questionable results.
Middle of the road management
A weak balance of focus on both people and the work. Doing enough to
get things done, but not pushing the boundaries of what may be
possible.
Team management
Firing on all cylinders: people are committed to task and leader is
committed to people (as well as task).
Discussion
This is a well-known grid that uses the Task vs. Person preference that
appears in many other studies, such as the Michigan Leadership Studies
and the Ohio State Leadership Studies. Many other task-people models
and variants have appeared since then. They are both clearly important
dimensions, but as other models point out, they are not all there is to
leadership and management.
The Managerial Grid was the original name. It later changed to the
Leadership Grid.
Lewin's leadership styles
Description
Kurt Lewin and colleagues did leadership decision experiments in 1939
and identified three different styles of leadership, in particular around
decision-making.
1377
Autocratic
In the autocratic style, the leader takes decisions without consulting
with others. The decision is made without any form of consultation. In
Lewin's experiments, he found that this caused the most level of
discontent.
An autocratic style works when there is no need for input on the
decision, where the decision would not change as a result of input, and
where the motivation of people to carry out subsequent actions would
not be affected whether they were or were not involved in the decision-
making.
Democratic
In the democratic style, the leader involves the people in the decision-
making, although the process for the final decision may vary from the
leader having the final say to them facilitating consensus in the group.
Democratic decision-making is usually appreciated by the people,
especially if they have been used to autocratic decisions with which
they disagreed. It can be problematic when there are a wide range of
opinions and there is no clear way of reaching an equitable final
decision.
Laissez-Faire
The laissez-faire style is to minimize the leader's involvement in
decision-making, and hence allowing people to make their own
decisions, although they may still be responsible for the outcome.
Laissez-faire works best when people are capable and motivated in
making their own decisions, and where there is no requirement for a
central coordination, for example in sharing resources across a range of
different people and groups.
1378
Discussion
In Lewin et al's experiments, he discovered that the most effective style
was Democratic. Excessive autocratic styles led to revolution, whilst
under a Laissez-faire approach, people were not coherent in their work
and did not put in the energy that they did when being actively led.
These experiments were actually done with groups of children, but
were early in the modern era and were consequently highly influential.
Likert's leadership styles
Description
Rensis Likert identified four main styles of leadership, in particular
around decision-making and the degree to which people are involved in
the decision.
Exploitive authoritative
In this style, the leader has a low concern for people and uses such
methods as threats and other fear-based methods to achieve
conformance. Communication is almost entirely downwards and the
psychologically distant concerns of people are ignored.
Benevolent authoritative
When the leader adds concern for people to an authoritative position, a
'benevolent dictatorship' is formed. The leader now uses rewards to
encourage appropriate performance and listens more to concerns lower
down the organization, although what they hear is often rose-tinted,
being limited to what their subordinates think that the boss wants to
hear. Although there may be some delegation of decisions, almost all
major decisions are still made centrally.
Consultative
The upward flow of information here is still cautious and rose-tinted to
some degree, although the leader is making genuine efforts to listen
1379
carefully to ideas. Nevertheless, major decisions are still largely
centrally made.
Participative
At this level, the leader makes maximum use of participative methods,
engaging people lower down the organization in decision-making.
People across the organization are psychologically closer together and
work well together at all levels.
Discussion
This is a classic 1960s view in that it is still very largely top-down in
nature, with the cautious addition collaborative elements towards the
Utopian final state.
Six Emotional Leadership Styles
Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee, in Primal
Leadership, describe six styles of leading that have different effects on
the emotions of the target followers.
These are styles, not types. Any leader can use any style, and a good mix
that is customised to the situation is generally the most effective
approach.
The Visionary Leader
The Visionary Leader moves people towards a shared vision, telling
them where to go but not how to get there - thus motivating them to
struggle forwards. They openly share information, hence giving
knowledge power to others.
They can fail when trying to motivate more experienced experts or
peers.
This style is best when a new direction is needed.
Overall, it has a very strong impact on the climate.
