As with other topics that have been intensely reviewed in the management literature, there is a wide array of definitions of the term “management style.” A fairly simple approach is to view management style simply as the way that an organization is managed. Schleh referred to management style as “… [t]he adhesive that binds diverse operations and functions together. It is the philosophy or set of principles by which you capitalize on the abilities of your people. It is not a procedure on ‘how to do,’ but is the management framework for doing. A management style is a way of life operating throughout the enterprise. It permits an executive to rely on the initiative of his people.” Yu and Yeh defined management style as “a preferred way of managing people in order to bind diverse operations and functions together, as well as to exercise control over employees, and is considered as a set of practices that has been adopted either by an individual, a department, or whole organization.” Others have approached descriptions of management style by attempting to identify various functions of the manager. For example, Quang and Vuong noted that Khandwalla defined management style as “the distinctive way in which an organisation makes decisions and discharges various functions, including goal setting, formulation and implementation of strategy, all basic management activities, corporate image building and dealing with key stakeholders.”
Quang and Vuong pointed out that there is no single management style that applies in all instances and that an organization’s “operating conditions” will influence the style that is selected. This assertion is consistent with other indications that management styles are influenced and determined by a number of different factors. Some believe that societal culture has the biggest impact on the management styles selected and used by organizations operating within a society and there is ample evidence for the proposition that one can find distinctive management styles in different countries such as France, India, Japan, the United States, and Vietnam. This has led to the argument that each societal culture has its own “core style” of management based on the values and norms that predominate in that culture, with some allowances for local variations. However, other researchers have conducted exhaustive studies of large number of organizations in the same country and found evidence of a wide range of management styles within the same societal culture. For example, Burns and Stalker identified two very different management styles in the United Kingdom—organic and mechanistic—and Khandwalla was able to come up with seven categories of management style in Canada and found variations in management styles between firms in different industries in India as well as differences among Indian firms operating in the same industry.
While not making it any easier to create prescriptions for effective management styles, the reality seems to be that there are a number of factors that likely have an impact on the selection and effectiveness of management styles, including the type of organization, business purpose and activities of the organization, size of the organization, operating environment, corporate culture, societal culture, information technology and communication and, finally, the personal style and behavior of the owner or chief executive. Quang and Vuong noted that the authoritarian management styles often used in state-owned enterprises in many developing countries reflected the governing styles of their political leaders. They also suggested that in small and mid-sized firms it could be expected that the size of the organization would lead to the personal style of the owner or chief executive having a significant impact on how the firm operated and subordinates behaved. Lewis argued that advances in communications and information processing technology could change the way that managers work and interact with their subordinates. Reddin’s model of management styles emphasized the importance of “situational factors” and was based on the fundamental principle that managerial behaviors and styles will and must vary depending on where the manager is in the organizational hierarchy and the type of activities that he or she is overseeing. Finally, management styles will change as firms transition to new business models based on changing trends in the marketplace, such as greater emphasis on quality and customer service and satisfaction.
Quang and Vuong provided a useful short summary of some of the ideas regarding “formal” management styles that have been developed and described by scholars over the past few decades:
The often cited distinction between “organic” and “mechanistic” management styles was first introduced by Burns and Stalker.
Japanese management style attracted the attention of a number of scholars in the 1980s and has been said to feature an emphasis on “paternalism, lifetime employment, seniority, lifelong learning, collective decision making, hard work, cooperation ethics, continuous adaptation and improvement.”
Khandwalla studied companies in the United States, Canada, and India and concluded that there were five fundamental dimensions that served as the foundation of the styles selected and used by managers: risk taking, technocracy, flexibility, participation, and authoritarianism.
Peters and Waterman responded to the interest in Japanese management styles by identifying the contrasting element of American management style, which they said included more emphasis on core values, highly flexible structures, business unit autonomy, interactivity, and innovation.
Management styles are widely studied because research indicates that they are significant factor in determining overall organizational effectiveness. It is obvious that the elements of management style have a direct influence on how individual employees and work groups perform their operational activities, including the actual sequence of tasks, the goals they are pursuing, and how they feel about their roles within the organization. Management style also determines the level of cooperation within the organization and how people within the organization interrelate with one another and with customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders outside of the organization. Measuring “organizational effectiveness” is not always an easy proposition; however, in their study of Vietnamese management styles Quang and Vuong suggested that indicators of effectiveness might include employee satisfaction, profitability, growth rate, competitiveness, financial strength, public image and goodwill, and technological leadership.
