Every organization depends on its workforce, and the workforce depends on leadership. Leaders in an organization are the cornerstones that determine success or failure. Given their importance, the organization must have a firm grasp on what makes their leadership effective.
Understanding the nuances of good leadership empowers organizations with the know-how to optimize their management styles. Learn about different types of managers, leadership styles, and what best suits you to lead your organization toward better results.
What is management style, exactly?
For non-leadership roles, the specifics of a job description are fairly straightforward: Salespeople endeavor to move more products or services; IT technicians ensure technological capabilities remain functional.
The role of managers is sometimes a little more ambiguous: They lead their teams toward improved results. Some managers work hands-on with their teams; some are more hands-off. Some managers set goals; others lead their teams to preset objectives.
Because their objectives depend on context—and because there are several types of managers—there are various styles of management that suit the specifics of their situation. The existence of different management styles reveals the flexibility demanded by the role.
Dynamic managers must be familiar with the nuances of their work environment and adopt a style that’s effective for them and their teams.
8 types of management styles
While many different situations shape the contours of management style, there are general templates that provide helpful starting points. Familiarity with leadership and management styles helps managers assess the needs of their situation and adapt accordingly.
Here are eight types of management styles that have the ability to benefit your organization.
1. Coaching management style
A coaching management style is defined by hands-on instruction from the manager. Managers work closely with their teams, familiarizing themselves with their performance to make insightful suggestions that lead to improvement. Coaching managers are natural educators; they have strong relationships with their teams.
This style is suited to managers who work directly with their teams. Their proximity means that they have the close-up perspective that helps managers coach coworkers for better performance.
2. Authoritative management style
Authoritative management styles are distinguished by the importance of their role as decision-makers. While some leaders set standards with flexibility in mind, there are often organizational goals that must abide by strict standards. While authoritative managers are inflexible, they give their teams unambiguous objectives.
Authoritative management styles are effective in upper-manager roles, where decisions have a more profound impact on the organization. Teams rely on these kinds of leaders to give them a clear path forward, with rules and standards on how to get there.
3. Results-based management style
Results-based managers lead their teams based on goal completion. Managers want to get the best out of their teams. In many cases, the best way to get the best results out of teams is to make results their primary objective.
Because results are the central focus of this management style, they tend to be defined by their flexibility—as long as teams get results, loose protocols are acceptable. Results-based management might be suited to hands-on or mid-level managers with a purview to deliver. For example, sales managers might benefit from this style.
4. Strategic management style
Strategic managers lead with a big-picture perspective. This management style puts strategy front and center. Managers will work closely with the strategic development and work to delegate goals to teams to see the strategy through.
Given their big-picture perspective, managers who employ this style are typically found in the upper echelons of the organization. Strategic management tends to focus on the overall team goals as opposed to the day-to-day details; they’ll often delegate the specifics to subordinate team leads or give teams the flexibility to achieve strategic goals on their terms.
5. Charismatic management style
Charismatic management styles are ideal for a leader who is an exemplary people-person. Social interaction is a prominent part of leadership—leaders are defined by their relation to the people under their leadership. When leadership roles require deep, personal relationships, charismatic leadership styles are a tremendous way to solidify stronger team bonds and promote employee engagement.
Because charismatic management styles are so people-centric, they often appear in team leader contexts; they are the glue that keeps teams together.
6. Problem-solving management style
When there’s a problem, problem-solving managers are there to solve it. Strategies rarely go according to plan—problems are bound to arise. Managers who adopt problem-solving management styles are exemplary problem-solvers; they step in when problems pop up and work in tandem with teams to resolve them as soon as possible.
Problem-solving managers work closely with teams, but not too closely; they tend to excel in mid-level management roles. They function like a contingency when problems become insurmountable to teams.
7. Transformational management style
Transformational managers are defined by the positive, transformative effects they have on teams and their performance. Managers who adopt this style tend to focus on employee development. These leaders seek to unlock the potential in their teams to create a more effective workforce. They lead by example and excel at training employees to be their best.
Transformational leaders work closely with teams. But they possess a skill set in development which means they might have a wider impact to develop multiple teams.
8. Visionary management style
Visionary management styles are similar to strategic ones: Managers outline a big-picture vision of the team goals, which they are empowered to pursue somewhat autonomously. However, visionary leaders might possess a slightly hands-on, inspirational character; they don’t just outline a way forward; they motivate their employees to achieve with purpose.
