من الممكن استخدامه لكن في حالات محددة

Mintzberg (2009) remarked that it has become fashionable to distinguish between leaders and managers: "Sure, we can separate leading and managing conceptually. But can we separate them in practice? Or, more to the point, should we even try?" (p. 8).

The first article hyperlinked below contextualizes Mintzberg’s work to expose the cult of leadership and restore management to the front and center. The second article hyperlinked below reflects on a Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire exercise conducted in May 2020.

Article Mintzberg's Managing: Implications for Coaching and Training

Article The Full Range Leadership Model: Essentials and Practicum

Reference

Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, Inc.

Olivier Serrat hit it on the nail. The styles don't change much. It is the level of ownership and responsibility and behavior that changes. Every leader is a good manager and every manager can be a good leader. I suggest you use the same questionnaire.

Autocratic[edit]

Autocratic management is the most controlling of the management styles. Variations of this style are authoritative, persuasive, and paternalistic. Autocratic managers make all of the decisions in the workplace. Communication with this type of management is one way, top-down to the employees. Employee ideas and contributions are not encouraged or considered necessary.[4] Roles and tasks are clearly defined, and workers are expected to follow these directions without question while being consistently checked and supervised.[1]

This type of style is particularly useful in organizations with hierarchical structures where management makes all of the decisions based on positioning in the hierarchy. Employees that benefit from this style of management include those who are new, unskilled, or unmotivated, as they need the supervision and clear direction. Managers can benefit greatly from using this style in times of crises or serious time constraints.[5]

The advantages of the autocratic management style are little uncertainty, clearly defined roles and expectations for employees, and the speed of decision-making.[1] All decisions are made by the manager and employees are expected to be compliant leaving little room for variation or confusion. Decision-making speed is ideal and is not slowed by conflicting thought or agendas.

Disadvantages include lack of staff input with ideas that are not encouraged or shared. This can lead to job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, and employee turnover. Because managers make all of the decisions, the employees are not inclined to act autonomously and may become too dependent on the manager. Not all employees want or need supervision, and as a result can become resentful and unhappy.[5] Too many dissatisfied employees and the separation of power with an autocratic management style can lead to an ‘us vs them’ mentality.[1]

Authoritative style[edit]

With this management style, there is little trust or confidence in employees. This manager dictates orders to employees and expects that they do exactly as required. These employees are unskilled. This requires constant teaching and coaching of the staff as well as consistent supervision.[2][5]

Persuasive style[edit]

Using this management style, the manager still makes all decisions for employees but then convinces employees that these decisions were made in the best interest of the team. The only real difference here is that it can establish a higher level of trust between management and staff.[1]

Paternalistic or Exploitative/Authoritative style[edit]

The manager still makes all of the decisions in this style of management and treats the employees in a condescending or paternalistic way.[2] The decisions are made in the best interest of the employees and the manager explains these decisions and the importance of them to the employees. These employees may feel well taken care of and looked after by the paternalistic manager but may become resentful of not being taken seriously. This style breeds highly dependent employees.[6]

Democratic[edit]

The democratic management style involves managers reaching decisions with the input of the employees but being responsible for making the final decision.[4] There are many variations of this style of management including consultative, participative, and collaborative styles. Employee ideas and contributions are encouraged, but not necessary. Communication is both top-down and bottom-up and makes for a cohesive team.

This type of style is versatile with the advantages of having more diverse perspectives involved in decision making. As employees are being taken into account before the manager makes decisions, the employees feel valued which increases motivation and productivity.

Disadvantages of the democratic management style are the time it takes to make a decision due to the gathering of ideas and opinions. There is also the potential conflict of different viewpoints playing a role in the decision making and as a result, employees can feel less valued if their input is not taken, leading to decreased morale and productivity.[1]

Consultative style[edit]

With this management style, trust and confidence is placed in the employees and management actively seeks out their opinions.[2]

Participative style[edit]

Similar to consultative, management trusts the employees, but trusts them completely and not only seeks out their opinions and ideas, but they act on them.[2] They work together to make decisions as a group and the staff is highly involved. As a result, employees feel valued and show increased motivation and productivity. However, a drawback to this style is that some employees do not want to be involved in decision making and can come to resent a manager with this style.[1]

Collaborative style[edit]

Managers with the collaborative style communicated extensively with employees and make decisions by the majority. The manager believes that involving everyone and making the team take ownership will result in the best decisions made. The main disadvantage of this style is that it is time-consuming, and sometimes the majority decision is not the best decision for the business entity, in which case, the manager should take control of the final choice.[6]

Laissez-faire[edit]

The laissez-faire management style involves little or no interference from management. The staff do not need supervision and are highly skilled which allows management to take the hand’s off approach and leave the problem solving, and decision making to the staff.[1] Variations of this style include the delegative style and what is referred to as bossless environments or self-managed teams.[7]

This type of style works best in organizations with flatter decentralized management. Typically, the staff is highly skilled, more so than the management, and is trusted with setting the bar for innovation and setting the objectives.[1]

The advantages of the Laissez faire are increased innovation and creativity through the autonomy of expert staff. Some examples of this type of employee are teachers, creatives, and designers.[4]

Disadvantages include the risk of low productivity by unsupervised staff, loss of direction due to the hands-off style of management.[1]

Delegative style[edit]

A delegative management style allows employees to take full responsibility of their work areas. The manager assigns tasks with little or no direction and expects the staff to achieve results of their own accord. The manager retains responsibility for meeting objectives. The major drawbacks of this style are lack of uniformity among team members and uncoordinated efforts toward productivity. Also because little direction and guidance is given the team can lack direction and focus.[5]

Kindly visit..

Article Mintzberg's Managing: Implications for Coaching and Training

Article The Full Range Leadership Model: Essentials and Practicum

I disagree with some of the other contributors to your question. I believe Leadership and Management are very different. I suggest you take the quiz on the home page of our website. www.leadershapeglobal.com or go directly to http://www.youropinion.co.uk/on_poll/showq40.php?poll=LeadershipPollA - completing the questionnaire will also give you access to a report defining the difference between Management and Leadership.

Also, see https://www.leadershapeglobal.com/leipa for the most comprehensive assessment tool for leadership styles based on sound emotional intelligence principles. It assesses both competence and the importance of the different styles in a particular role, thereby giving true context. This is all discussed in great detail in our book, "Leading Beyond the Ego" which you can find in my ResearchGate profile.

Kindly visit..

Article Mintzberg's Managing: Implications for Coaching and Training

Thank you for this question Asad. Especially in Germany there are a lot of discussions about management and leadership. The term manager is very often viewed as a function, sometimes somewhat pejoratively. A manger has to fulfill his targets. The term leadership is increasingly developing towards human characteristics. You can notice that in sports. What footballer fought for his manager but more for his coach. This is the leader before and during the game. A special spirit emanates from him. This is also experienced in companies; especially in medium-sized companies. I experience that every day.