Dimensions of Management Styles
In order to facilitate the efficient and productive comparative study of management styles researchers have created models using various managerial practices or activities as dimensions which can be used to organize data and define the characteristics of particular styles and differentiate them from others. One can see both consensus and divergence among the dimensions that have been selected by researchers; however, one lesson seems to be that clarity of analysis and understanding likely demands that the number of dimensions be kept to a manageable number in order to provide meaningful guidance to managers with respect to areas that they need to focus on as they interact with subordinates and carry out their day-to-day activities.
Many of the proposed models have been based on just two dimensions which have been used to generate four distinctive management styles based on different combinations of scores or placement on the two dimensions. For example, a well-known model that used assertiveness and cooperativeness as the two dimensions for analysis suggested the following possible management styles: “avoiding” (low assertiveness and low cooperativeness); “accommodating” (low assertiveness and high cooperativeness); “competing” (high assertiveness and low cooperativeness); “collaborating” (high assertiveness and high cooperativeness); and “compromising” (mid-level on both assertiveness and cooperativeness). In this model “assertiveness” focused on managerial behaviors that were focused inward while “cooperativeness” focused on managerial behaviors directed at subordinates. An assertive manager tends to be confrontational while an unassertive manager is avoidant and the degree of cooperativeness is directly related to how reasonable a manager is in his or her dealings and communications with subordinates. Another often cited two-dimensional model focused on how roles and responsibilities were designed and used the dimensions of “programmability” and “capability for autonomy.” This model generated three types of managerial styles: “autocratic/benevolent autocratic” (high programmability/low job autonomy); “consultative/participative” (low programmability/low job autonomy and high programmability/high job autonomy); and “consensus/laissez-faire” (low programmability/high job autonomy). Other two-dimensional sets have included “concern for personal goals” and “concern for relationships,” and “concern for people” (relationships) and “concern for results” (tasks or performance).
While two-dimensional models are relatively easy to grasp, other researchers have argued for integrating more than just two factors into the process of developing a profile of managerial style. Quang and Vuong proposed a model of a “management system” that included the following items or dimensions: leadership style, degree of decentralization/delegation, communication pattern, quality controls, authority definition, trust, and confidence in subordinates, planning term, personnel policy, control devices, training programs, motivation, employee morale, absenteeism, and productivity. With respect to each item or dimension Quang and Vuong also provided specific characteristics for each item or dimension which could be used as a basis of comparison between organizations or enterprise sectors. For example, when Quang and Vuong examined “leadership style” they focused on characteristics such as how much attention the supervisor paid to employees’ interests and opinions, close supervision, encouragement of work teams, the amount of direction given from the top, the amount of freedom given to subordinates and the extent to which the supervisor delegated authority to subordinates. When “decision making” was being analyzed Quang and Vuong measured the degree of employees’ participation in decision making, the degree of contribution of functional departments in decision making, the use of new methods and technologies in decision making, and the level of support from employees for decisions made by top management.
Quang and Vuong used their model to analyze and compare the characteristics of the management systems used in the state, private, and joint venture sectors in Vietnam and concluded that “there was no single management style that cut across all the three types of enterprises.” In the state sector, for example, it was not surprising given the heritage of centralized planning that the most prevalent managerial styles were bureaucratic, familial, conservative, and authoritarian styles and that common management practices included “clear reporting relationships, formal communication and strict control.” In the private sector, however, the predominance of family-owned businesses explained the popularity of the familial management style with the owner treating the workers as part of one large family. As for management practices among these types of businesses, the researcher found a preference for tight controls and coordination overseen by managers who were relatives of the owner. Finally, firms in the joint venture sector, which necessarily was subject to the influence of foreign partners and their preference for so-called “modern principles of management,” were more likely than firms in the other sectors to embrace elements of the participative management style.
