power lies with one individual.
Kast and Rosenzweig (1985) defined “management” as “mental work performance by people in an
organizational context” (cited in: Wilson, 2004: 127).
We distinguish between five main types of management styles: autocratic leadership, and
democratic leadership, with subtypes such as participative leadership and laissez-faire leadership
(Carnall, 2003).
The laissez-faire style gives freedom of action to employees, as the manager choses to interfere
little or not at all, but is available on demand. Under democratic management the focus is on group
interaction, it empowers employees as leadership functions are shared between managers and team
members, providing groups with the necessary decision-making power which enables them to
function well. Similarly, participative leaders consult with workers and involve their views, which
is seen as appropriate in most cultures. (Mullins, 2005)
Managerial styles can also be described with Blake’s and McCanse’s leadership grid. Managerial
styles can be either transactional or transformational, with the former being linked to autocratic and
the latter to democratic management practices. Transformational management is more concerned
with people, it is about creating a sense of mission, delegating, and treating employees as
individuals. (Linstead et al, 2009). Contrariwise, transactional leadership focuses strongly on an
individual’s effort and achievements and rewards employees according thereto.
The grid distinguishes between ‘impoverishes management’, ‘middle of the road management’,
‘country club management’, ‘team management’ and ‘authority compliance’. The latter two are of
interest for the analysis of the essay. ‘Team management’ is characterised by a strong concern for
both people and production. This is considered as the most desirable, optimum style of
management. The most efficient way of organising and managing people describes the ‘authority
compliance’. Work conditions are arranged in a way which lets “human elements interfere to a
minimum degree” to ensure efficiency. (Linstead et al, 2009: 485).
Lewin (1930) claims that the democratic leadership style is more effective than autocratic practice
in many situations. However, the more appropriate management style may depend on a company’s
situation as well as on its employees. Wilson also argues that a large number of studies points
towards positive organisational performance under democratic systems, and therefore “demonstrate
[s] the efficacy of democratic as opposed to autocratic systems of management”. (2004: 241)
The essay now evaluates the impacts of autocratic practices on individuals and groups, which may
help to explain why democratic leadership turns out to be more effective than autocratic leadership.
The autocratic management style gives decision-making power to one person, thus the employees
have no real input. Employees can become very dependent on their leaders and they lack the
information, support and confidence to act on their own initiative (Carnall, 2007). However, Henry
(1979) points out that firms which operate in rapidly changing environments, where quick decision
making is essential, may benefit from and successfully apply an autocratic style. However, under
autocratic management, there is a risk of increased staff turnover. As autocratic managers frequently
ignore the opinions of their subordinates, employees are likely to feel unvalued and this may cause
them to leave their jobs.
Lewin’s research in the 1930s focused on organisations under autocratic management and
discovered considerable aggression amongst members. The output tended to be high when a
manager was around, but dropped in his absence. Quality levels were low due to lack of motivation
among the employees.
To survive the recession, many managers believe in the importance of fast decision-making and
therefore hesitate to involve their employees. However, the joint consultation between workers and
managers could be the solution for surviving the recession, as sources and knowledge are
combined, and a group of decision-makers is more unlikely to overlook important issues.
It can be concluded that autocratic management practices result in a lack of creativity demand and a
‘work without think’ situation for the employees, which may decrease their motivation. However, it
may be easier under autocratic management to offer wage incentives and promotion to reward
outstanding individuals, which may motivate some employees just as much.
Nowadays, groups and teamwork have gained considerable importance in the practice and structure
of organisations. Teamwork promises a flexible and enriching alternative to repetitive Tayloristic
and Fordistic work routines. Groups and teams are influenced by authority structures, thus it needs
to be considered what impact different managerial styles have on them. (Mullins, 2005)
Managers do need to manage differently when organising teams. The type of leadership required
will depend on the team and its stage of development. The chosen style of management will
influence the behaviour of a group and its members. (Linstead et al, 2009).
Teams are supposed to work autonomously, but whether that is the case or not depends much on the
trust management puts in its teams. (Wilson, 2004) Transformational leadership is more likely to
support a group based organisational structure and the practice of teamwork. It is much harder to
reconcile transactional and autocratic managerial practices with groups and teamwork. Groups tend
to influence an organisation stronger than individuals on their own and demand a flat organisational
structure; everyone is working on an equal basis and expected to contribute equally to the group’s
tasks. Transactional leadership is hard to unify with such a structure, both because it is hard to
reward people according to their individual effort and due to the required trust and responsibility
management has to give the groups.
The question at hand is whether or not groups can enhance the efficiency and productivity of an
organisation, especially in an economic crisis. Most textbooks agree on the importance of teamwork
and state in one way or another that “effective teamwork is an essential element of modern
management practices” (Mullins, 2005: 521). He argues that teams can improve an organisation’s
competitiveness through increasing innovation, productivity, and employee commitment and
motivation.
Similarly, Jay (1980) argues that “the ideal individual for a job cannot be found”, as no individual
“can combine all the necessary qualities of a good manager” (cited in Mullins, 2005: 523). This is
why teams are so strong and promise successful outcomes.
