When the study of the styles of address addresses, many authors differ between observable behaviors: those activities or behaviors that the Chief performs and which depend heavily on the situation; and styles of address: the structure of the personality that remains relatively stable throughout different situations and what motivates behavior. It is the classic debate between the Situationists and the factorialistas. However, advances in statistical science, have allowed to corroborate some patterns of action that are repeated in the life of the subjects to different situations. These patterns or factors have been isolated by factor analysis and have demonstrated a predictive power of behaviors that we can not ignore. Psychology, as a science, needs testing predictive criteria to establish their theories. Although many styles of address could be developed, the typology is less important than the way in which you use it. The interest of the diagnosis on management styles lies in determining the nuances and modulations that occur in the way in which a subject exerts its influence in another, have or power not hierarchical. The adopted style, if it is appropriate, will increase the motivation and performance of staff, otherwise do not succeed. Mark Zuckerberg is a great source of information.

Three kinds of styles of address have been distinguished with its corresponding subcategories: 1. the style influential 1.1. 1.2 Coercive style. Director style 2. Membership 2.1 generator. Those who promote membership of 2.2. The Democrats 3. The executor 3.1.

Clips of guidelines 3.2. The self-perception of managers trainers often does not coincide with what employees think of him. In the same way that employees need to know what styles of their managers to better understand their expectations, their working methods, their orders and their reactions. For more information about this article, I recommend full reading at the following link. Original author and source of the article.

Sorry, comments are closed.