The best management style

This is an argumentative study that dissects the best management styles, with a special emphasis on approaches used in American and Japanese organizations in a variety of management facets. Supervisory types, central leadership, control components, interdepartmental relations, and social principles are only a few of the management topics discussed in this article. This study conducts an in-depth examination of management methods by reviewing academic and peer-reviewed publications on management types in order to obtain a straightforward and accurate image of the subject matter. Study findings attempt to depict the critical contrast between the two management approaches, particularly on administration styles as well as the cultural factors that inform individual management decisions. While the management styles adopted by American and Japanese companies may differ sharply and present different benefits, it is notable that no single management style can be used to achieve success in all organizations globally. These management techniques have weaknesses and shortcomings, and therefore often implement practices from other approaches. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive argument on the best management styles, by focusing on the two methods above.

Keywords: Management styles, autocratic administration, participatory administration, personalistic administration, persuasive administration, despotic administration style.

Best Management Style

Introduction

There is no doubt that the success of any company in the highly competitive and volatile contemporary global market hinges to a large extent on the management style adopted by the firm. A suitable choice of management style is likely to help a company in realizing its goals and objectives and vice versa. It is notable that there is no universally acceptable management style, and that every type of management can only be successful when applied to the specific and suitable situation. While several sources of literature attempt to explain these techniques, and weigh the better option, study findings observe that none of the two management styles is better than the other given the fact that they often borrow certain practices from each other to achieve success. Previous researches have thrown their weight behind Japanese management style for a variety of reasons, particularly the success of its companies compared to counterparts from the United States. For instance, the Japanese economy demonstrated success in the 1970s when the US experienced enormous challenges (Uddin, 2011). The differences in the performance of the two giant economies highlighted above may be attributable to the fact that Japanese companies were better managed compared to the US enterprises. Furthermore, Zaman and Unsal (2000) argue that there has been a widespread belief that Japanese factories employ better management approaches and quality standards coupled with most advanced technologies. The above notion is a subject to criticism as other studies also portray American corporations as better managed ones. For instance, Bloom, Homkes, Sadun, and Reenen (2012) explain that American firms have shown resilience in the highly competitive global market because they not only survive for a longer duration but also make more profits and grow faster internationally.

Thesis: While certain management styles have reported their commendable success in the global business arena, no single approach fits globally. The success of any management approach depends on a variety of factors, particularly the prevailing local business environment and culture.

Management Styles

Definition

Companies often choose the best management style that is likely to achieve success in a given environment and situation. According to Bititci et al. (2004), management entails the aspect of leadership often employed by the administrator while operating a business. Although companies may prefer certain management styles, they can, under some circumstances, utilize more than one approach to achieve the desired outcome. There are several management styles adopted by different companies globally, including supervisory, paternalistic, autocratic, laissez-faire, participatory, democratic, and informal among others. However, a particular management style is suitable for a given type of business or group of employees compared to others (Bititci et al., 2004). Therefore, it is in the best interest of every company to adopt the most-suited management approach relevant in steering it to success in a given business situation.

On the other hand, Watson (2003) explains that management techniques are the diverse methods utilized by the managers to impact the workers towards achieving the company goals and objectives. The idea can also imply the ability to work with enthusiasm as well as working avidly with energy and confidence. Power signifies sincerity and authority in working while conviction reflects understanding and functional capacity (Watson, 2003).

A good management style permits the manager to train his juniors to achieve the goals set by the company. It’s an avenue for leaders to handle issues in accomplishing organizational objectives by using company resources to achieve results through managerial elements. Management style is an avenue for the organization to settle on choices, design strategies, corporate branding, stakeholders’ management, and other necessary management activities. A few managers are undertaking focused, and they necessarily need to complete things. Others are principally individuals arranged, and they need people to be upbeat and fulfilled. Others can consolidate these introductions, the two persons, and undertakings. A few administration styles have advanced as unmistakable directors use contrasting methodologies in performing duties throughout their official work. Since the 1950s researchers have developed different management styles that fit various situations and organizations.

Administration Style

Administration style of management is a fundamental approach in the accomplishment of goals and objectives in any company. It is essential for the top management of a company to put much emphasis on the prevailing culture while adopting a specific technique. According to Prasetya and Kato (2011), the style puts much emphasis on improving the management systems aimed at achieving high levels of administration efficacy. It involves the creation of organizational structures and subsequent functions of various administrators in an organization. The style emphasizes providing clear structures, division, and delegation of labor among the leaders to ensure proper and efficient workflow. Kanyabi and Devi (2011) highlight the multidimensional aspect of management and its instrumentality in achieving organizational goals and objectives. Pattanayak (2005) characterized workers 'performance as the commitment made by an individual in the achievement of the authoritative objective. Similarly, Prasetya and Kato (2011) described execution as fulfilling a goal as per some standard.

