The various models can be seen illustrated through the years through Herzberg, Maslow and McGregor’s work.
Being Autocratic would most certainly demand stringent planning and time management mechanisms to stay in control of what is seen as “I say” – “you do” methodology. This would leave very little time for personal growth and taking care of the whole body approach which includes the four main elements of “being”. Taking care of physical, mental, spiritual and emotional strength. In this form of control the freedom to grow through others limit the flexibility otherwise experienced by a participative management style.
To be able to take care of one’s whole being as a Manager, one must first recognize the needs in others.
Mind = being creative
Body = being recognised / paid for the efforts
Heart = being treated kindly
Spirit = being spirited enough to serve the needs of others in a principled manner
To be managed as if one is incompetent would evoke exactly that – incompetent behaviour.
In various case studies and consulting projects it became evident that Management as dictator would have very little time for themselves, their own growth and being able to Mentor those around them – these individuals during a performance review scored the lowest in the category Mentor.
To be able to effect one’s own growth as a Manager would require careful planning of taking care of the whole being.
To be creative in management style involving all levels of the workforce to bring a unique vision to execution of all aspects of the operations in the organisation. Often the people on the ground acquire skills and vision that could mean the difference between reaching that profit and loss margin.
An interesting observation is that as far back as 1938, Lewin, Lippitt and White described the Laissez Faire Leadership Style already. It is described as a “hands off” leadership style because the leader provides little or no direction to the subordinates. The main focus being that of providing the environment and support needed for each individual to grow to their full potential. Looking at behaviour and needs.
In doing so this would most certainly allow for the now more modern approach of running each department as a independent business entity with it’s team members securely in control of the outcomes. The freedom of input and reward which in turn allow Management to step away from being so involved in everyday business transactions which in turn create a healthy organisational practise of taking care of the “whole being”.
The stress factors involved in the adamant choice of Management with the full hands on approach bring with it diminished quality of freedom to do introspection and balance that reflect a healthy mind and body to support the functions of other individuals within the organisation. |