Management Styles

Management styles

Various 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.

This idea was further developed by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt (1958, 1973) who argued that the style of leadership is dependent upon the prevailing circumstance; therefore leaders should exercise a range of leadership styles and should deploy them as appropriate.

Autocratic

An Autocratic or authoritarian manager makes all the decisions, keeping the information and decision making among the senior management. Objectives and tasks are set and the workforce is expected to do exactly as required. The communication involved with this method is mainly downward, from the leader to the subordinate, critics such as Elton Mayo have argued that this method can lead to a decrease in motivation from the employee's point of view. The main advantage of this style is that the direction of the business will remain constant, and the decisions will all be similar, this in turn can project an image of a confident, well managed business. On the other hand, subordinates may become highly dependent upon the leaders and supervision may be needed.

Paternalistic

A more Paternalistic form is also essentially dictatorial, however the decisions tend to be in the best interests of the employees rather than the business. A good example of this would be David Brent running the business in the fictional television show The Office. The leader explains most decisions to the employees and ensures that their social and leisure needs are always met. This can help balance out the lack of worker motivation caused by an autocratic management style. Feedback is again generally downward, however feedback to the management will occur in order for the employees to be kept happy. This style can be highly advantageous, and can engender loyalty from the employees, leading to a lower labour turnover, thanks to the emphasis on social needs. It shares similar disadvantages to an authoritarian style; employees becoming highly dependent on the leader, and if the wrong decisions are made, then all employees may become dissatisfied with the leader.

Democratic

In a Democratic style, the manager allows the employees to take part in decision-making: therefore everything is agreed by the majority. The communication is extensive in both directions (from subordinates to leaders and vice-versa). This style can be particularly useful when complex decisions need to be made that require a range of specialist skills: for example, when a new ICT system needs to be put in place, and the upper management of the business is computer-illiterate. From the overall business's point of view, job satisfaction and quality of work will improve. However, the decision-making process is severely slowed down, and the need of a consensus may avoid taking the 'best' decision for the business. It can go against a better choice of action.

Laissez-faire

In a Laissez-faire leadership style, the leader's role is peripheral and staff manage their own areas of the business; the leader therefore evades the duties of management and uncoordinated delegation occurs. The communication in this style is horizontal, meaning that it is equal in both directions, however very little communication occurs in comparison with other styles. The style brings out the best in highly professional and creative groups of employees, however in many cases it is not deliberate and is simply a result of poor management. This leads to a lack of staff focus and sense of direction, which in turn leads to much dissatisfaction, and a poor company image.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_styles

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/advising/free_enterprise/business_structures/management_styles.htm

http://www.solhaam.org/articles/clm2.html

http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/business-management/management-styles.php

http://www.medhunters.com/articles/managementStyles.html

How To Make Better Decisions

Why do investors sell their most valuable stocks and hold onto those declining in value? How does an airline pilot decide the right course of action when trying to land a disabled plane?

Science writer Jonah Lehrer tries to tackle these questions--and more like them--in his newly released book How We Decide. Drawing on both recent and long-established findings in neuroscience, Lehrer portrays the brain as a highly complicated machine constantly working to solve daily puzzles and problems, often without the conscious consent of its owner.

Lehrer argues that the better we understand the brain's biological prerogative, the better able we are to make the right decisions. This includes everything from choosing which cereal or car to buy to knowing when to cut our losses in the stock market. In the end, he says, humans have the power to short circuit trouble-causing impulses and to free themselves of repeating mistakes.

The Brain's Biological Mandate Modern scientists have been studying the brain in earnest for decades, but only the recent advent of powerful imaging and scanning technology has allowed them to look closely at brain function as information is processed. Such insight has confirmed what researchers suspected: The brain loves to predict outcomes and is rigged with a neurotransmitter known as dopamine to enable this process.

"At a very deep existential level, we love to know what's going to happen next," says Lehrer.
Dopamine neurons are instrumental since they track expectations and outcomes, surging when we enjoy a positive experience and decreasing when we are disappointed. This trigger is both a blessing and a curse, however. It teaches the brain to make decisions based on an inherent reward, but the pursuit of that satisfaction can spin out of control into addiction or otherwise harmful behavior.

Playing slot machines, for example, can deliver a high reward and engage the brain's neurons in trying to solve the logic of the winning combination. But slot machines are also fundamentally unpredictable. Developing an obsession with them can waste your time and money.

The good news is that dopamine neurons are also programmed to learn from their mistaken predictions. The lessons are even more powerful, says Lehrer, when errors are not just noticed, but rigorously analyzed time and again. Without this constant monitoring, the brain is prone to repeating its poor choices.

When presented with a choice or problem, the brain calls on several distinct parts to analyze the incoming information. There are emotional and rational responses, and even contrarian ones, which is why humans prize certainty. The brain is built to generate different reactions at once.
There are many conditions that influence the decision-making process, but one of the most important may be mood. In a 2006 study, cognitive neuroscientist Dr. Mark Jung-Beeman evaluated how 79 happy and unhappy participants solved word problems. Those with a positive attitude solved 20% more puzzles than their less happy counterparts.

While those in bad moods can still solve problems, says Jung-Beeman, anxiety may narrow their perception of potential solutions. A positive outlook, however, tends to widen it.

The Emotional-Rational Balance Jung-Beeman, who is a professor at Northwestern University, has also studied the process of creative decision making and found that good outcomes are often the result of using both insight and analysis. Insight and intuitive thought seem to develop suddenly, while our rational thought tends to work more like a calculator, making comparative assessments of data.

Both approaches recruit somewhat different parts of the brain, and knowing when to alternate between the two is a learned talent.