Bloom and Van Reenen analyzed 18 basic management practices or dimensions; however, when presenting their findings they focused on three discernable groups of dimensions which they identified as “monitoring,” “targets,” and “incentives.” The dimensions selected by Culpan and Kucukemiroglu for their comparative study of management styles in the United States and Japan included supervisory style, decision making, communication, control, interdepartmental relations, and paternalistic orientation. Comparative research conducted by Weihrich and Yu and Yeh was based on dimensions that included planning, organizing, staffing, leading and controlling, decision making, leadership, communication, goals, motivation, and power distance. Other scholars have attempted to match management styles to organizational values/culture, environmental factors (e.g., turbulence, diversity, restrictiveness, and technological complexity), and factors personal to the manager such as his or her instrumental values, underlying emotional intelligence capabilities, or level of maturity.
Khandwalla’s Categories of Management Styles
While many researchers constructed their ideas regarding management styles on data collected among US-based organizations, Khandwalla relied on an empirical study of 90 organizations in India to define 10 categories of “management styles”—conservative, entrepreneurial, professional, bureaucratic, organic, authoritarian, participative, intuitive, familial, and altruistic—with the following key features:
- Conservative: Bias for preserving and extending whatever has worked, cautious in innovating and/or changing status quo, predisposed to pursuit of diversification and growth in familiar directions, reliant on traditions that preserve the strengths of the past and generally conservative personality traits but not necessarily
- Entrepreneurial: Indulges in calculated risk taking, pioneering, innovation, and rapid growth
- Professional: Adapts scientific optimization-oriented approach to management, uses sophisticated management tools and techniques, and undertakes long range planning
- Bureaucratic: Emphasis on orderly management, accountability, and formalization of rules, regulations, and procedures
- Organic: Deep commitment to flexibility, innovation, responsiveness to change, teamwork and interactive, feedback-based decision making
- Authoritarian: Emphasis on discipline and obedience
- Participative: Committed to an ideology of collective, consensus-based decision making
- Intuitive: Shows faith in experience, common sense, and intuitive judgment based on good rules of thumb or heuristics learned from experience
- Familial: Anchored in the notion that to achieve organizational cohesiveness and loyalty of employees to the organization the organization must treat its employees like family members and look after their needs
- Altruistic: Belief that the organization is an instrumentality of some larger social good and not just a vehicle for profit maximization
Khandwalla noted that several of the management styles have been identified as especially useful in particular situations and environments. For example, an entrepreneurial approach is necessary for efforts of developing countries to diversify their industrial base and pursue rapid growth of outputs. A professional approach works well for managing new and complicated technology-intensive industries in a complex global environment. An organic approach is often recommended for organizations operating in fast changing environments. The bureaucratic management style has been well documented and often associated with larger organizations, particularly those in the public sector, that are presumed to require processes that ensure accountability, equity, orderliness, and operating efficiency. The authoritarian management style was often used in developing countries during their colonial periods as a means for dealing with the perception that the local work ethic was weak and the task environment was hostile. The polar opposite of authoritarianism, the participative style, focuses on fostering motivation and cooperation and is useful in situation where managers value diverse perspectives and input before decisions are made and executed. Finally, the altruistic style was thought to be useful in developing countries launching major social projects, such as initiatives to alleviate poverty, improve infrastructure, or bolster the local education system.
Thornton’s “Big 3” Management Styles
Thornton argued that there are three basic management styles—directing (“tell employees what to do”), discussing (“ask questions and listen”), and delegating (“let employees figure it out on their own”)—and that the characteristics of each of these styles can be explained using dimensions such as communication strategies, goal-setting, and decision-making procedures, performance monitoring procedures and the methods used for rewarding and recognizing the work of subordinates. Thornton counseled that managers should be adept at each of the styles and must be able to diagnose the situation before deciding what management style to use. He also observed that management style is an evolutionary process and that as employees gain experience, skills, and confidence the manager should become more comfortable with granting employees more freedom and transitioning his or her preferred management style from directing to discussing and, finally, to delegating.
The “directing” style places major control squarely in the hands of the manager, who assumes full responsibility for assigning duties and roles among subordinates, setting standards, and defining goals and expectations. This style is appropriate when specific orders need to be given in order to complete specific and well-defined tasks. When the directing style is used communication generally takes the form of specific directions from management, short term goals are set by management with little or no input from subordinates, formal control systems are used to monitor performance, and rewards are distributed based on how well subordinates follow and carry out the orders issued by management.