1380
The Coaching Leader
The Coaching Leader connects wants to organizational goals, holding
long conversations that reach beyond the workplace, helping people
find strengths and weaknesses and tying these to career aspirations and
actions. They are good at delegating challenging assignments,
demonstrating faith that demands justification and which leads to high
levels of loyalty.
Done badly, this style looks like micromanaging.
It is best used when individuals need to build long-term capabilities.
It has a highly positive impact on the climate.
The Affiliative Leader
The Affiliative Leader creates people connections and thus harmony
within the organization. It is a very collaborative style which focuses on
emotional needs over work needs.
When done badly, it avoids emotionally distressing situations such as
negative feedback. Done well, it is often used alongside visionary
leadership.
It is best used for healing rifts and getting through stressful situations.
It has a positive impact on climate.
The Democratic Leader
The Democratic Leader acts to value inputs and commitment via
participation, listening to both the bad and the good news.
When done badly, it looks like lots of listening but very little effective
action.
It is best used to gain buy-in or when simple inputs are needed ( when
you are uncertain).
It has a positive impact on climate.
1381
The Pace-setting Leader
The Pace-setting Leader builds challenge and exciting goals for people,
expecting excellence and often exemplifying it themselves. They identify
poor performers and demand more of them. If necessary, they will roll
up their sleeves and rescue the situation themselves.
They tend to be low on guidance, expecting people to know what to do.
They get short term results but over the long term this style can lead to
exhaustion and decline.
Done badly, it lacks Emotional Intelligence, especially self-management.
A classic problem happens when the 'star techie' gets promoted.
It is best used for results from a motivated and competent team.
It often has a very negative effect on climate (because it is often poorly
done).
The Commanding Leader
The Commanding Leader soothes fears and gives clear directions by his
or her powerful stance, commanding and expecting full compliance
(agreement is not needed). They need emotional self-control for success
and can seem cold and distant.
This approach is best in times of crisis when you need unquestioned
rapid action and with problem employees who do not respond to other
methods.
Negative styles
There are some relatively common styles of management that are
anything but models of good leadership.
Post-hoc Management
Although not an 'official' management theory, what can be called 'Post-
hoc management' is practiced widely on a daily basis around the world
and most people will instantly recognize it. It is very common in small
companies where there are few formal systems and where there is a
1382
general autocratic style. It also appears in larger organizations where
results take precedence over rules or where politics leads to impression
management being a primary activity.
Principle
The basic principle of post-hoc management is that, as judge and jury,
the manager is always right and never to blame. In this way they can
remain secure in their job.
Vague objectives
The first sign of post-hoc management is a vague start to work, typically
with unclear and general objectives. If the manager is asked for clarity,
they will typically say something like 'you're the expert' or 'this is why
we employ you', with the implication that not knowing what indicates a
lack of competence on your part. This can be endemic in an organization
where it happens all the way up the management tree. The edict
'Managers must manage' is a typical statement by a more senior person
that essentially implies that you are on your own.
Wise in hindsight
Being right means judging others after the fact, where 20-20 hindsight
allows them to conclude what should have been done. It places the
manager as a wise expert who cannot be challenged. In fact the manager
actually uses the respect required by their formal position as a
substitute for the true respect engendered by expertise. Their seniority
thus acts as a protective wall and any challenge to their expertise is
reinterpreted as an attack on their rank, which they can repel with
accusations of insubordination.
One way of recognizing the post-hoc manager is the phrase 'Why didn't
you...' Their suggestions usually sound reasonable but do not take into
account time limitations and the myriad of other things that could have
been done. Most work planning includes decisions not to do a lot of
things that would make sense if you had the time, but get prioritized out
by the greater importance and urgency of other work.
1383
If you are always right then others are always wrong and the post-hoc
manager often bemoans how they are surrounded by fools. Yet this also
makes the manager feel clever and superior, and they seldom seek to
employ people who are better than them. This sometimes does happen
by accident when a good person slips through the mediocre net, but the
frustrations caused by post-hoc management often means that the best
people quickly understand the problem and move on as soon as
possible.
