexibility for disagreement and to provide feedback with suitable justification. Unfortunately the case under study merely confirms that an autocratic leadership style does not bring about harmony amongst team members, and, although this is a "common sense" argument, some managers keep missing the forest for the trees.
One has to highlight once again the liberty provided by the employment legislation, which allows complete liberty during the termination of employment - that is obviously a way of giving the employer unlimited power to abuse of the employer-employee relationship - including the possibility to dismiss an employee without assigning any particular reason, even if it seems to emanate from pure emotion e.g. anger or impatience - however immature and vindicative this may sound to the reader as a reason for punishment, and, this can be a risk in guaranteeing the sanity of mind that is required to re-assure employees that they are being managed professionally, which requires a high level agreement at a regional level on the people management standards needed to be protected by the employment legislation itself. In itself, this power implies that managers cannot continue to have uncontrolled power and live by the false credo that they are not accountable for their decisions or answerable for their actions.
"During the probation period employment can be terminated by either party without assigning any reason, provided that at least 1 week’s notice of termination is given by the terminating party to the other party where the employment relationship has exceeded 1 month."
Sourced from employment law overview.
We shall end this essay with the conclusion of a joke that involves a man flying in a balloon asking for directions and an engineer...
“You must be a manager.”
“That I am” replied the balloonist, “but how did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are, or where you’re going. You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in the exact same position you were before we met, but now it is somehow my fault.”
Sourced from an online blog written by managers, for managers and other fellows.
References
1. 6 leadership styles and how you should use them.
2. What is emotional intelligence?
3. Giving employees their freedom (timesofmalta.com, June 2014)
4. The CEO Refresher - Eight rules of management.
5. about.com - The Toxic Boss Syndrome
6. Government of Malta Collective Agreement for employees in the public service valid from 1st January 2011 till 31st December 2016.
7. MTL
8. Why first impressions are important in a job interview
9. Bullying...it's subtle, political and leaves you unsure...
Flexi Bundle