A manager using the “discussing” style makes an effort to discuss relevant issues with subordinates and creates an environment in which communication flows more smoothly and both managers and employees feel free and empowered to present ideas, ask questions, provide feedback, and coaching and challenge assumptions. Managers using this style have developed the capacity to listen to the concerns of their followers and facilitate meetings at which issues relating to work activities are discussed and debated. The discussing style gets people involved in the process of setting goals and making decisions and builds greater commitment among subordinates with respect to the goals of the units because they had a hand in setting them. Performance is monitored by managers and subordinates and the criteria for rewards and recognition is expanded to include the quality of contributions made to discussions, social skills, and openness in sharing information and opinions with the group.
Finally, the “delegating” style features a high level of autonomy for subordinates as managers set general expectations yet transfer substantial responsibility for the details of meeting those expectations to subordinates. Not surprisingly, it is recommended that this approach be limited to situations where the subordinates have a substantial amount of training and experience and thus are capable of acting without much direct supervision. Communication within groups using the delegating style varies depending on the situation and can either “one way” or “two way.” Goals may be set by the manager alone or by the manager in collaboration with representatives from the subordinate group; however, regardless of how goals are established the hallmark of this type of style is the subordinates are given the independence and autonomy to decide on their own about the best way to pursue and achieve those goals. Since managers are not involved in the details of the design of specific tasks and activities, they do require continuous and timely feedback on performance to ensure that satisfactory progress is being made toward completion of the agreed goals. Rewards and recognition when the delegating style is used are based on efficiency and the ability of subordinates to perform well when asked to work autonomously.
Reddin’s 3-D Management Style Theory
A number of scholars and researchers have observed that the psychological managerial typologies created by many leading management theorists are actually all based on two underlying variables—task orientation and relationships orientation. For example, the model of managerial types proposed by Blake and Mouton in their “Managerial Grid” contrasts managers that have a concern for production (i.e., a task orientation) with managers that are more concerned with “people” (i.e., a relationships orientation). Similarly, McGregor’s “Theory X” is arguably task oriented while his “Theory Y” is more relationships oriented. Carron focused on “initiating structure” (i.e., a task orientation) and “consideration” (i.e., a relationships orientation) as tools for describing management behavior that allowed for identification of four managerial styles: laissez-faire, democratic, autocratic, and paternalistic.
Following review of the orientations and definitions used in, and the findings of, various studies, Reddin suggested definitions of both task and relationships orientation. With regard to task orientation, he defined it as “the extent to which a manager is likely to direct his own and his subordinates’ efforts toward goal attainment … [t]hose with high task orientation tend to direct more than others through planning, communicating, informing, scheduling and introducing new ideas.” Relationships orientation was defined as “the extent to which a manager is likely to have highly personal job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates’ ideas and consideration of their feelings … [t]hose with high relationships orientation have good rapport with others and good two-way communication.”
Reddin went on to suggest that managerial styles can be categorized and defined by the four possible ways that managers emphasize tasks and/or relationships and developed the following four-type typology of “Latent Non-Normative” styles: “separated,” which is the situation where a manager appears to act without concern for either tasks or relationships; “relationships,” which is the situation where a manager clearly emphasizes concerns about relationships over tasks (i.e., relationship oriented); “task,” which is the opposite of “relationships” and is present when managers focus primarily on tasks (i.e., task oriented); and “integrated,” which is the situation where a manager attempts to be both task- and relationship-oriented. Reddin took pains to emphasize that “[n]o claims can be made that any one of these four styles is more effective than the other” and the managerial behavior required for successful performance will vary depending upon the particular situation. He noted, for example, that “[s]ome jobs, to be performed effectively, demand a high relationships orientation and low task orientation … [s]ome require the opposite.”
Reddin argued that if the effectiveness of a particular style varied depending on the situation, then it was possible to create a model of eight managerial styles that included two behavioral counterparts, one that was less effective and one that was more effective, for each of his four Latent Non-Normative styles: for “separated” the less effective style was called “deserter” and the more effective style was called “bureaucratic”; for “relationships” the less effective style was called “missionary” and the more effective style was called “developer”; for “task” the less effective style was called “autocrat” and the more effective style was called “benevolent autocrat”; and for “integrated” the less effective style was called “compromiser” and the most effective style was called “executive.” Reddin also supplied the following summary descriptions of each of the eight styles included in his “3-D” model:
Deserter: Managers using this style often display a lack of interest in both tasks and relationships (i.e., the “separated” Latent Non-Normative style) and are ineffective both because of this lack of interest and the impact of this style on the overall morale of subordinates. In addition to deserting, this type of manager may hinder performance in other ways by valueless intervention in work activities and/or by withholding necessary information.