Critical benefits
The post-hoc manager also benefits from the 'critic effect', whereby
people who criticize are seen as being more intelligent that those who
propose creative solutions. The manager may be creative too, but does
it in a way that protects them from blame. For example they may make
various interesting suggestions as to what should be done, which puts
the other person in the double bind that if they do not follow the
manager's suggestions then, if things go less than perfectly the manager
will blame them for not taking up the idea. If they implement the idea
and it works then the manager can take most of the credit, whilst if it
fails then the manager can blame them for a poor implementation or say
'It was only an idea, effectively suggesting that you are incapable of
developing your own ideas.'
Whilst not an official management theory, Post-hoc management is
sadly an all-too-frequent reality. It reflects the human condition and the
need for control, safety and status that often take priority over values
that require integrity and concern for others.
Micromanagement
There is a style of management with which many are familiar and which
has acquired the name 'micromanagement'. The manager in question
acts as if the subordinate is incapable of doing the job, giving close
instruction and checking everything the person does. They seldom
1384
praise and often criticize. Whatever their subordinates do, nothing
seems good enough. It is the opposite of leadership.
The micromanagement experience
For the individual, this tends to be incredibly frustrating. They are being
treated as if they are incapable and untrustworthy. We often see
ourselves as others see us and, when treated as unworthy, we will soon
feel unworthy. In this way, people who are micromanaged can become
dependent, unable to make the smallest decision without asking their
manager. Alternatives to this total submission, which many take,
include remaining frustrated or leaving. In any case, it is easy for one's
confidence to be severely knocked.
Why micromanage?
Why do managers micromanage? There can be a number of reasons.
First, they may reasonably not trust the person either because there is
evidence to support this or because the newness of the relationship has
not yet yielded evidence to support trust. There might also be a high-
risk situation which merits extra management attention.
A more likely explanation is an internal need for the manager to manage
closely. They may fear failure personally, transfer that risk to the person
then take ownership of the person's work. The manager may also feel
(or want to feel) superior to the person, effectively confusing authority
with ability. The person thus seems incompetent and the manager looks
for confirmation of this in the smallest details of the person's work. A
minor error is thus taken as evidence of the person's total
incompetence and the manager's obvious superiority. This can be a
reversal of a childhood situation with a critical parent. Just as the
abused become abusers, so also may the criticized become critical.
Micromanagement also plays to strong identity and control needs.
Telling people what to do and not do is a strong controlling action,
whilst the sense of superiority strokes the identity ego.
1385
When it is appropriate
Sometimes, close management is a realistic option. When a person is
working in a job where they do not have the knowledge or ability to do
the job, and where mistakes are costly and highly undesirable, then they
will need careful supervision and education until they are able to work
by themselves.
Sometimes also a person may become destructive for some inner
reason, such as disliking the company or its managers and they need
careful watching in case they do something harmful.
How to handle micromanagers
So what should you do when faced with a micromanager? The first thing
is to recognize that it is their issue, not yours. However, this disability
means they lack certain abilities and because of your situation, you are
going to have to handle it.
The worst thing you can do is to get into a power struggle, as this is very
likely to result in the micromanager using all the formal power at their
disposal to beat you into submission, including threats of dismissal and
negative references.
The simplest approach is to listen patiently and attentively when they
tell you what to do (they hate being ignored). If you really disagree with
what they are saying, ask politely for their reasons or explain your
concern and ask for their advice. Quietly and carefully ensure you
cannot be blamed for the micromanager's decisions (it can be useful to
keep notes and confirm directives in emails in case of later
disagreement).
You can give them feedback (through a third party, if necessary) about
how they are behaving and how this makes you feel. Some
micromanagers do not intend to act this way and will make genuine
attempts to improve. Many, however, will feel slighted and the result
can be unhelpful. In consequence, think carefully before using this
approach.
1386
A reversal can be an interesting alternative, effectively, micromanaging
them. Book their time to agree what you will be doing. Agree in detail
what you will be doing. Let them make every decision. Then do exactly
what they said and report back that you have completed each step. Go
back often to check for new each decision. In the end they may tire of
your constant attention and tell you to back off. You can also pre-empt
and prompt this by occasionally asking if your approach to managing
the detail through them is ok and whether they'd prefer you to decide
more things yourself.