For the airline pilot trying to land a disabled plane, a frequent subject of Lehrer's book, making choices under pressure requires listening to the intuition alerting the brain to a potential problem. But what's also necessary is clearing the mind of panicked thoughts so that it can recall previous mistakes and zero in on a short list of good solutions.

Most of us rarely face such harrowing decisions, but we do struggle to make basic, daily choices. That may be because the "rational brain," known as the pre-frontal cortex, can handle just four to nine separate pieces of data at once before it begins to oversimplify the problem and focus on irrelevant details as a way of narrowing the choices. The unconscious brain, in contrast, processes much more information than that and is often the source of instincts and emotions that influence our decision making.

The limitations of the rational brain mean that we need to learn to identify when we are gravitating toward the wrong solution, says Lehrer. Studies of consumers weighing numerous factors, for example, have shown that excessive analysis led to worse decisions than when relying on intuition to make a final choice. The opposite was true for those considering just a few factors: Analysis served them far better than instinct.

It's simple advice, but decisions often remain difficult when the brain distorts our perception of the potential risks. Loss aversion, or the tendency to irrationally fear loss, has led to many bad decisions, according to Lehrer. Examples include poor choices among investors who often sell high-performing stocks and keep ones that have decreased in value because they fear absorbing the loss of the worse stocks.

Dr. Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California, has found this phenomenon can be averted with reflection and practice. Where financial losses are concerned, performing a simple calculation that demonstrates a relative gain is often enough to convince the mind that a risk is worthwhile.

But like with everything in neuroscience, applying that insight to everyday life is all about timing and context.

"In light of our financial collapse," says Damasio, "loss aversion looks pretty good to me."

http://news.ph.msn.com/lifestyle/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2486340#toolbar

Vote Underground River NOW!!!

the hidden paradise...

Obama's stalker

Editorial

Philstar.com - Monday, February 9

President Arroyo had a wide grin as she chatted with new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But the former US first lady, a celebrity in her own right, was no Barack Obama, the US counterpart of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

In our country, no head of state or government drops by without a talk with the Philippine president. Not so in the United States, where many world leaders have addressed the United Nations in New York or visited other parts of the country without ever meeting their American counterpart. And so Obama attended the National Prayer Breakfast last week in Washington, seemingly blissfully unaware that at a nearby table sat the Philippine president. Obama greeted the keynote speaker, former British prime minister Tony Blair, delivered his speech and left.
President Arroyo, who was seated beside US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, later chatted with the lawmakers who pushed the inclusion of the compensation for Filipino war veterans in Obama’s multibillion-dollar stimulus fund – a move that has come under fire from certain quarters in the US.

Was that trip worth it? Certainly Filipinos join Americans in praying for swift recovery from the worst economic crisis to hit the United States since the Great Depression. But in these difficult times, did Filipino taxpayers have to be burdened with the first-class globetrotting by the President and her retinue? Obama, grappling with the crisis, skipped the World Economic Forum in Davos. Not so President Arroyo, who went on to Italy from Switzerland, and then to Bahrain. Malacañang originally announced that the President was rushing to Washington from Bahrain because there was a chance that she could chat with Obama at the prayer breakfast. She emerged from the gathering without so much as a wave of acknowledgment from Obama, much less that coveted photo op.

This latest blow came on the heels of several attempts by President Arroyo to talk with Obama by phone – first when he was still a candidate, and then several times after his victory. She also tried to meet with him in the US, when he was still a candidate and again shortly after he won. When he went to Illinois after his election, she proceeded there ostensibly to meet with the Filipino community.

Perhaps President Arroyo could pass on the blame to whoever raised her hopes that a chat with Obama, and even a photo op, could be possible in Washington. But in the end, if people are now referring to her as a stalker of Obama, she has no one but herself to blame. -

(Philstar News Service, http://www.philstar.com/)

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/star/20090209/tph-obama-stalker-arroyo-gma-filipinos-a-b4b2a3e.html

Study of Red and Blue Colors

The color red boosts attention to detail in tasks such as memorization, while blue encourages creativity, according to a study published online in the journal Science.

To read the whole article please click the provided link below. Thanks

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/afp/20090206/img/pts-canada-science-psycholo-be513e5eb3850.html

7 Foods That Fight DEADLY CANCER

SEVEN foods that fight CANCER

Nowadays cancer is one of the most deadly and one of the leading disease in the world and in the Philippines.

In order of killing contribution, cancers of the lung, breast, cervix, liver, colon and rectum, prostate, stomach, oral cavity, ovary and leukemia are the specific leading cancer killers in the Philippines today it rank #3 in the Philippines' top 10 causes of mortatily leading is the rank #1 Heart Diseases followed by rank #2 Vascular System Diseases then followed by the killer CANCER.

To read the whole article please click the hyperlink below. Thanks and Good Health to everyone.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/cancer/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=100214715

And the world's leading causes of death the rank #1 again Heart Diseases followed by the deadly rank #2 CANCER.

Top 10 World's Leading Causes of Death Rank. Please click the hyperlink below.

http://www.aneki.com/causes_death.html

"PREVENTION is BETTER than CURE."

25 random things about facebook (online social network)

add me up velryan01@ymail.com

Here in the Philippines the fast growing social network on the net is Friendster and followed by Facebook or Multiply and alike that offer different services to there users online around the globe.

But before you sign in to this social network be sure to keep your life be private, remember your profile will be visit or view by people you really didn't know.

Sooner or later you will receive friend requests in your profile then approving those request without knowing the people you accepted to view your whole profile and also without knowing that they have different agenda at your back, in reality some will use your pictures, name, and alike that will cause several or many and big problems in the future.

Think many times as you can...

To read the full article entitled "25 random things about facebook" just click the hyperlink below.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28938524/wid/11915829?GT1=40000