Bureaucrat: Like deserters, bureaucrats are not really that interested in either task or relationship orientations and focus their efforts primarily on understanding and applying the rules and procedures that have been laid down for production. In contrast to the autocratic described below, the bureaucrat is effective because he or she does not disrupt morale by obvious disdain for tasks and relationships and follows the rules while maintaining a mask of interest.
Missionary: Managers using the missionary style place the highest value on harmony and relationships (i.e., the “relationships” Latent Non-Normative style); however, they are ineffective because they want so hard to be seen by themselves and others as a “good person” that they are unable to risk upsetting relationships in order to make decisions that are necessary for efficient production.
Developer: The developer style is the more effective of the two “relationships” Latent Non-Normative style, contrasting with the missionary style described earlier. Managers using this style place their implicit trust in those that work with them and see their roles as being primarily concerned with developing the talents of others and providing an overall working environment that is conducive to motivation and maximization of individual satisfaction. This approach can be highly effective in certain instances since it promotes a working environment in which everyone is committed to their personal development and to completion of their work. The risk of this style is that there may be times when the manager’s high relationships orientation causes him or her to make decisions that put the personal development of subordinates ahead of the interests of the entire organization with respect to maximizing short- or long-term production and/or the development of subordinates who can succeed to the position occupied by the manager.
Autocrat: Autocrats are most interested in completing the immediate task above all other considerations, including relationships (i.e., the “tasks” Latent Non-Normative style). This lack of concern for relationships makes the autocratic style ineffective since subordinates act only out of fear and their dislike of the manager stifles their motivation and causes them to work only when direct pressure is applied by the manager.
Benevolent Autocrat: Benevolent autocrats place implicit trust in themselves and are concerned with completing both immediate and long-term tasks. In contrast to his or her ineffective counterpart, the “autocrat,” the benevolent autocratic is effective because he or she has the skill and patience to induce subordinates to carry out his or her directives without creating resentment or reducing morale, either of which can undermine his or her ability to achieve the desired production goals.
Compromiser: Managers using the compromiser style recognize the advantages of both task and relationship orientations (i.e., the “integrated” Latent Non-Normative style); however, they are ineffective due to their inability to make sound decisions. Ambivalence is the term that is used to describe the manner in which compromisers act and decisions are generally made based on the most recent or heaviest pressure. This leads to a style focusing on minimizing immediate problems rather than taking the steps that may be needed to maximize long-term production. The compromiser is particularly interested in staying on the good side of those people whom he or she believes can have the largest influence on his or her career.
Executive: A manager using the executive style sees his or her job as maximizing the efforts of his or her subordinates with respect to both short- and long-term tasks. The executive is committed to both task and relationship orientations (i.e., the “integrated” Latent Non-Normative style) and this is evident to everyone in the organization. The executive seeks to act as a powerful motivator, sets high standards for production and performance, and is willing and able to treat subordinates differently in order to obtain results and create personal satisfaction for as many people as possible within the organization. The executive’s ability to obtain results from both task and relationship orientations makes him or her extremely effective.
While Reddin referred to the eight styles as “more” or “less” effective he counseled that the proper focus should be on “style demands of the situation” that the manager is in. The “demands” are a function of the style demands of the job; the style demands of the superior, which are derived from the corporate philosophy and the superior’s own preferred style; and the style demands of the subordinates, which are derived from the their expectations and their own styles. Reddin noted, for example, that in jobs where an orientation to routine was necessary the “separated” style of “bureaucracy” might be most effective; however, if the separated style was used in an aggressive sales organization it would likely take the form of the “deserter.”