Another approach is to use their control and identity needs as levers.
Use these as punishment and reward, carefully removing control and
isolating them, or giving feedback that shows they are in control and are
wonderful. For example when they over-control, avoid them, whilst
when they give you more space, even a little, look at them and smile
(identity stroking). Be very subtle in all this -- if the micromanager feels
micromanaged, they will react strongly.
In this way you will feel more in control yourself even as you give them
a greater sense of control. Living with a micromanager need not be
painful and it can be an interesting challenge
Seagull management
Description
'Seagull management' is a humorous term that is used to describe
a style of management whereby the person 'flies in, poops on you and
then flies away again'.
When they are there, they typically give criticism and direction in equal
quantities, often without any real understanding of what the job entails.
Then before you can object or ask what they really want, they have an
'important meeting' to go to.
The experience of having a seagull manager is not positive. Whilst they
are there, they talk non-stop and actively discourage anyone else from
saying anything. This can include avoiding eye contact and continuing to
talk over you if you start to say anything.
1387
You may typically feel under-valued and generally abuse. The best thing
that can be said is that they are typically there not very often and you
can largely get on with the job by yourself.
Why it happens
The Seagull Manager like to consider themselves as important. However
they also know that they do not know that much and fear being exposed
by questions or debate. They consequently grab the talking stick and do
not stop until they can excuse themselves and leave.
It is possible that they really are busy, but what they miss is the
importance of person-management. They are likely to be strongly task-
based and consider the 'soft stuff' as fluffy and unnecessary. Their
approach is thus highly transactional, based on the simple premise 'do
as I say and you'll continue to get paid'.
What to do about it
What you need to do about Seagull Managers depends largely on your
job. If you can work independently, then the best approach is often to
listen patiently then ignore them. As long as you are delivering value,
they may not actually be too concerned about how you get there. Unlike
the micromanager, they are not that interested in control over you.
If, however, their approach is damaging to your career and health, then
you need to address the issue. Book a meeting with them (if you can) to
discuss your work. Write down what your objectives are and what you
are doing and give it to them. They may ignore it but this will give you
tacit ammunition if you need it later.
If things are particularly bad, this is a definite case for assertiveness
(which is probably good anyway). Talk to them about what they are
doing and the effect they are having. You may also need to talk with
their manager or HR. Worst case, look for another position with a better
manager who knows how to lead.
A novel approach is to deliberately 'chase' them with complex detail for
which they have 'no time'. As they retreat or woffle at you, offer a
1388
simpler alternative that is easy for them to accept. You can also always
reframe what they said, casting it into a more sensible light.
Because the most important thing in the Seagull Manager's life is the
Seagull Manager, if you can deliver results, then they may well leave you
to your own devices or give moderate support. Deliver regular short
messages that shows you are making good progress. Also work to make
them look good to the rest of the organization (despite temptations to
the contrary!). If they think you are acting contrary to their interests,
they will just fly by more often and poop on you even more!
If you are a manager
If you are a manager, then seagull management is of course something
to avoid. It is a trap that may seem easy but in practice it will alienate
and demotivate your staff. If there are wiser people above you, then
they also will find out what is happening and your advancement will
halt or regress.
The real lesson here is to sustain a good relationship with your people.
Whilst you need not (and should not) be best mates with them, you
should respect them and communicate regularly and with integrity.
Listen too -- this is a key skill and frequent activity of good leaders.
Mushroom management
Description
In a common metaphor, the 'mushroom manager' plants you knee-deep
(or worse) in the smelly stuff and keeps you in the dark.
In practice, this means you get to do all the work that they do not want.
They do not communicate and generally ignore you, so you do not know
their plans or what else might be going on in the organization.
Why it happens
Mushroom managers are often more concerned about their own career
and image. Anyone who appears as a threat may well be deliberately
held back as their ability may make the mushroom manager look bad.
1389
Mushroom managers may also have their favorites on whom they lavish
attention and the plum jobs. Others are swept away and given the dross.
Managers may take