The big-picture perspective visionary leaders hold indicates they are fairly high up the hierarchy. Nevertheless, these leaders take a close interest in the morale of their team, helping them stay motivated about their visions.
4 different types of managers
Familiarity with different management styles helps organizations find leaders that align with their values, culture, and goals. Still, knowing about different types of managers is equally important when organizing your work force. Here are four of the most common you’ll encounter.
1. Top-level
Top-level managers refer to the foremost decision-makers in the organization: the chief executive officer (CEO), the chief financial officer (CFO), and the chief operations officer (COO) to name a few.
Leaders at this level of management decide the direction the organization takes. Beholden only to the board, the majority of top-level managers lead with an authoritative management style—they set the standards for the entire organization.
2. Middle
Mid-level management is the bulk of upper management. Working directly under the top-level executives, mid-level managers are leaders who give definition and dimension to broad-based organizational goals. While they rarely make the final decision on larger goals, it is the responsibility of mid-level management to ensure that projects have the resources they need to succeed.
Middle managers might refer to roles like department heads or directors. As go-betweens for top-level, general management, and even some lower-level positions, mid-level managers might employ visionary or strategic management styles.
3. First-line
First-line managers represent management in its closest proximity to the conventional workforce. They are the first ones to actively manage productivity, directing it to the objectives set by upper management. First-line managers have direct responsibility for the daily execution of organizational goals, staff supervision, leading training modules, or scheduling.
First-line managers might refer to entry-level management positions like supervisors, assistant managers, office managers, performance managers, or shift managers. Due to their proximity to the workforce, they might utilize hands-on leadership skills like charismatic or transformational management.
4. Team leaders
Team leaders are roles appointed to employees in the conventional workforce by management, usually first-line managers. They have a limited purview, with delegated responsibilities directly related to their team. While their scope is sometimes limited, team leaders are great resources for management and the workforce, assisting managers in achieving objectives. Like first-line managers, team leaders might adopt charismatic or transformational management styles.
5 management styles and leadership you may want to avoid
There are several ways to effectively lead a workforce. On the other hand, there are also styles that might cause more disruption than intended. Good managers embrace the positive in addition to avoiding the negative.
To ensure your leaders aren’t getting in their own way, it is important to be familiar with leadership styles that might hinder your goals. Consider avoiding these six management styles.
Autocratic management style
While strong top-down authority is an advantageous style in many cases, management teams are wise to be wary of overburdening their employees and venturing into autocratic management.
In this approach, upper management retains one hundred percent of the power in the decision-making process at every level of the organization. They might wield a heavy hand when it comes to punitive action, crossing the line and damaging morale instead of promoting motivation.
When management becomes too controlling, it stifles the creative, dynamic, and flexible actions that keep a workforce productive. Micromanaging wastes management’s time, involving them in the day-to-day details that are best handled by lower-level team members.
Servant management style
Consideration for your people is a definite virtue in leadership styles, but sometimes you overdo it. Servant management styles prioritize the workforce to a dramatic extent.
Putting your people first might be effective in some situations, but sometimes, doing your work needs to outweigh serving the needs of others. At the end of the day, managers and workers share a common goal of growing the organization.
Transactional management style
When work lacks passion or inspiration, it’s difficult to keep people motivated. Transactional management styles run the risk of reducing the work culture to “just a job.” In this management style, leaders work on behalf of their people in transactional exchange: They’ll make approvals for employees if they reach certain benchmarks.
While transactional methods can motivate employees, they can also demoralize them. In this style, employees often don’t feel rewarded or valued; everything is an exchange. If rewards are purely transactional, the workforce is less likely to go the extra mile of their own volition.
Laissez-faire management style
Laissez-faire is a common term in economics; it roughly translates to “let it be” in French. While laissez-faire models might work in some cases, they don’t work well as a management style. Laissez-faire management styles let the different levels of the workforce work of their own accord.
Letting the workforce work with autonomy often indicates respect and confidence in their capability. However, an excess leads to feelings of alienation of aimlessness.
Pace-setting management style
Any organization wants output to occur sooner rather than later. Still, sometimes the workforce is pushed too far; pace-setting management styles risk doing so. In this management style, managers prioritize a fast pace for productivity, endeavoring to help the workforce speed up their performance.
Pacesetting management is a highly effective style with highly skilled teams in a short time frame. However, if managers overlay on this style, they will likely contribute to employee burnout, which sometimes has negative cascading effects like high turnover and low-quality output.
