Dear Dr. Blanchard: I’ve worked in my present management position for over a decade and have been fairly successful in what I do. Recently, a new CEO was brought into the company, and he hired a new senior manager who supervises me. My new manager says I’m too much of an authoritarian and that I should involve my people in decision making. I think he’s too liberal. I’d appreciate your reaction to our different approaches. Thanks.

– Ted

Dear Ted: Neither of you is right or wrong. You are debating one of the oldest issues in the management field. For many years it was thought that there were only two ways to lead. Either you were an autocrat or a democrat in your approach to management. If you were an autocrat, you told people what, when and how to do things. If you used a participatory or democratic style, you involved your subordinates in all steps of decision making.

As you may know from reading this column, I believe that Situational Leadership is the best management style to adopt. With Situational Leadership, a manager has not two, but four, leadership styles from which to draw. These styles include Directing, Coaching, Supporting and Delegating.

A directive style of leadership is associated with the autocratic method. Here a manager guides, controls and supervises every move a subordinate makes. Supportive managerial behavior is probably most closely linked to the democratic extreme. This involves listening, praising and facilitating interactions. Both styles have virtues. Both styles have negatives. The issue is not one of how you want to manage, but how you can best manage those whom you are supervising.

Being directive is a fine style in the short-term. It works well when someone must take the bull by the horns and get things done. In addition, it’s recommended for dealing with people who have little knowledge or experience with their jobs.

The supportive style, on the other hand, is best for folks who lack confidence. Such people need encouragement. In this instance, the manager must help the individual to develop the confidence needed to be a peak performer and to eventually work independently of managerial support.

Both styles, while good in some situations, are inappropriate for some people in other situations. People who are experienced dislike a directive style. They don’t appreciate being “over supervised.” Conversely, inexperienced people become very frustrated and anxious if they get a lot of support but no direction from their manager.

In the Situational Leadership model, there are also the Coaching and Delegating styles which are powerful leadership techniques for folks who don’t fall into the “inexperienced” or “under confident” categories. The coaching style is fairly directive, yet has increasing degrees of support for the person who becomes more and more proficient and self-confident.

Then there is the delegating type which is super for the pro who knows the job and knows he or she is good at accomplishing it. Ideally, every manager should want to develop employees to the level of proficiency where they will need a minimum of direction and support to achieve top results.

In answer to your question, Ted, the directive style which you use is acceptable if you’re employing it with people who need it. The supportive style is a good managerial technique for people who are at a level where they need the reinforcement of their manager.

From my point of view, the real question is not which of you practices the “right” management style. Rather, the question to be asked is whether you are providing the right style of management to meet the needs of those you supervise. If you use a Situational Leadership style of management, you will focus on the employee and not on yourself. You will be serving the folks you supervise best without becoming rigid or locked into one style or another.