Does your style depend on who you’re managing?

I once talked with a man who never did come to believe that the very existence of a management style points to flaws in the management. That the right style is the one you do not notice and which, in fact, is not there. It seemed to me that as we talked we arrived at a common view, but an interesting argument was voiced in defense of “having a style.” It was said that different kinds of work require different styles of management. If you are managing salespeople, then the style I was talking about* suits the process better, but if we are talking about, say, a warehouse manager, then he needs a different style. That motivation and the tying together of personal goals and company goals are understandable for people whose work has a direct result, and not for those who carry out procedural things or who might steal at their workplace.

I suggested then that for procedural people, it is even more important to bring their internal motivation to the surface, and for those “on the assembly line,” it is essential to structure their work in a way that makes it enjoyable. Moreover, we need to support them in their tasks, especially when their work does not yield direct and obvious results. If we have a job where, no matter what the worker does, it feels like the same “Groundhog Day,” then the effect of a proper, “invisible” management style—managing not people, but agreements—will be more evident in such a role.

I talked about ongoing coaching, feedback, the principle of “here and now,” building motivated trust rather than a system of total control, the futility of punishments, and so on.