Leadership puppets for the manager. This structure will

Leadership styles can vary entirely between different businesses; some
take a fully democratic approach, with power shared between many employees, to
the other end of the scale, a very autocratic workplace where there is one
clear leader and there is little power shared between the other employees.  Numerous theories and models have been
written in relation to leadership in business, many of which are still relevant
in the workplace today. 

The theory I feel is still up to date with the modern business
workplace is the Tannenbaum and Schmidt continuum.  This theory looks at how the power and
control within a business is shared from management downwards.  From left to right it gets less Manager
oriented and more Subordinate oriented, with the Degree of freedom awarded to
subordinates enhanced as the manager uses less authority on their employees (Babou, 2008).  This theory was first published in 1973 as an
extended and more updated version of the model Lewin and Lippitt produced in
1938.  At one end of the scale there is
Manager (task) oriented whereby the manager comes up with the idea before he
tells his subordinates what to do.  This
means the employees have very minimal power in the situation and are
essentially puppets for the manager. 
This structure will however be useful in places where there is little,
if any, margin for error such as in the military or in a trade such as a
joinery or a manufacturing business.  Steve
Jobs is famed for this kind of approach in his early days at Apple as his
mindset was very rigid and he had his ideas which he wanted to implement and
struggled to listen to the contributions of others.  This may have felt necessary for him at the
time, due to the seemingly impossible deadlines they had to meet so there was
limited time to even communicate ideas and address areas for improvement,
however it led to him receiving a lot of criticism from.  This leadership style does have benefits as
it allows faster decisions however being fully autocratic is seem as outdated
now as more businesses opt for involving the subordinates in the business
decision making process.  On the other
end of the scale there is a very democratic mode of leadership, also known as
subordinate oriented, where the employees have a large degree of freedom with
the manager sacrificing control to be shared within the business.  The employees have as much power in this
style as the manager does in the previously mentioned mode of leadership with
all people involved with the business able to contribute their own ideas and
then as a team they decide on the most suited option to take.  Apple are a great example of this with Steve
Jobs as Apple would not be anywhere near the business it is today if it wasn’t
for Steve Jobs learning how to adapt his business style to be democratic and to
take other ideas other than his own on board.

Google are famed for their approach to leadership with the treatment of
their employees being exceptional and them building an environment which is
said to boost creativity for its employees to be able to think more for
themselves and come up with great ideas. 
Google search engine was founded by Sergey Brin and Larry Page whilst
they were pursuing their doctorates at Stanford University  (Gill, 2016).  Following advice of more experienced business
men they hired Eric Schmidt in 2001 having been impressed by his
credentials.  The 3 men (Brin, Page and
Schmidt) then aimed to find experienced members to form smaller democratic
teams which they did and to this day Google remain all for a democratic
leadership style and this is shown in the way they treat their staff.

Relating to Google’s well-rounded approach to leadership is the next
theory in leadership, the Functional/Group approach.  This approach to leadership states that the
skills required within leadership are based on the situation with which you find
yourself in and also it assumes that leadership skills can be learnt and taught
when required.  “Successful companies
seek those out who possess leadership potential and expose them to experiences
designed to develop that potential” (Kotter, 1990).  I feel this is a valid statement as it means
that great leaders do not have to be born and they can be nurtured and
developed so anybody who has the potential can fulfil the qualities needed to
be a leader.  Adair’s action centred
leadership approach.  Linking in to this
ideal is Adair’s Action Centred Leadership approach (1979).  This states that great leaders must meet all
3 of the areas within the diagram and find a perfect balance between task, team
maintenance and individuals.  This model
too states that you can train to become a leader.  The 3 elements John Adair shows in the
diagram each vary.  Task, or task
completion, states how some people will be driven by achievement in completion.  Team maintenance, or team work, states that
people be encouraged to work as one unit to form a synergy and all aim towards
the same common goal.  The third element of
this leadership model is individuals, or individualism, in which the leader
encourages all staff to ensure they don’t lose their own identity within the
workplace.  Despite this model being from
1979 I feel it is still very relevant today as it depicts every aspect of what
a leader should be.    

Like leadership styles, management styles can vary greatly from one
business to another, from highly autocratic and the manager who doesn’t ask for
any other opinions all the way to democratic whereby it is heavily focused on
working as a team.  Managers may opt to
be very much in control of proceedings whilst others may be more willing to
take a step back and let their subordinates run their own part within the
business.  In my opinion a great manager
is someone who is able to change the way he manages to suit a given situation.

In 1917, Henri Fayol stated the 5 elements he believes make up
managerial activity.  The five elements
are planning, organising, commanding, co-ordinating and controlling.  Planning involves looking ahead to the future
with key ideas in mind as to how you are going to approach any given
situation.  If you don’t plan you will
never be organised.  Being organised
involves having everything you need to carry out the task, from materials to
labour to time.  Commanding then follows
and this involves talking (or telling) your subordinates what is expected of
them and if well managed they should know exactly what is expected of them.  Next in Fayol’s model is Co-ordination in
which you must ensure everyone knows what role they are carrying out, so the
team can work like clockwork.  Lastly
there is Controlling.  This is loosely
stating that you must never lose control of the workplace and your employees
and ensure everything is working as it should be.  The five elements cover everything however I feel
it is vague and outdated but that is to be expected as it is over 100 years
old.  That is why in 2007 Hamel came up with
his own model as an advancement for this. 
This model is entitled Hamel’s Practise of Management.  It involves 8 more specific examples which is
comparative to Henri Fayol’s but more modern. 
The seven points raised in Hamel’s theory and Fayol’s theory interlink whereby
the Planning stage in Fayol’s links with 2 of the points in Hamel’s (setting
and co-ordinating objectives as well as Accumulating and applying knowledge),
the organising stage is likened to another 2 stages within the practise of
management (developing and assigning talent in addition to gathering and
allocating resources).  The command stage
of Fayol’s then is comparable to Hamel’s point which involves the Building and
development of relationships.  Co-ordinating
then links to motivating and aligning effort as well as co-ordinating and
controlling activities and finally the control stage of Fayol’s model links to Hamel’s
point involving balancing and meeting stakeholder demands.  Although on the surface it may look as though
management hasn’t evolved much between the 2 theories, but I believe it shows
massive steps into modernisation in Hamel’s theory and this is more relevant of
a theory in todays workplace.

Many factors may influence the way the manager runs the business, both
internal and external.  For example, the Type
of business you are running and the nature of the business.  Working in a creative environment may lead to
managers taking more of a back seat in management and letting their
subordinates think for themselves.  Whereas
in a more rigid environment where little room for error is allowed, a more stern
and hard approach to management may take shape. 
The external factors (PESTEL) also impact on how a manager may decide to
run things also.

To round off my points about management I believe management does
differ from leadership because anybody can be a manager, but it is a greater
challenge to be a ‘leader’.  I believe
management requires a good amount of adaptation between hard management and
soft management which basically means treating people as just another asset vs
treating them as a valuable cog within the business.