A Window on Managerial Styles
Last updated
Last updated
Since a manager’s style determines so many of his decisions, let’s try to look at the four styles systematically and see if we can predict where conflict will probably occur.
Look at the Figure below. Think of it as a French window – one big window with four smaller windows in it. The four sides of the window give you the four variables in the style of any individual’s decision-making: Priorities, speed, process and focus. For each of those variables, there is a continuum.
On the horizontal line at the top, which measures priorities, the continuum goes from being exclusively task- or result-oriented, to being exclusively process-oriented: Does this manager attach more importance to the task (what we’re doing and why) or to the process (who does it and how)?
Across the bottom of the window, we are measuring the speed at which people make decisions: From slow, on the left, to rapid, on the right. Some people are slow and methodical in their decision-making; a joke about Bureaucrats, for example, is that you should never tell a Bureaucrat a joke on Friday because he might burst out laughing – on Sunday in church!
On the opposite end of this continuum is the Arsonist, who probably won’t let you finish telling your joke; it reminds him of another joke, so he’ll interrupt your joke to tell his.
The right side of the window addresses focus, from a global orientation, at the top, to a local orientation, at the bottom. The diagram itself is a good illustration of focus: If the four styles of manager were looking out of that French window, each would focus on a different view. An (E)ntrepreneur would see the flowers, the mountains, and the horizon from the window; an (A)dministrator might only notice that the window frame was dirty. Every manager’s typical perspective can be mapped somewhere on this chart.
The left side of the window presents the last variable: The process by which people make decisions. Some managers attack a problem in an unstructured way; others are structured.
The unstructured type will start talking about A, which reminds him of Z. Z reminds him of Q, which he relates to B, then to C, and X. In his holistic view, everything is interrelated, thus, there is no particular predetermined sequence in which the whole must be understood.
Structured thinkers are linear. They don’t like to start talking about B until they fully understand A; they’ll put off talking about C until B is fully understood, and so on.
Prefer the convenience of a Kindle? Grab your digital book edition here!
Looking at the diagram, we can see that the four (PAEI) styles – (P)roducer, (A)dministrator, (E)ntrepreneur, and (I)ntegrator, as well as their corresponding mismanagement archetypes – fit neatly into the four quadrants of the window.
The (E)ntrepreneur, or Arsonist, depending upon how extreme his style is, has the global, or big-picture, perspective; he thinks and acts quickly and without structure; and he is result-oriented in his decision-making.
(A)dministrators (or Bureaucrats) have a local perspective and a structured, slow-moving style focused on process and details. They pay attention to the how.
That tells you something immediately, doesn’t it? You are mixing water and oil when you put these two people together to work. Their priorities are different; their speed of decision-making is different; their focus is different; the way they organize facts and draw conclusions is different; the way they communicate is different.
When an (A) and an (E) get together, the (E) quickly becomes exasperated with the (A)’s incessant harping on details. Sometimes he’ll simply leave the room in the middle of a discussion. This causes the (A) to feel ignored, abused, and abandoned. He’s convinced no one cares about his problems. If he were the type of person (he isn’t) who understands and can communicate in metaphors, he might tell you he feels like he’s working with a sea gull: The (E) appears from above out of nowhere, lets out a shriek, drops a shot on the (A)’s boat, and disappears, only to reappear later on.
The diagram also shows that each style will be in conflict mostly with the style diagonally across from him. Thus, (P)s and (I)s don’t get along any better or like each other better than (A)s and (E)s.
(P)s (or Lone Rangers) are fast, local, structured, and focused on tasks, details, and results. They are our railroad engineers. They are the ones who say, “Show me the tracks and get out of the way.” In meetings, they are the ones who interrupt the discussion to say: “Look, what do we need to do? Let’s just go and do it. Right now. We have a business to run. What we really need is to talk less and do more.”
(I)ntegrators (or Superfollowers) are process-oriented, slow, and unstructured – which is why they are so politically astute. They have a global view; they see the big picture, and they can easily change and adapt.
Seen from this perspective, the potential conflicts are obvious. The task-oriented, quick (P) is not generally very personable or sensitive. This upsets the (I)ntegrator, who wants to slow down and pay attention to how people feel. The (I) thinks the (P) is an insensitive and “macho” “hatchet man,” who steps all over people without regard for their feelings and needs.
The (P), on the other hand, thinks the (I) is insensitive to what the organization needs. He perceives the (I) as weak and slow – even effeminate. (Nevertheless, this is not a gender issue. A woman can be a (P) and a man can be an (I). In fact, I have observed a real flip-flop from traditional sexual stereotypes in the United States over the last twenty years.)
So between these two types also, there will often be hard feelings and a lack of mutual respect. They need each other but at the same time, they cannot work together without difficulty – like a marriage of two people who love each other because of their differences, but sometimes find those differences unbearable to live with.
What kinds of conflict do these different approaches create among managers, and are they inevitable?
One source of conflict is miscommunication, which occurs because we think and perceive reality differently: (A) is conservative and looks for ways to control, whereas (E) looks for ways to make changes. (P) requires short-term feedback, whereas (E) takes time to develop his ideas and looks to the long term for feedback. (E) prefers to talk, whereas (I) wants only to listen. (And in any case, very few people can both talk and listen effectively – that is, communicate well.)
The different styles also focus on different components of the decision-making process. And even if they use the same vocabulary, it is often meant to convey opposite meanings. In other words, the four styles simply speak different (PAEI) languages! Thus, naturally, they have difficulty understanding one another.