National Management Styles
At a basic level a manager’s style refers to the characteristic ways in which he or she makes decisions regarding the group that he or she oversees and the methods that he or she uses when relating to his or her subordinates within that group. Managers have a wide array of functions and responsibilities—planning, organizing, staffing, leading, controlling, motivating, and decision making—and the manner in which they discharge those functions depends on a variety of factors, one of which is almost certainly the societal culture in which the manager and his or her subordinates are operating. While many have argued that the increasing rate of globalization in the business arena is causing convergence among management styles that is overriding cultural differences, researchers continue to explore the characteristics of specific national management styles. Some studies focus specifically on one country, a process referred to by anthropologists as ethnography and which includes in-depth analysis and description of the customary social behaviors of a single identifiable group of people using techniques such as participant observation; however, a good deal of what appears in more recent assessments of national management styles is based on the practice of ethnology, which is the comparative study of two or more cultures that looks at a narrower set of data related to a particular topic and seeks to compare and contrast the various cultures.
There are several different models of management style that may be used for descriptive and comparative purposes. One method for modeling a manager’s style and practices focuses on a small set of specific characteristics and activities such as supervisory style, decision making style and processes, communication patterns, control mechanisms, management of interdepartmental relationships and, finally, the strength of paternalistic orientation when interacting with subordinates. Another method of describing “management styles” which may be particularly useful when studying developing countries is the model created by Khandwalla after studying 90 organizations in India, research that caused him to recognize and describe 10 categories of management styles: conservative, entrepreneurial, professional, bureaucratic, organic, authoritarian, participative, intuitive, familial, and altruistic.
1 Quang, T., and N. Vuong. 2002. “Management Styles and Organisational Effectiveness in Vietnam.” Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 10, no. 2, pp. 36–55.
2 Schleh, E. August 1977. “A Matter of Management Style.” Management Review, pp. 9–13, 10.
3 Yu, P.L., and Q.J. Yeh. 2018. “Asian and Western Management Styles, Innovative Culture and Professionals’ Skills.” (accessed December 17, 2018) (citing Schleh, C. 1977. “A Matter of Management Style.” Management Review 66, pp. 9–13; Clear, F., and K. Dickson. 2005. “Teleworking Practice in Small and Medium-Sized Firms: Management Style and Worker Autonomy.” New Technology Work and Employment 20, pp. 220–33; and Morris, T., and M. Pavett. 1992. “Management Style and Productivity in Two Cultures.” Journal of International Business Studies 23, pp. 169–79).
4 Quang, T., and N. Vuong. 2002. “Management Styles and Organisational Effectiveness in Vietnam.” Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 10, no. 2, pp. 36–55 (citing Khandwalla, P. 1995. Management Styles. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd).
7 Evans, W., K. Han, and D. Sculli. 1989. “A Cross-cultural Comparison of Managerial Styles.” Journal of Management Development 8, no. 3, pp. 5–13.
8 Burns, T., and G. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
9 Khandwalla, P. 1977. The Design of Organization. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10 Khandwalla, P. 1980. “Management in Our Backyard.” Vikalpa 5, pp. 173–84.
11 Quang, T., and N. Vuong. 2002. “Management Styles and Organisational Effectiveness in Vietnam.” Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 10, no. 2, pp. 36–55.
12 Id. (citing Davidmann, M. 1995. Style of Management and Leadership, 2nd ed.).
13 Lewis, P., S. Goodman, and P. Fandt. 2001. Management: Challenges in the 21st Century, 3rd ed. Mason, OH: South Western College Publishing.
14 Reddin, W. April 1967. “The 3-D Management Style Theory: A Typology Based On Task and Relationships Orientation.” Training and Development Journal, pp. 8–17.
15 Dolan, S., and S. Garcia. 2002. “Managing by Values: Cultural Redesign for Strategic Organizational Change at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century.” Journal of Management Development 21, no. 2, pp. 101–17.
16 Quang, T., and N. Vuong. 2002. “Management Styles and Organisational Effectiveness in Vietnam.” Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 10, no. 2, pp. 36–55.
17 Burns, T., and G. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
18 Pascale, T., and A. Athos. 1983. The Arts of Japanese Management. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster; and Wilkins, A., and W. Ouchi. 1983. “Efficient Culture: Exploring the Relationship Between Culture and Organizational Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28, pp. 465–81.
19 Khandwalla, P. 1995. Management Styles. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.; and Khandwalla, P. 1995. “Effectiveness Management Styles: An Indian Study.” Journal of Euro-Asian Management 1, no. 1, pp. 39–64.