In all these consideration, the motivation of employees has a considerable affect. Abraham Maslow
(1954) distinguishes between different levels of needs, and suggests that once lower-level needs are
fulfilled, a person will strive for ever higher aims and ultimately for self-actualisation. This theory is
problematic, as it can for example be doubted if a level of need actually has to be fulfilled before a
person strives for higher-level needs. Maslow assumes that job-satisfaction also implies an
improved work performance, but this is not always the case. (Mullins, 2005)
Professor Frederick Herzberg separates motivational factors into two sections: Motivators or growth
factors and hygiene or maintenance factors. Both influence job satisfaction, but are of different
importance for different individuals.
Hygiene factors are described as dis-satisfiers. Their implication does not provide job-satisfaction,
but prevent job-dissatisfaction. Job security, salaries, general working conditions, the level and
quality of supervision and interpersonal relations all count as hygiene factors. The maintenance of
these factors may be sufficient for individuals who do not expect job satisfaction from their work.
Motivators have the potential to act as satisfiers: they give employees a sense of achievement,
recognition of good performance, responsibility and a change for personal growth and
advancement. Under democratic and participative leadership, these needs are likely to be met. Thus,
employees who consider motivator factors important will find it difficult to work under autocratic
management, where their needs are unlikely to be met. (Mullins, 2005)
As all theories, this one also has its limits. It can, for example, be doubted if hygiene factors do not
act as motivators and is satisfiers do not also provoke dissatisfaction, depending on the
circumstances and an individuals’ perception. (Wilson, 2004)
Another motivational theory is established by Mc Gregor : the theory X and Y. He supposes that
there are ‘two kind’ of workers: Theory X assumes that people dislike work, try to avoid it if they
can, and require coercion or even punishment to work. On the opposite, theory Y considers work as
a natural activity for some people, just as play and rest. These committed people can be considered
capable of self-control and self-direction. Workers of this group show creativity and imagination,
they are innovative and seek responsibility. (Mullins, 2005). However, it is questionable if this
theory tells us as much about workers’ attitudes to their jobs, as it does about managers’ attitudes
towards workers (Linstead et al, 2009). Managers which incorporate theory X may as a result chose
coercive management methods, and create a vicious circle, which may lead workers to adopt the
theory X behaviour, independently from their former attitude to work. It can be concluded that
management based on theory Y may lead to a virtuous circle, improving workers attitude to work,
as they are rewarded with more autonomy and less direct management control.
As Leaman (2008) suggests, the most useful strategies to survive the recession might be as follows:
Organisations should demonstrate smart leadership. Managers need to develop the ability to plan
carefully and forecast future events; they need good economic understanding to react appropriately.
Instead of reacting by making employees redundant, managers should rather look after their
employees, make them feel valued and recognise their emotional and personal needs. Productivity
is most likely to be improved by changing the way people behave. The motivational theories may
give good hints at how to achieve such a change in behaviour.
As we have seen in the analysis of the essay, there is no clear solution to whether or not autocratic
practices should be used to survive the recession. For instance, the example of Apple Inc. shows
that autocratic management can work very well in an organisation. However, this is only the case as
long as employees are valued, encouraged to be innovative, trusted and integrated in the
communication and decision-making processes. Unfortunately, this is seldom guaranteed, therefore
democratic management is still more suitable for most companies, even within an economic
downturn.
Bibliography
Buckley, M. (1998). Contemporary Human Resource Management. Harlow: Financial Times/
Prentice Hall
Carnall, C. (2003). Managing Changes in Organizations (4th Edition). Harlow: Financial Times/
Prentice Hall
Carnall, C. (2007). Managing Changes in Organizations (5th Edition). Harlow: Financial Times/
Prentice Hall
Cruikshank, J.L. (2005). Apple Way. Blacklick, OH, USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies http://
site.ebrary.com/lib/liverpool/Doc?id=10131972&ppg=167
Dransfield, R. (2000). Human Resource Management (2nd Edition). Oxford: Heinemann
Educational Publishers
Drummond, H. (2000). Introduction to Organizational Behaviour. London: Oxford University Press
Henry, M. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall
Jay, A. (1980). ‘Nobody’s Perfect - But a Team Can Be’ Observer Magazine. 20 April 1980: 26-33
Kast, F.E. and Rosenzweig, J.E. (1985). Organization and Management: A Systems and
Contingency Approach (4th Edition). New York: McGraw Hill
King, A. (2002). ‘The outsider as political leader: the case of Margaret Thatcher’ British Journal of
Political Science, 32(3): 435-454 [Online] Cambridge University Press. Available from: http://
journals.cambridge.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/download.php?file=%2FJPS
%2FJPS32_03%2FS0007123402000182a.pdf&code=e62551751287bb4190aecae20ceafeb1
[Accessed 6 December 2009]
Leaman, A. (2008). Managing in the Downturn: 10 Principles Business Week Online 10/28/2008,
p.14. [Online] Available from: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2008/
gb20081027_147673.htm [Accessed 20 November 2009]
Linstead, S., Fulop, L., Lilley, S., et al (2009). Management and Organization: A Critical Text (2nd
Edition). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Mullins, L.J. (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour (7th Edition). Harlow: Prentice
Hall/Financial Times
Wilson, F.M. (2004). Organizational Behaviour and Work: A Critical Introduction. New York:
Oxford University Press Inc.
