The quick, albeit not obvious, answer is this: There are only two management styles: the right one and the wrong one. The right management style has no name, while the wrong one encompasses all the others, including “authoritarian,” “democratic,” “pseudo-friendly,” and other nonsense that is presented to us by the “nerds” of business science, who believe that the question is settled once a new cockroach has found its place in… classifications Текст для перевода: ..
Now, let’s try to make this answer clear, although a bit longer. First, it’s important to understand that the very idea of managing people is flawed. I’ve never seen anyone who can truly be managed. Moreover, I’ve never succeeded in managing people myself, nor have I ever witnessed someone who genuinely managed others. We all work for our own companies: “Maximenko Limited,” “Yaromenko LLC,” “Datsenko Incorporated,” or “Bogomazov and Partners.” No matter where or when we work, or under whose leadership, we are all essentially running our own businesses. I don’t care about a job that doesn’t bring me any tangible benefits. Even if it’s volunteering, a volunteer still pursues personal goals in alignment with their own values.
How do you steer a steamboat? You turn the wheel, and the steamboat changes course. Each person has their own course in life, and the wheel of that “steamboat” is definitely not in the hands of their boss. Once we understand that people are fundamentally unmanageable beings, we should realize that “management style” is a conversation about nothing. It’s a discussion about the “appearance of control.” If people follow your orders or instructions, it’s simply because it benefits them in the moment. Meanwhile, they are thinking about what to update in their resumes.
The second aspect of considering the “style” of management is that a good city mayor is someone you don’t think about every day. A good boss is one whose management style you can’t quite pinpoint because they don’t manage you. Rather, they don’t try to manage you.
Where did the idea come from that a manager manages subordinates? Even the word “manager” — meaning “one who manages” — is interpreted as someone who manages people, rather than something else. What a manager should actually be managing will be explained below. But for now, I will answer the question posed at the beginning of the paragraph.
The thing is, for people, the only understandable behavioral model is usually the “parent-child” dynamic. I am the parent. You are the dependent, silly child with a small head and short thoughts. You obey me because you have no other options. I scold and punish you when you don’t listen (which, by the way, means there are options 🙂). Unfortunately, this model often gets reinforced in schools, and it happens mainly because careless teachers don’t understand pedagogy and once again build their relationships with children within the “parent-child” role play. If you have children and they happen to have a talented teacher who can break out of this game—then you and your children are lucky.
The role of a parent is clear and understandable. A parent essentially has access to the “steering wheel” in a child’s mind, instilling values and life goals. A parent guides the child in every sense of the word. Unfortunately, most parents are not even aware that such a “steering wheel” exists, and the course of the “ship” often becomes quite random or, on the contrary, very predictable, based on the parents’ course once it has been firmly established by the age of 5 or 6.
However, at work, we deal with adults. They are no longer children. And when a manager tries to treat subordinates like children, they end up with children—people who are incapable, helpless, and looking to “daddy” for guidance. But these are not real children; this is a role-playing game. And in this game, there is certainly room for “style.”
What kind of relationships develop when two adults communicate? Adults never try to control or manipulate each other. They respect one another and, in pursuit of long-term relationships, prefer to negotiate. If you want something from another adult, understand what you are willing to give in return. What will they gain from fulfilling your request? To take something, you need to give something. Is there even a place for the term “style” in such relationships? Adults don’t play games. They have goals, means, and methods of interaction—agreements with other adults.
The essence of proper management lies in the fact that a good manager does not achieve their own goals but helps their subordinates achieve their goals by aligning them with the company’s objectives. A true manager does not manage people; they manage agreements. What kind of agreements? There are countless options; what matters is not the specific cases but the philosophy behind the approach. If anyone is interested, feel free to send me a case where someone needs to be “managed” or where a person is “unmanageable” — I will demonstrate the application of this philosophy with an example.
It’s important not to think that the agreement is simply “I pay you a salary, and you work for me.” Salaries are paid by everyone. One shouldn’t believe that “incentives,” “motivation,” “control,” “criticism,” “command,” or “punishment” can achieve more than what can be gained from someone who is genuinely interested in their work. I have many posts here promoting the idea that your subordinates are your clients. You are selling them your services, not the other way around, as if they were soldiers bringing you results. Yes, even soldiers need more than just orders. Otherwise, why do warring countries pay so much attention to propaganda and counter-propaganda?
Often, leaders who are considered eccentric tyrants successfully maintain the loyalty of their team, even without realizing the motivation behind people’s desire (rather than necessity) to tolerate such a boss and remain productive. For example, in one state-owned but self-financing institution, a psychopathic manager forces employees to work on weekends, not take holidays, and engages in various other forms of misconduct. When you ask someone under his supervision how long they can endure this, they initially express outrage but then say, “You know, Roma, when I needed a complicated surgery, he came through and got me the money. So now I owe him.” — “And is that the case for everyone?” — “Yes, that’s the case for everyone. Everyone owes him something.” Notice! The hired employees do not understand the concept of gratitude. If the company starts to struggle, no one will work for free. However, the sense of obligation instilled in them is the secret to the success of such a manager.
In any case, the source of any “management style” should not be sought in the personal talents or characteristics of the leader, but rather in their lack of self-confidence, inability to manage, and fear of their subordinates. It doesn’t matter how this insecurity, incompetence, or fear manifests itself: whether through the establishment of authoritarianism and a culture of fear, or by creating a “friendly atmosphere” of ingratiation towards subordinates, through the leader’s deliberate workaholism and constantly closed office doors, or in camaraderie and allowing oneself to get drunk at corporate events, in stifling voices from below or ignoring them altogether. It can also be seen in excessive delegation and shifting responsibility onto subordinates, or in complete distrust and turning oneself into a one-person band. And so on.