20 Peters, T., and R. Waterman., Jr. 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
21 Quang, T., and N. Vuong. 2002. “Management Styles and Organisational Effectiveness in Vietnam.” Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 10, no. 2, pp. 36–55 (citing Davidmann, M. 1995. Style of Management and Leadership, 2nd ed.).
22 Id. For further discussion of organizational performance, see “Organizational Performance and Effectiveness” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).
23 The assertiveness/cooperativeness model was first popularized by Thomas and Kilmann, who developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument to understand how different conflict-handling styles influenced personal and group dynamics and assist managers in selecting the most appropriate style for a specific situation.
24 Flamholtz, E., and Y. Randle. 2007. Growing Pains: Transitioning From an Entrepreneurship to a Professionally Managed Firm, 4th ed.
25 See, for example, Eckstein, D. October 1997. “Styles of Conflict Management.” Family Journal 5, no. 4, pp. 240–44; Blake, R., and J. Mouton. 1964. The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence; and Reddin, W. April 1967. “The 3-D Management Style Theory: A Typology Based On Task and Relationships Orientation.” Training and Development Journal, pp. 8–17.
26 Quang, T., and N. Vuong. 2002. “Management Styles and Organisational Effectiveness in Vietnam.” Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 10, no. 2, pp. 36–55.
27 For detailed discussion of the findings of Quang and Vuong with respect to Vietnamese business organizations, see “Comparative Management Studies” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project
28 Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42. For a review of the results of their comparison of US and Japanese management styles, see “Comparative Management Studies” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).
29 See Weihrich, H. March/April 1990. “Management Practices in the United States, Japan and the People’s Republic of China.” Industrial Management, pp. 3–7; and Yu, P.L., and Q.J. Yeh. 2012. “Asian and Western Management Styles, Innovative Culture and Professionals’ Skills.” (accessed January 29, 2012). For discussion of each of these studies, see “Comparative Management Studies” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).
30 Khandwalla, P. 1995. “Effectiveness Management Styles: An Indian Study.” Journal of Euro-Asian Management 1, no. 1, pp. 39–64, 43–46.
31 The discussion in this section is adapted from Thornton, P. 2008. The Big 3 Management Styles. Oshawa, Ontario: Multi-Media Publications. Thornton has also written about leadership styles and skills and promoted the idea that leaders should provide challenge, coaching and confidence to their followers in order to provide the highest value to their organizations. See, for example, Thornton, P. 2001. Be the Leader, Make the Difference, 2nd ed. Santa Ana, CA: Griffin Publishing Group.
33 Reddin, W. April 1967. “The 3-D Management Style Theory: A Typology Based On Task and Relationships Orientation.” Training and Development Journal, pp. 8–17.
34 Blake, R., and J. Mouton. 1964. The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
35 McGregor, D. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
36 Carron, T. 1964. “Human Relations Training and Attitude Change: A Vector Analysis.” Personnel Psychology 17, no. 4, pp. 403–24.
37 Reddin, W. April 1967. “The 3-D Management Style Theory: A Typology Based On Task and Relationships Orientation.” Training and Development Journal 21, no. 4, pp. 8–17.
38 Id. Reddin referred to the work of Strong, E.K., Jr. which appeared to support the proposition that “ideal” managerial behavior traits varied depending on the position and associated tasks and activities (i.e., differences could be identified between executives, production managers, sales managers, personnel managers, and other types of managers). See Strong, E.K., Jr. 1927. “Vocational Guidance of Executive.” Journal of Applied Psychology 11, no. 5, pp. 331–47.
39 Reddin, W. April 1967. “The 3-D Management Style Theory: A Typology Based On Task and Relationships Orientation.” Training and Development Journal 21, no. 4, pp. 8–17.
40 Id. at p. 15.
41 Id. at pp. 15 and 16.
42 For discussion of the various managerial functions and responsibilities, see “Management Roles and Activities” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).
43 Information on management styles and practices in various countries is available in the Regional and Countries Studies materials prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).
44 Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review, pp. 27–42.
45 Khandwalla, P. 1995. “Effectiveness Management Styles: An Indian Study.” Journal of Euro-Asian Management 1, no. 1, pp. 43–46, 39.