UNDERSTANDING MANAGEMENT time. Beginning with the time of the Egyptian STYLES pharaohs and extending through the Dark Ages and the beginnings of the feudal In the October 1974 issue of Administrative system, the only dominant managerial style Management there appeared an article being practiced successfully was that of titled, “Understanding the Natural Born autocratic rule. The autocrat was ruler Leader That’s in You.” This article reviewed supreme. The system by which he ruled was a mass of historical management literature inseparable from his own desires, whims, in its attempt to uncover the origins of and fancies. His leadership was total and numerous philosophies of managerial style. absolute. Yet its major accomplishment was not in the identification and description of these As time passed, the autocrat’s holdings (his different styles, but rather its ability to show empire) began to expand in both material how the various styles relate to one another, wealth and geographical scope. Before long overlap, and fit a newly defined “scale of the autocrat found it necessary to delegate dominance.” to a select few of his vassals, a modest degree of authority, for the purpose of Compositions on alternative management retaining control over a much broadened styles would hardly be of any direct value to scale of operations. At this point, the the average agribusiness manager. Yet after autocrat became an authoritarian, as a further search into the literature on evidenced by his change in management management styles, it becomes more and style. more apparent that our current agribusiness industry can lay claim to every style; even More time passed, and around the time of those evolving centuries ago. Furthermore, I our own Industrial Revolution, there would argue that as a manager develops a emerged this grass roots reaction to the better understanding of the different styles, excesses of practicing autocrats and he will be better able to appreciate his own authoritarians. Amongst our general society personal style or adopt and use that style arose the views that child labor, worker which seems to best fit the situation. exploitation, sweatshops, and the like were morally unjust. The exercise of absolute Anyway, please bear with me as together we authority was no longer to be tolerated in plod through some lengthy, theoretical either industry or government. To avoid a discussions. At the conclusion, I shall fate like that of the King of France and attempt to assess the impact of the paper’s others, those in control realized they would content on your own choice of managerial be forced to concede additional prerogatives style. to the populace or labor force. Thus emerged the era of the “enlightened Management Styles-Their Evolutionary monarch” in government, or the Origins “paternalistic capitalist” in industry. Only If one returns to the time of early-recorded through their willingness to respond to some history, it is not difficult to ascertain the societal pressures did they retain control managerial style most in evidence at that over their domains. 1 WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING Following the Industrial Revolution, our throughout history whenever a manager has economy experienced rapid and broad shown full contentment with his station in life. growth. Such increases in size made it Such a manager remains quietly in the necessary to appoint more vassals to background and rises to an occasion only positions of responsibility, and before long a when directly threatened. He is a modern-day hierarchy developed. Because those near practitioner of the Peter Principle, i.e., a man the top of the hierarchy feared their removal whose job has outgrown him. from control, there emerged a managerial style we now label bureaucratic. The The Dominance Scale bureaucrat considers as his prime As the managerial styles described herein responsibilities the continuation of the unfolded over time, they followed what might system within which he finds himself be called an evolutionary scale of decreasing employed, and the development of dominance. In other words, if we define protective barriers to guard him against the “dominance” to be the power to determine the tyrannies of his superiors, or the ravishes of future, it can be shown that the truly dominant those he is supposed to serve. force moved from the singular leader to the system or organization, to the group, and As industrial growth occurred, so also did finally to the individual within the group or economic growth. The general economic system. well-being of society improved, which further stimulated the gradual rise in general It would only seem natural, therefore, that the educational levels. With the rising level of various managerial styles adapt themselves education came a greater public awareness very well to a dominance scale. In fact, two and enhanced antiestablishment feelings. managerial theorists by the names of From this environment evolved the Tannenbaum and Schmidt have developed democratic style of management, where such a scale, where numerical reference is control rested within the combined and more made to the dominance factor (see Figure 1). equal influence of committees and other groups of individuals. Scale 1-The Autocrat: How many agribusiness managers do you know who As the educational level increased even regularly make decisions and announce them further, it gave rise to the study of man before checking with anyone? He is the himself. Human wants, needs, and desires individual who insists that all firm decisions, began to appear for consideration in no matter how minor they may be, must be management literature. Management now rendered by his office. This manager retains had to operate in close concert within the full control of his organization, almost solely confines of human psychological parameters as a result of his own charisma, his position and the basic physiological comforts. This within the system, and his forceful practice became best known as the personality. participative style of management and is usually defined as “a balanced consideration Scale 2-The Authoritarian: This manager of the individual and the requirements of the also insists that he fulfill the major role in the organization.” As concern for the human whole decision-making process. Yet the element grew to even greater extremes, the difference is that while the autocrat will humanist style then evolved. impose the decision on the organization, the authoritarian will actually try to “sell” his There exists one other managerial style that decision to the organization. In brief, this we must consider even though it possesses manager must at least recognize the desires no strong historical derivative. This style shall of the organization from which he derives his be referred to as laissez faire. It has existed power. 2 Figure 1 Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s Dominance Scale of Managerial Styles Autocrat Authoritative Bureaucrat Laissez Faire Democrat Participative Humanist Organizational Domination Leader Domination Individual Domination ? Group Domination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dominance Scale: Scale 3-The Bureaucrat: The bureaucratic determines to be the majority opinion. The manager presents ideas and invites basic mode is to present problems and questions before decisions are made. With openly solicit suggestions. A majority vote the bureaucrat, there is minimum use of then establishes the destiny of the absolute power. Instead, he exists as a organization. creature of the organization, which surrounds him. He exists to serve the Scale 6-Participative: As shown in Figure organization, strives to meet its objectives, 1, the participative manager may define and uses it for his own protection whenever some organizational limits, but he relies necessary. Performance is judged by this heavily on groups and individuals within the manager to be consistent with the survival organization for definitive decisions. To a and growth of the organization. degree, his managerial style appears similar to Scale 5. The outstanding difference is Scale 4-Laissez Faire: This managerial that individuals within a group are gradually style is placed at the midpoint of our gaining power over the wishes of the group dominance scale because it represents a as a whole. null balance between leader domination and worker domination styles. Within this Scale 7-The Humanist: This managerial classification, a combination of the style results from an overreaction to the organization, the group, individual workers, preaching of human relationists. It sets and some unknown components, act individual happiness as the ultimate goal. In together to fill in for the inactivity of the search of this goal, the objectives of the leader. organization or groups within the organization are relegated to a subordinate Scale 5-The Democrat: This manager position. draws his power from what he sees or 3 Other Managerial Theories surprising, when one realizes that Taylor lived in an autocratic era, when kings, Now that a basic model of managerial style robber barons, and cartels were still very has been prepared, let’s consider the much in existence. writings of other managerial theorists to compare and review their relevance to Douglas McGregor is assured of a place in agribusiness practices. the history of managerial thought as a result of his so-called “Theory X-Y.” McGregor Frederick Taylor, of course, was the first defines Theory X as the conventional view great theorist. His work formed the basic of management; one which is held by the disciplines in the field of industrial majority of practicing managers. It provides engineering. More important is the fact that broad justification for managers to pursue Taylor is referred to as the “father of those patterns associated with either the scientific management.” This reputation was autocratic or authoritarian styles. Yet established as a result of Taylor’s McGregor then argues that Theory Y is the integration of the following four major “better way.” If brief, Theory Y is consistent principles: with the participative management style and is the most successful means for satisfying 1.