In the previous video I emphasized organizations have choices when managing human resources. And we distinguished between a low road approach and a high road approach. Now turning to the individual and away from the organizational level, managers too have choices in how they can manage their staff and manage human resources. And this video provides a quick introduction to thinking about different managerial styles. Now this low road, high road metaphor, however, is probably a poor one when thinking about individual managerial styles. Instead, you need to think about adopting different styles for different situations, not just choosing between say a high road and a low road. Now there's a lot of different ways of characterizing different managerial leadership styles. I'm going to use a popular framework, based on six different managerial styles. The six different managerial styles, in this approach, are coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching. Now, I'm first going to quickly run through each of the six and then we'll revisit each of them to think about good situations and poor situations where situations where these styles are a good fit, situations where these styles aren't strong of a fit. Okay, first the coercive leader. A coercive leader is headstrong and authoritarian. This type of leader wants employees to comply and to obey. So in a sense they say, do it this way, and motivate by threats. Now, authoritative managers, not authoritarian but authoritative managers, are confident, competent, and have a strong vision. And so their key goal is to get employees to mobilize towards a vision. In a sense they say come with me and motivate by persuasion and feedback. Now in an affiliate style, people and relationships are the most important. And so these types of managers essentially want employees to be happy. And their catch-phrase would be people come first. And they motivate employees through building relationships with them and helping them build relationships with each other. A democratic style is a participative style. This leader builds trust, respect, and commitment through listening and employee participation. So in a sense they say, what do you think? And motivate through inclusion. Now pacesetting managers by contrast are real go getters. So they set high standards for themselves and expect their employees to follow their example. And so in a sense they say, do as I do and do it now, and they motivate by setting high standards. Lastly, a coach sets out to develop employees, and so their catch phrase is try this, and they motivate opportunities through opportunities for longterm development and emphasize that over short-term results. Now I really want to emphasize that there's no best managerial style. You need different styles or even different combinations of styles for different situations. Now coercive style, for example, is beneficial in a crisis. If the cost of failure, the cost of deviation is high, then having a strong leadership style where people know exactly what they need to do can be beneficial. However, employees can become resentful of this. They become resentful of micromanaging. And so in those types of situations a coercive style is not very strong. Now, authoritative style can be beneficial if you need quick results. And it can be beneficial if the manager has credibility, and therefore is really confident and competent in his or her work performance and sets a good role model, sets a good example. However, this can sometimes become arrogant or become authoritarian. In which case this becomes a negative rather than positive leadership style. This can be especially the case if you're working with peers or even working with people more experienced than you. They might mistake your authoritative style for an arrogant style. Now affiliative approaches are beneficial in stressful situations where relationships are important. Or it can be useful when trust is broken down and you need to rebuild trust by rebuilding relationships. However, in this approach that emphasizes relationships over performance per se, if employees need feedback and they need stronger supervision then this is not a strong style. Also the emphasis on relationships over results can sometimes have this workplace devolve into a situation where mediocrity is acceptable, and clearly that's not a good situation. A democratic style is beneficial when you need buy in, and can work well when employees want to participate, they want to share their ideas, they want to be included. However, think of a situation where employees don't want that, that don't have that motivation, or they don't have the expertise to contribute ideas. In the case, a democratic leadership style is not strongly suited. Also, there's a risk that a democratic style ends up with too many meetings, too many decisions. And so if that's the case, then this isn't necessarily a strong management style. A pacesetting style can be useful and beneficial when you need quick results. Because remember, pacesetting managers are setting a high example, and expecting others to follow along. And if employees have the motivation and the skills to follow along then this can also be a beneficial, positive managerial style. However, if employees need more direction, need more coordination, and not just follow my example, then this isn't necessarily a very strong or successful managerial style. Also if employees become more concerned with trying to figure out what you want, rather than figuring out their own good ways for delivering effective job performance, then this can reduce morale and lower trust and, therefore, be a negative managerial style. Lastly, coaching can be beneficial when employees need their strengths developed and when they're motivated to develop those strengths. However, if employees don't have that interest or if the manager lacks the expertise to correctly diagnose employees' strengths and weaknesses, then this coaching style is not necessarily a very strong one, and this also isn't a very strong managerial style in a crisis. So, again, wanna emphasize that there is no one best style for managing employees. Now research indicates that the authoritative style is the single most effective managerial style but even that one as we've seen isn't perfect for all situations. Rather you need different styles, in fact different combination of styles for different situations. So work on mixing and matching. Different types of managerial strategies, managerial styles from your palate of options. And to do this you need to understand yourself by also understanding others and managing relationships. This requires self awareness, as well as social awareness.