According to Robbin (2003), administration style can be a strategy a supervisor utilizes to manage an association. It encompasses the act of controlling, coordinating, and in fact all techniques employed by the director to spur subordinates to take after their guidelines. It can also portray a particular practice utilized by the administrator to coordinate the issues of an association (Robbin, 2003). Management style permits the manager to exercise his authority in keeping control of his department. For little scale organizations to develop, the administrators must embrace a viable technique. The style connects various operations and skills. It is not concerned with the best way to perform rather management system for performance. Managers learn their juniors’ capacities and strength.

The essential target of small-scale undertakings in any business is to create benefits and accomplish liquidity status. According to Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2005), the adequacy of these factors is incredibly controlled by the accessibility and openness to the workforce, fund, hardware, crude materials and above all the operational administration style. The administrator is entitled to facilitate the accomplishment of organizational goals and objectives.

Despotic Administration Style. The type paves way for a manager to make decisions individually without the input of employees. Choices mirror the feelings and identity of the director alone without taking into consideration the contribution of other stakeholders in the company, particularly the subordinate staff. Participatory administration style, on the other hand, is a kind of management style in which workers at all levels participate in the day-to-day running of the firm. They not only present their views and opinions but also influence the operations of their company through facilitating change and making vital decisions, especially those that affect them directly. Under this kind of administration style, the necessary leadership is brisk, correspondence is immediate, and the input of the employees is not only taken into account but also respected. Basil (2005) noted that this sort of administration style does not to take into account extensive correspondence and thoughts. Basil (2005) included that dictatorial management style can result in dejected inspiration and low occupation fulfillment and low workers execution.

Paternalistic Administration Style. This is a technique of administration in which the administrator not only considers the best enthusiasm of the representatives but also that of the business. In paternalistic management style, correspondence is descending, input and addressing expert are absent. As depicted in its name, paternalistic administration involves a management approach where the director assumes the “father-like” role in an organization. He or she deals with both the occupation-related challenges and personal problems of the workers. The connection between the administrator and the workers is much the same as that of the father-youngster sort of relationship. The director keeps control over the employees and in the meantime, enables them to be imaginative in the way they carry out their daily chores.

Persuasive Administration Style. This is a kind of approach in which the director exhibits a few attributes to that of a dictatorial administrator. In such an approach, the manager often spends much time with the other workers in the attempt to try to convince them over an issue concerning the operations of the organization. Although there is widespread notion that this kind of management approach is inclusive of employees, studies show otherwise but affirm that the director is often aware of the workers in a business. As noted earlier in this article, the particular situation calls for the adoption of specific management approaches. In this respect, there are certain situations where persuasive management style may be preferable. For instance, a company may seek the help of an expert to sit down with employees for a considerable duration of time and explain into details on the functionality and operations of a task.

It is unlikely for the management to delegate such complicated tasks to individuals in the lower management chain as is the case of participatory management style. However, it is notable that just like other management styles, persuasive management approach has a fair share of its challenges. First, the fact that the decision-making process does not necessarily require the input of the employees may result in their forfeit of their company’s management process. Of more concern is their likely distrust with the decisions made by the management as they are not part of the process. Besides, the company is likely to be deprived of the valuable input and contribution of the employees as the latter do not take part in the decision-making process. Lastly, the approach may jeopardize the one-way communication model compared to the two-way communication initiative.

On the other hand, authoritarian administration style involves the dictatorial approach of managing an organization. The above approach is detested by many scholars and researchers across the globe as it imposes decisions upon the employees (Miah & Bird, 2007). A variety of leaders come to mind when this kind of management style is mentioned in the global literatures. A notable example is the management and leadership approach adopted by the Standard Oil founder and American philanthropist John D. Rockefeller while leading the organization in the late 1800s (Yergin, 2011). Under authoritarian management approach, employees do not take part in the day-to-day management of their firm, and instead, receive directives from the top management on their tasks and responsibilities (Miah & Bird, 2007). Under autocratic management approach, the employees often feel neglected and not motivated, an issue that prevents them from committing themselves towards the success of the firm, an issue that is likely to have adverse effects on the company.

While the autocratic form of management is ineffective in the contemporary global market, there are instances and situations where its application is critical. For example, the managers often get things done in the shortest time possible as they do not require the input of the employees to make vital decisions. The above phenomenon marks the disadvantage of participatory and democratic management approaches since these approaches require meeting and negotiations with all the stakeholders before making management decisions.

