What Management Style is Best?

Over the years I have learned about different management styles, and have seen several in practice. Some of them were more effective than others. I have used different styles myself, sometimes intentionally, sometimes by accident, and others by ignorance. So which of all the styles is better? While I don’t have all the answers, here is my nuanced opinion from my own experience.

Before we get to actual management styles I think it is important to discuss some other things. I believe there are 2 things that can help anyone in their professional career. First, you really need to understand yourself before you can be of use to a team you manage or supervise. Second, there really is no substitute for experience.

Know Yourself

Another important thing I have learned is that in order to be an effective manager you need to understand your own strengths and weaknesses. An example of one of my weaknesses is that I don’t always think to give recognition to those I work with. Public recognition is not something I personally need. In fact I really don’t like it and feel awkward when I am recognized that way. I prefer to have my managers and co-workers show their recognition by listening, valuing, and implementing my ideas. As such I don’t normally remember that others may need public recognition. I had to learn that everyone is not driven or motivated the way I am. I now try to be aware of how people are motivated and provide public recognition to the individuals that prefer it.

It is important to understand yourself first before you can help others. Once you understand your strengths, weaknesses, and blind spots you can more effectively help your team.

It is important to understand yourself first before you can help others.

The Value of Experience

As time passed and I encountered different personalities I learned new skills. Sometimes those learning experiences were painful and others were pleasantly helpful. One experience I can remember was talking with one of my employees and explaining why the action they had taken was not the best solution. (At least I thought I was explaining.) Her comment in the middle of my “explanation” caught me off guard. She said, “I feel like I am being attacked right now.” I stopped mid sentence, and noticed that my voice had become elevated, I was standing up, and I was gesturing wildly. The realization of this cut me to the core. I immediately sat back down, took a deep breath and apologized. How many times had this happened and no one said anything? I was forever grateful to this person for speaking up. It was something I was very aware of going forward in my conversations with my team.

Her comment in the middle of my “explanation” caught me off guard.

Management Types

In my early years my style could probably be attributed more to ignorance than anything else. I tended to be the subject matter expert of those I supervised/managed. I would guess I came off as a know-it-all to my early teams. At that time I didn’t know how to develop, lead, or inspire, and you could probably say it was more of an autocratic management style.

There are a lot of management styles out there but I am only going to go over the ones that I think work best and the situations they are best for.

Control-Oriented

These styles are best for high-stakes environments, emergencies, or when working with very new staff who need clear direction.

Autocratic

• What it is - The manager makes all decisions unilaterally without much input from the team.
• Pros - Quick and decisive
• Cons - May miss out on key information and can hurt morale.
• When to use - In my experience this should only be used very sparingly and in emergency, high-stakes situations. It should also be delivered with firm, clear, and non-emotional instructions. I like to let everyone know up front that because of the urgency we won’t have time to discuss multiple options.
• Note - An extreme version of the autocratic style would be the micro manager. This should be avoided at all costs. It takes time from something you should be doing and essentially doing a job for someone else. The person on the other end does not feel valued and will begin to resent you.

Persuasive

• What it is - The manager still makes all the decisions but spends time explaining the “why” to gain the team’s buy-in.
• Pros - Can still move quickly in an emergency.
• Cons - Can still hurt morale, but will be better than the autocratic style as at least everyone will understand why things are being done. You could still miss out on better solutions.
• When to use - Like autocratic it should be used sparingly, but can be used when it is still an emergency, but the stakes aren’t quite as high.

People-Oriented

These styles work best for creative teams, experienced professionals, or when you need long-term “buy-in” from your staff.

Democratic

• What it is - The manager encourages team input and builds consensus before making a final decision. The manager acts as a facilitator.
• Pros - Team buy-in. The team is part of the solution and may be more engaged
• Cons - Can cause arguments and can take longer to make a decision
• When to use - Should be used when you need the team to be more involved and invested in a solution. It can be most effective when your requirements for a project are loose and you have more choice over how the project gets done.

Consultative

• What it is - The manager asks for everyone’s opinion before making the final decision themselves.
• Pros - Can bring closure to a discussion that does not appear to have a solution.
• Cons - Some of the team may be angry their feedback/suggestion/opinion was not chosen.
• When to use - This should be used when you start as a democratic style but it does not end in consensus. Someone needs to make a decision so the team can move forward.

I think any modern management book, article, or training will tell you that using one management style all the time is not the most effective approach. Each person is different and each situation is different. Why would you apply the same solution in every situation?

Situational Management

From what I have experienced, the style that works best for me is called the Situational Leadership Model. Instead of having just “one way” to manage, you adapt based on the employee’s “performance readiness.” These groups help determine the action and amount of detail to provide. Below are some basic groups to consider as a manager. It is by no means exhaustive, but should cover most scenarios.

Each person is different and each situation is different. Why would you apply the same solution in every situation?

New/Unskilled
This group is new to the company or just don’t have any knowledge about the tasks they need to perform. Directing and giving detailed instructions is the best approach.

Learning & Willing
This group doesn’t really know how to do the tasks they are given but have the right attitude and are willing to learn. Walking them through the process and coaching is best here.

Capable but Unsure
This group is very good at their job, but just don’t have the confidence yet to know that they make good decisions. They usually only require support and reinforcement to get the job done.

Expert & Motivated
There is a high level of experience in this group and you feel comfortable delegating things to them. The trust is high and you should only need to get involved if they need an obstacle or barrier removed to get the job done.

There is a lot more to situational leadership than I have listed here. If you are interested in the nuts and bolts of the theory there are many resources available. To sum up my personal preference I don’t believe there is an exact style that you should use all of the time. If I were to put this into percentages of what I feel is best for me it would look something like the below.

90% - Situational
9% - Democratic/Consultative
1% - Autocratic/Persuasive