Management literature is replete with details on various style of leadership and management (in the context of business) and theories and experiments that explain these. According to the well-known management experts repeatedly There is no panacea style. Like human organisms, organizations are also a subordinate to the circumstances, some within their control and others that are beyond their command. This is an attempt to see the management style conveyancers (and not the managerial or leadership styles) as the writer's perspective. To some it might appear as regrouping of the information already available , and that's completely acceptable. However, if it helps learn the concepts and details better, why not tryit? Research has revealed that there are 5 predominant styles of management, which can be used as a stand-alone system or in combination, depending on the complexity, size and challenges of an institution. Let's take a look at the different styles. Advanced: Like the title suggests, the management is developing companies gradually or in phases. Based on the priorities and resources, certain aspects of the business require to be refocused at first, but eventually all aspects of the business must operate in harmony. The progressive style is best suited where there is sufficient room for growth in the market and there is a relatively low amount of competition, boiler service near me whether on the product / service basis or even for business. In the present business and economic environment it is likely to be a good fit for new companies or concepts with high entry & exit barriers. The challenge here is to increase the pace of operations once the business is at an appropriate size as barriers begin to be removed. The main drawback of this approach is complacency, or even laissez-faire. Regressive: The verb means returning or returning to a prior condition or little developed. This is typically the case for government organizations and in some instances even the government. Much more than the fashion itself is fascinating to discover the reasons the moment and how this style is used. It somehow resembles the concept in self-fulfilling prophecy. In a few instances it might be a well-informed management decision backed by an extensive analysis. In most situations, it's account of lack of foresight or inadequate internal controls fudging of data & information which leads to an inaccurate MIS promoters' focus not being clear and the Board becoming lost in "other" important issues, and so on. This is how regressive styles are more subtly and without the management being fully aware. It's just an elude. If competition or the market grows faster than the particular business, then the company's management style can be regarded as regressive in a relative sense. One of the major negatives of this kind of approach is the inexplicably low utilization of important resources. digressive: This style is a variant of the regressive style. It is observed in many situations where, without valid reasons, the management loses focus on the solid and stable businesses that are already in place, and then suddenly broadens its product or service offerings, coverage, capacity and the list goes on without proper rationale decision-making or reasoning. These expansions invariably result in the reallocation of resources irrespective of their cost to the business. A large portion of the unsuccessful unrelated diversifications are attributed to the management's digressive approach. In certain situations, it becomes exceedingly hard to recover, if the management is slow to realize the distance traveled. One of the main reasons to this kind of behavior is having multiple priorities, and an the inability to make timely decisions. In addition, second or third generation of young entrepreneurs desire too many experiments at a time. As with its vertical design but the primary drawback of this style too is the inexplicably low availability of essential resources, and the potential degrading of current and robust businesses. Agressive: Enron & Satyam are two classic instances where the management was transgressive. The top management executives of these businesses not only broke the law of the land, but also crossed moral lines in addition to social norms. You don't have to be a genius to recognize the underlying reasons that led to this behavior. These are evidently greed, lack of fear and a lack of respect for established rules (legal or not). The recent incident of a disciplinary action for a prominent financial wizard (of Indian origin) in the USA could also be ascribed to his transgressive style. The most serious downside to this type of behaviour is the ongoing loss of stake-holders' (employees or investors, the public or society) faith in the Board or management or in the support that support the leadership. Aggressive: In business terms, aggressive management style implies quickness, determination and adversity. A few other words that fit the meaning are energy-driven, energetic and dynamic. The key is to make sure that the vigor is backed by a robust decisions-making processes at all levels of the business because speed demands quick, instantaneous decisions. In sectors where there numerous players and with low entry and exit barriers, it is imperative for every manager to be a part of this type of management. In fact, the leaders of the most successful businesses should be more aggressive to keep their leadership position, i.e. the growth rate of business should exceed the market's growth rate. With speed, comes the increased risk of accidents and even fatalities. Therefore, the aggressive management style requires a ferocious readiness on all fronts. The major flip side of this kind of approach is the unavoidable bloodshed that occurs, mostly within the organization. By the way: As long as the management recognizes its style and road backward or forward depending on the fashion, there will not be any problems. Also, if the management is fully aware about the pros and cons of the style and has made them public, its decision to choose a style will be considered to be legitimate with the exception of the one that is transgressive. The important point to note, in a nutshell, is that the amount of accountability required by external and internal environments has risen significantly over the past few years. No management can any longer afford to ignore this aspect of "accountability". The trend of the past used to be "perform or perish". The emerging trend has been "perform or perform & get punished or perish & get punished". The style of management matters more than ever.