The literature on management is full of information about different styles of leadership and management (in the context of business) and theories and experiments to explain the reasons behind them. According to the well-known management experts repeatedly there isn't a single universal style that works. As with human beings, organizations also are influenced by the environment that are within their control, and others beyond their control. This is an attempt to look at the management styles (and not the leadership or managerial styles) through the eyes of the author. For some it may appear to be an conveyancers attempt to consolidate the knowledge already available , and that's completely acceptable. However, if it helps to absorb the idea and information better, why not give it a shot? The experience of the past has shown that there five main styles of management that operate as a stand-alone system or in conjunction, based on the complexity, size and the challenges of an organization. Let's take a look at each of these management styles. Progression: The word implies that the management develops the business gradually or in stages. Based on the priorities and resources at hand, certain aspects of the business require to be given more attention however, ultimately all the functions of the company must be in sync. The progressive boiler service near me approach is appropriate when there is enough room for growth in the market and there is a relatively low amount of competition, whether on a product or service basis or in the business. In today's business and economic environment this type of approach will be suitable for businesses that are new or ideas with large barriers to entry and exit. The key here is to increase the pace of operations once the company has reached an appropriate size as barriers begin to fall away by the time. The main drawback of this approach is complacency, or even a laissez-faire. Regressive: The word "return" refers to returning to a previous condition or little developed. This is typically the case for public organizations, and in certain cases even the government. In addition to the style is fascinating to understand why, and when, this style is used. It is akin to the idea that self-fulfilling prophecy is a real possibility. In some instances it may be an informed decision made by management, backed by an extensive analysis. In the majority of instances, it's the basis of a lack of foresight or inadequate internal controls inconsistency of information and data that result in inaccurate MIS, promoters being distracted on the Board losing focus on "other" important issues, and so on. It is a matter of how the regressive style is in a more subtle manner, without management being aware. It is just a sneaky way of sneaking in. If competition or the market is growing faster than the company in question and the management style could still be regarded as regressive in a sense. One of the major negatives of this type of management is the unfathomable loss of vital resources. Divesive: This style is a variant of the regressive style. It is evident in many instances that, for no legitimate reason, management is unable to focus on its solid and stable businesses that are already in place, and then suddenly increases its products or services as well as coverage, capacity, and the list goes on without proper reasoning or decision-making. These expansions invariably result in the reallocation of resources , regardless of their potential cost. A lot of the failures in diversifications can be blamed on the management style that is agressive. In certain instances it can be extremely difficult to come back from, if management is slow to understand the distance traveled. One reason for this is the fact that there are multiple priorities, and an insufficient decision-making speed. In addition, second or third generation of entrepreneurs are looking to do to try too many things at the same time. Similar to its vertical counterpart however, the main drawback of this design is the inexplicably low availability of resources essential to the business and the possibility of a decline in the established and robust companies. transgressive: Enron & Satyam are two classic instances where the management was a into a trespasser. The top management executives of these firms not only broke the law of the country, but also crossed moral lines as well as social standards. It is not necessary to be an expert in the field to understand the root causes for this kind of behavior. It is evident that they are motivated by insecurity, greed and a lack of respect for the established rules (legal or not). The recent incident of a disciplinary action for a prominent financial wizard (of Indian origin) in the USA can also be attributed to his erratic style. One of the major negatives of this kind of behavior is the constant loss of stakeholder's (employees and investors, as well as the government and society) trust in the Board or management, or in the supporters and supporters of management. Agressive: In business jargon the term "aggressive management" implies the ability to be decisive and speedy. The words that best match the definition are active, dynamic and innovative. The trick is to make sure that this type of behavior is backed by a robust decisions-making processes at all levels of the company because speed demands quick, instantaneous decisions. In industries where there numerous players and with low entry and exit barriers, it's essential for all management to adopt this approach. Actually, the top management of firms should be more aggressive in order to maintain the top spot, i.e. the rate of growth in business should be higher than the growth rate of market. As speed increases, there are greater chance of accidents and even injuries. Therefore, the aggressive management style requires a ferocious preparedness on all fronts. One of the major drawbacks of this approach is the inevitable bloodshed, mainly internally. By by the way: If the management is aware of its style and the direction to take based on the fashion, there will not be any issues. Also, if the management is aware of the pros and cons of the style and has published them, their decision to choose a style will be considered legitimate with the exception of the one that is transgressive. The most important thing to remember, in the simplest terms, is that the degree of accountability required by external and internal environment has risen significantly in the last few years, and management is able to ignore this aspect of "accountability". The previous trend used to be "perform or perish". The new trend has been "perform or perform & get punished or perish & get punished". The way of managing is what matters the most.