Management literature is rich with information about different types of leadership and managerial styles (in the context of business) as well as theories and conveyancers research that help explain the reasons behind them. As argued by the famous management experts there is no panacea style. Like human organisms, organizations as well are subject to the whims of the weather that are within their control and others outside their control. This is an attempt to see the management style (and not the leadership or managerial styles) from the author's eyes. For some this could be seen as regrouping of the information already available , and that's absolutely fine. But if the process of regrouping helps to absorb the idea and information more effectively, why not try? Experiences show that there five main styles of management, which can be used in isolation or in combination, based on the complexity, size and the challenges of an institution. We will briefly discuss the different styles. Advanced: Like the title suggests, the management will develop the business gradually or in stages. Based on the priorities and resources at hand, certain functions of the business need to be refocused on, but ultimately, all functions of the business must operate in harmony. The progressive boiler service near me style suits when there is plenty of room for market growth and there is a high degree of scarcity of competition, whether on a product or service basis or even for business. In the present economy and business environment, such a style will work well for startups or concepts with significant barriers to entry and exit. The issue is how to accelerate the process after the business has reached an amount of scale, since the barriers start dismantling by then. The major flip side of this approach is complacency, or even a laissez-faire. Regressive: The adjective means returning or returning to a previous more or less developing state. This is a common practice for government agencies and in some instances even the government. Beyond the design itself is interesting to discover the reasons and when, this style can be applied. It is akin to the idea the self-fulfilling prophecy. In a few instances it can be a well-informed management decision backed by a thorough analysis. However, in the majority of situations, it's the basis of a lack of foresight and inadequate internal controls, inconsistency of information and data which results in an inaccurate MIS, promoters' attention not being on the right track on the Board becoming lost in "other" important issues, etc. This is how the regressive style is more subtly and without the management being fully aware. It's just an elude. If the competition or market grows faster than a particular company, then the company's management style could still be termed as regressive in a relative sense. One of the major negatives of this type of management is the unfathomable loss of essential resources. digressive: This style is a more lateral version of regressive style. It's observed in a lot of situations where, without valid reason, management shifts its focus away from the strong and existing businesses and then suddenly broadens its products or services or coverage, capacity, other things without sufficient rationale decision-making or reasoning. Such expansions by default result in the reallocation and re-allocation of resources irrespective of their opportunity cost. A large portion of the unsuccessful unrelated diversifications are due to the digressive style of management. Sometimes it can be extremely difficult to recoverif management is slow to realize the distance traveled. One of the reasons for this type of behaviour is the fact that there are too many priorities , coupled with absence of timely decision-making. Besides, the second or third generation of entrepreneurs are looking to do too many different ideas at a time. As with its vertical design however, the main drawback of this style too is the inexplicably low availability of key resources and also the potential degrading of established and robust companies. Agressive: Enron & Satyam are two classic instances where the management became into a trespasser. The top management executives of these companies not only violated the laws of the state, but also violated moral boundaries in addition to social norms. You do not have to be an expert in the field to identify the motives for such a style. These are evidently insecurity, greed and a lack of respect for laid down norms (legal or otherwise). The recent case of punishment to a leading financial wizard (of Indian origin) in the USA may also be due to his transgressions. The most serious downside to this approach is the permanent loss of stake-holders' (employees investors, employees, government or society) confidence in the Board and management or in the supporters of the management. Agressive: In business jargon aggressive management style is a sign of speed with determination and audacity. Few other words that match the meaning are energy-driven, energetic and dynamic. The trick is to make sure that the aggression is backed by a robust decision-making processes across all levels of the business because speed is what makes it necessary to make decisions on the spot. In sectors where there many players, with low entry and exit barriers, it is necessary for every leader to be a part of this type of management. Actually, the top management of businesses should be more aggressive in order to retain the leadership, i.e. the rate of growth in business should be higher than the market growth-rate. With speed, comes the more chance of accidents and even injuries. The aggressive management style requires a ferocious approach to all fronts. The main drawback of this approach is the inevitable bloodshed that occurs, mostly within the organization. By by way of If the management recognizes its style and route to go backwards or forwards depending on the fashion, there will not be any problems. In the same way, when the management is completely aware about the pros and cons of the style, and have disclosed them publicly, its choice of style would be considered legitimate, except for the ones that are transgressive. The key point in a nutshell is that the level of accountability demanded by the external and internal environment has moved up substantially in recent years . This means that management can any longer afford to neglect this dimension of "accountability". The past trend used to be "perform or perish". The trend that is emerging of the moment is "perform or perform & get punished or perish & get punished". The style of management matters more than ever.