The difference between leaders and managers is that managers have people work for them. They organise, plan and accept responsibility for their actions. Whereas leaders inspire individuals and are “followed” by people. In 1960 McGregor proposed his XY theory. These are two different theories. Theory X is associated with managers getting poor results. The managerial approach of Theory Y is generally considered to get better results because it allows the development of staff.
Theory X – also known as the ‘Authoritarian Management’ style creates a working environment where the people that work within it are forced to work well under the threat of punishment for not doing so. The person also lacks initiative and must be told what to do. This type of person cannot be motivated through the possibility of promotion. The only things that may motivate this individual is job security. It is no surprise that this management style creates an environment where people do not like to work and will avoid being productive in the workplace as much as possible.
The manager of this type of environment will most likely have an autocratic management style. The manager will be almost purely results driven and may be quick to anger. They may not come across as particularly polite. They do this by demanding things from staff, rather than asking and being intolerant of staff. They are not interested in team building or in increasing staff morale in anyway and may not consider themselves as part of the team by not participating. They do not praise staff when they have done something well, but rather, punish them for doing something wrong by withholding rewards.
They will also not take responsibility for their actions and are likely to blame staff for this instead. If they do take criticism, they are not likely to take it well and may well be vengeful in response. This type of manager will probably be a poor listener and will not welcome suggestions from the rest of the team. They may have mental health issues as well as being insecure and possibly neurotic.
The best way to deal with this type of manager is to try to avoid confrontation as much as possible and do your best to deliver the results that the manager wants. When communicating with the manager you need to communicate with them in their own language, so limit conversation unless it is about the results you can deliver and when. Try to work in a way that facts and figures are easily presented for them to see. Again, this helps them towards seeing how well you can achieve the set goal. Do not spend time making small talk with this type of manager. They will not be interested. They can be very clinical and human issues do not concern them.
Show the manager that you are capable of setting your own goals within company objectives. It will help you if you can show the manager that you can manage yourself whilst still producing results. If you make a commitment or a promise of completing a goal by a certain deadline then make sure that you deliver on this. If you are given a deadline which seems unrealistic, then explain this to the manager and offer other options that might be more suitable which you know you will be able to deliver on. Do not have a negative attitude while doing this.
If you need to, then stand up for yourself (again, avoiding confrontation). Do not lower yourself to the managers level by threatening and don’t go over their head to complain. Life will be made a lot more difficult for you afterwards. If At any stage you are asked to do something that you do not feel comfortable with then it is best to not question the process, but rather clarify the end goal. You can then ask that if you find a way to get things done more efficiently, could you do that instead. If you can show this type of manager that you can get the results, then you are more likely to have control over how you do the task at hand.
Theory Y, also known as ‘Participative Management’ style, brings about a working culture in which people are happy to be at work. There is no threat of punishment for not doing a task correctly and individuals are given more control in how they work and how they complete goals and tasks whilst following organisational objectives. The people who work in this environment are generally more likely to seek out responsibility. Generally, people who work in this type of organisation are more likely to have a higher degree of imagination and be more ingenuitive. A weakness of this is that the intellectual potential of a person is not fully utilized.
The model proposes that the leadership style of the manager needs to change as the team develops over time. When a team initially comes together the manager must take a directive approach to leadership, followed by coaching the team, the manager will then participate in the team before delegating and then detaching from the team. The idea of this is that the authority and freedom given by the leader increases while the control element is reduced.
The Four Stages of Progression
Stage 1: Forming
This is where the team are very dependent on the leader for guidance and direction. The leader needs to explain the team’s purpose and the organisational goals and aims. The leader needs to be very knowledgeable and prepared to answer lots of questions from the team. The team may test the leader and the system at play.
Stage 2: Storming
This is where the team start to establish themselves and different roles become present in different team members. The team become more aware of their purpose – but there are still uncertainties. There may be power struggles within the team and groups, or cliques may start to form. The team will then need to be re-focused on their goals in order to not become distracted by these dramas. The leader may have to compromise a bit in these circumstances.
Stage 3: Norming
At this stage the roles and responsibilities of the group are clear. Decisions are made by the group rather than just the leader and the smaller decisions are delegated to individuals. Everybody in the team will have sussed each other out by this stage and a bond will have formed within the team towards a united goal. The team has good communication and may well engage in activities together outside of work. There is a great amount of respect for the leader and other members of the team may start to exhibit more of a leadership role. The leader facilitates and enables this.
Stage 4: Performing
At this stage the team is very aware of the goals and how to achieve them. The team knows how to work with each other and do not need participation from the leader. The team are motivated enough to want to over achieve goals. If the team disagrees on anything this is generally resolved quickly without the managers input. The team does not need to be instructed or assisted at all at this stage, although may speak to the leader about personal development opportunities.
Some managers/leaders may prefer the use of personality tests. Such as the Myer-Briggs. This is so that they can have an insight into the personality types in their team. This can help them to spot potential leaders or potential friction between certain members of the team and be pro-active rather than reactive. A downside to these tests is that people can change. If someone is being placed into a new team then they may well change certain working habits or not display some personality traits. This could end up leading the manager in the wrong direction about how to deal with this member of staff and ultimately making assumptions about members of staff that aren’t true. For this to be more accurate the members of staff would have to keep taking the test periodically – which could be quite time consuming.
Another issue with personality tests is that the results are very much dependent on the mood someone may be in when they are taking them. This can have quite a large effect on the outcome of the test. However, if a manager uses these tests initially, but does not rely on them to lead then they can be a very effective way of getting to know the team. Belbin also produces a type of personality test, but this one is done a little differently. In Belbin’s test the colleagues of the individual answer questions about them. Not only does this give a good insight into an individual and how they portray themselves to other people, but it also helps to improve the validity of the test by reducing confounding variables such as the mood the individual may be in. Although, it doesn’t consider how much the colleagues may like each other or not and this is likely to have an effect on test scores.
