Management Styles: U.S.

, Europe, Japan, China, India, Brazil, Russia

January 10, 2011
My main job was developing talent. I was a gardener providing water and other nourishment
to our top 750 people. Of course, I had to pull out some weeds, too. ~ Jack Welch, G.E.
Management styles are characteristic ways of making decisions and relating to the
organization, managers, and subordinates. Different management styles can be employed
dependent on the culture of the business, the nature of the task, the nature of the workforce
and the personality and skills of the leaders. Every style has its own characteristics, strong
points, shortcomings, and methods for getting work done.
There are four basic types of leadership styles, further classified as per specific methods of
management. They are autocratic, democratic, participative, and laissez faire.
Democratic Management Style: Manager delegates authority to subordinates in the decision
making process.
Autocratic Management Style: Manager is completely responsible for making the decisions
with no participation by subordinates.
Participative Management Style: Manager allows subordinates and staff to get involved in
the decision making process.
Laissez-faire Management Style: Similar to democratic management style, but less
communication between the manager and staff.
Other management styles, including;

Charismatic Management

Situational Management

Transformational Management

Bureaucratic Management

Task-oriented Management

Transactional Management

Relation-oriented Management
In the article Are We Entering an Era of European Management Leadership? by James
Heskett, Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus, at Harvard Business School, he writes there
are marked differences in the social environment for management in Europe and the United
States. In some parts of Europe, they foster management policies that may encourage more
balance in a managers life, between work & private activities and risk & stability. Whether

this will produce sustained economic superiority or a model to be emulated in the U.S. is
debatable.
Antonio De Luca, Warner International NV, describes important differences this way: If one
has to generalize, it is fair to say that Americans pursue risk and Europeans seek stability
(leading) to fewer opportunities with more limited financial rewards, but possibly more
balance for Europeans. The solution, as usual, is a sensible convergence of these two
nuanced cultural approaches.
Roy Bingham, Managing Director/Partner, Health Business Partners, LLC, points out that
American management seems to work best when the key needs are speed, aggression,
last-minute genius, and take-chance, inspiring leadership. In boom times when its expand at
all costspick the American style. At other times the more deliberate, consultative European
approach is your ally. Maybe this is why we are hearing more from the Europeans these
days.
Jose Pedro Goncalves, Managing Partner DecisionMaster, Lda, takes issue with the idea of
a European style of management, pointing out that there is no one style. In some parts of
Europe (as a manager) Im a human being. In other parts, Im just a number. In general
we (Europeans) are more human, but less flexible
Dr. B. V. Krishnamurthy, Professor M. P. Birla Institute of Management, India, picks up this
theme by commenting to argue that Europe might be snatching the lead in management is
a little far-fetched. When one looks at the very successful organizations anywhere in the
world, one discerns striking similaritiesemphasis on efficiency, innovation, quality, and
responsiveness to customerseven as one also finds adaptations to cultural differences.
These comments tend to question whether management leadership has a geographic
home as opposed to a winning set of behaviors in part fostered by the competitive, social,
cultural, and legal environment. Given the prospect for continued movement toward
competition and the propagation of best practice management ideas on a global scale; is
the question largely academic?
Dr. B. V. Krishnamurthy writes: The Triad countries have dominated international business
to such an extent that after Japans amazing success story, followed by the resurgence of
American companies, it is perhaps natural that the focus should now shift to Europe. The
catalyst for this might have been the economic union that Western Europe has
achieved. The search for that elusive concept of the best style of management continues,
although one could argue on the basis of lessons learned that there may not be a best style.
Centralization and decentralization can go together, flex-time and tele-working are meant to
improve productivity, and many of the either/or concepts can be treated as complementary,
to be used with discretion

Gunasekar C Raharatnam, manaagement consultant, writes about the India Management

Style: I doubt if there is clear approach that can be described today. Some might point
towards the many family owned and managed business organisations in India, some of
these are large corporate entities and leaders in their industry but most are small tightly
controlled family businesses. Even such family business are increasingly being controlled by
the recent generations of well educated inheritors. The management styles are changing
and perhaps shifting more towards Western styles that are being pushed by management
schools.
India is an enormously hierarchical society and this, obviously, has an impact on
management style. It is imperative that there is a boss and that the manager acts like a
boss. The position of manager demands a certain amount of role-playing from the boss and
a certain amount of deferential behavior from his subordinates Anglo-Saxon concepts of
egalitarianism where the boss is the primus-inter-pares are virtually incomprehensible in a
society still dominated by the historical conventions of the caste system Managing people
in India requires a level of micro-management which many western business people feel
extremely uncomfortable with but, which is likely to bring the best results.
In Brazil a managers personal style is considered to be of great significance and it could
almost be said that his or her vision/bearing is viewed as of great an importance as their
technical abilities Relationships are of key importance in this Latin culture and the boss
and subordinates work hard to foster a relationship based on trust and respect for personal
dignity. First and foremost, managers are expected to manage. The boss is expected to give
direct instructions and it is expected that these instructions will be carried out without too
much discussion or debate (if there is debate it should be done in private to avoid showing
public disrespect to the hierarchy).
Decision-making in Brazil is often reserved for the most senior people. Taking the time to
build the proper working relationship is crucial to success. Coming in as an outsider is often
difficult, so it is advisable to have a third-party introduction Often the people you negotiate
with will not have decision-making authority. Decisions are made by the highest-ranking
person.
China management style tends to follow Confucian philosophy: Relationships are deemed to
be unequal and ethical behavior demands that these inequalities are respected: Older
person should automatically receive respect from the younger, the senior from the
subordinate. This is the cornerstone of all the China management thinking and issues such
as empowerment and open access to all information are viewed by the Chinese as, at best,
bizarre Western notions Management is directive, with the senior manager giving
instructions to their direct reports who in turn pass on the instructions down the line.

Subordinates do not question the decisions of superiors that would be to show disrespect
and be the direct cause of loss of face (mianzi) for all concerned.
Japan management style emphasis the need for information flow from the bottom of the
company to the top: Senior management is largely a supervisory rather than hands-on
approach. Policy is often originated at the middle-levels of a company before being passed
upwards for ratification. The strength of this approach is obviously that those tasked with the
implementation of decisions have been actively involved in the shaping of policy.
The higher a Japanese manager rises within an organization, the more important it is that he
appears unassuming and not ambitious. Individual personality and forcefulness are not seen
as the prerequisites for effective leadership. The key task for a Japanese manager is to
provide the environment in which the group can flourish. In order to achieve this he must be
accessible at all times and willing to share knowledge within the group. Manager is seen as
a type of father figure who expects and receives loyalty and obedience from colleagues. In
return, the manager is expected to take a holistic interest in the well-being of those
colleagues. It is a mutually beneficial two-way relationship.
Russian management style tends to be centralized and directive. The boss, especially the
big boss, is expected to issue direct instructions for subordinates to follow. Little
consultation will be expected from people lower down the company hierarchy. Indeed too
much consultation from a senior manager could be seen as a sign of weakness and lack of
decisiveness. Middle managers have little power over strategy or input in significant strategic
decisions. The most powerful middle managers are the ones who have the most immediate
entree to the decision-maker at the top of the organization. There is little point in wasting
time debating with middle managers who do not have an easy access to the top. The most
significant reason for delay in reaching a decision in Russia is that the decision has not been
put in front of the real decision-maker
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~