Prior to researching this topic, my impression of management was limited. My concept was meshed within the framework of business and economics. Therefore, my definition of this construct was in error. For rectification, and foundational reference, management is the process of directing resources towards the accomplishment of a specific goal. This definition, one that I have derived from the compilation of many, incorporates two key variables. The first operative word in this definition is “resources.” Resources can mean anything from money, employees, athletes, students, or just about any organized effort, group or cohort. The other functional variable in this definition is “goal.” The goal or aim of the organized effort can be defined in countless ways, not only in terms of economic gains or corporate success. This definition helps to illustrate just how much management filters through a gamete of industries. Management roles are found in business as well as sports, academics, and many other industries in many forms. Now that there is a foundation for what management is, why is this process important? Management has the ability to realize potential and direct resources in such a way that will optimize the return on the invested resources. Managers can create opportunities of advantage and promote successful goal attainment. Herein lays the importance of this role. Effective management ensures that with the application of minimal resources, there will be a return of maximum benefits. Since there are such benefits of good management, it is helpful to explore the variety of styles. This paper will, first, outline the major styles of management. While there are many different names and classifications of management styles; there are three main types. These include autocratic, participatory, and laissez-faire. The major difference of the three styles is the degree to which the manager directs the given resources. The autocratic style of management involves the managers making all the decisions for resources, with no other input. The participative style of management calls for the consultation of others, such as employees, in the decision-making process. In laissez-faire style of management, the manager has little to no part in the direction of resources. Considering the differences of these major styles of management, is there one style that takes precedence over another? Is there a “best” managerial practice? In 2006, Harvard Business School published an article delving into the differences of management techniques (Silverthorne, 2006). The basis of the article explores how one’s management style is heavily influenced by what kind of person they are. Therefore, managers need to be aware of the type of person they are to fully understand how they manage and in what situations they will be successful. This article supports the notion that a manager’s effectiveness is limited by their dominant style of management. In addition, because of personal dispositions, managers are unable to change themselves and must be careful to align themselves with situations that agree with their style of management. In reality, this construct is quite impractical. We are, oftentimes, unable to choose the situations in which we operate, professionally. How, then, does one manage effectively? Various management styles can be employed dependent on the culture of the business and the nature of the task, workforce, and resources. This idea supports that the prevailing circumstances dictate the most effective management style and managers should exercise a range of techniques. This is the subsequent focus of this discussion. While many are defined by a dominant style of management, an effective manager is one who can adapt their management techniques to a variety as they arise.
Autocratic Management is the style in which the manager has the greatest degree of control over the direction of the resources. In...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document