Free Enterprise Administration Style. This is a kind of management style in which the top leadership allows the subordinates to make certain decisions on their own and provide solutions to their challenges at the workplace without any hindrances. The progress of this kind of management approach depends on the path adopted by the director. While some directors may opt to guide the employees in making certain decisions, others tend to stay off and leave the decision-making process and responsibilities to the hands of the employees. It is also notable that some directors may help employees in making certain decisions (Ostrom, 2008). While free enterprise administration approach exhibits certain shortcomings, including its inability to be applied in complex and high-skilled management decisions, it is a sure way of motivating employees and addressing their challenges and problems in an organization.

Participatory Style of Management

Participatory management style allows employees to take part in the day-to-day administration of the company through various ways. Notably, the management involves employees and other stakeholders in such fundamental processes like decision making among other issues in the enterprise. Studies show that participatory approach of business management is critical in achieving the organizational goals and objectives as employees contribute positively towards its success. Google Company is one such organizations that have mastered the art of participatory management by involving its employees in decision making and other management processes (Tonnessen, 2005). The employees feel part and parcel of the company management and therefore dedicate their effort and time towards making it a success. Besides, the approach mentioned above enhances cooperation and relations between the top management and other employees in an organization. For instance, the top management often engages other stakeholders, including employees in the decision-making processes, an issue that fosters effective communication between managers and subordinates.

While the top management reserve the ultimate role of making the final decision, other workers’ input is critical in addressing the needs of both the clients and employees (Basil, 2005). Participative management style has proven to be essential in achieving a firm’s objectives and goals when utilized properly and efficiently. It instills a sense of ownership, pride, and motivation among employees, thereby increasing productivity. Participatory style of management also helps the management in effecting change in an organization as employees are often receptive to such changes under such management approaches. The fact that employees have a voice in managing their company facilitates the efficient and swift implementation of change, an issue that is hugely beneficial to any firm in the long-run.

Other than the benefits presented by the participatory form of management in organizations, it also enables the employees to acquire the conceptual skills relevant in pursuing management jobs in the future through training, information sharing, and development opportunities. Lastly, participatory form of the directorate provides the synergy from a broad range of options, thereby creating an avenue for innovation and creativity (Bititci et al., 2004).

While the participatory approach of management presents substantial benefits to companies in the contemporary market, they are not devoid of challenges and weaknesses. It requires competent managers and strong leaders to maintain control and positivity, as well as enhance performance.

Historical Background of Japan/US

The cultural differences between countries plays a critical role in determining the success or failure of a management style. For instance, the sharp differences between the US and Japanese cultures as depicted by Hofstede calls for the adoption of a suitable management approach to achieve the required success (1990). It is notable that almost all management styles are effective if applied to the right situation and vice versa. The American people, particular employees, may not be accustomed to a Japanese management approach and vice versa, hence the need to make wise decision and choice of a management style. For instance, Japanese prioritize teamwork and recognize the efforts made based on collaboration compared to the American culture where organizations recognize and reward individual efforts.

According to Hofstede (1990), “civilization recreates itself, and it’s rooted in the society, morals, and foundation, propensities. It has an abnormal state of information in social varieties is essential in administration style that can make universal business people more successful when managing subordinates, schools and arrangement accomplices in foreign nations" (Hofstede, 1990).

Chinese culture, for instance, presents an intriguing phenomenon in the management of organizations. The “iron rice bowl” is a mentality where employees enjoy not only job security but also commendable remunerations and steady compensation. The Chinese utterance can diverge from the practically identical English thought of "work until the end of time." For the most part, the aspect of management above naturally demonstrates the reliable connection and commitment employees have with their organizations. Just like the Chinese culture, other cultures have distinctive attributes that are likely to affect the management approaches adopted by the leadership of companies. In this respect, no single perfect management approach is applicable in all cultures and environments. The success of any management style depends on the prevailing culture and situation. The cultural differences and variances in preferences by the global citizens, there is no best management style.

Japanese and American Management Styles Differences

Numerous perceptions demonstrate that Japan prioritizes "paternalism" while America puts much emphasis on "independence" often referred to as personalism. There’s a difference in their career bonding. For instance, Americans are not strongly attached to their careers as they seek to pursue better jobs with excellent compensation. On the other hand, Japanese have a healthy career relationship and never leave their occupations unless it’s an emergency. They often tend to stick to their jobs unless it reaches a crisis level and they have to leave. Japanese directors have a substantial association with their organization, and once in a while, they call it "home". On the other hand, Americans have put individual relationships ahead of that of their company.

American organizations often find it easy to release their employees, especially when the firm is experiencing financial challenges, an issue that is not practical in Japan. The above difference implies that the management style adopted in Japan is not likely to succeed when applied in the American context and vice versa.