Manage Me Gently: A No-Nonsense Guide to Different Managerial Styles
- Jorge Ocasio
- Aug 12
- 4 min read
Let’s skip the bullshit here—managing people is like making mofongo. It takes the right pressure, timing, and a whole lotta love. Too much control and it’s dry. Not enough, and it falls apart. That balance between guiding and smothering? It’s not easy. One day you’re leading a high-performing team, and the next you are trying to stop Daniel from rage-quitting because Karen breathed too loudly near the printer... "I can't with you Karen." Being a manager isn’t just about delegating tasks—it’s about reading people, setting the tone, and knowing when to step up or step back. And no, you don’t need to morph into some corporate Gandalf and wear a pointy hat—just someone with a clue and a little self-awareness.
“That balance between guiding and smothering? It’s not easy.”
The truth is, your management style can make or break the vibe, the productivity, and even the turnover rate in your team. You are not just managing projects—you are managing human beings with emotions, ideas, weird snack preferences, and yes, sometimes drama. That’s why understanding the different managerial styles (and when to use each one) is clutch. Whether you're running a business, managing a department, or leading your cousin's landscaping crew because you "have a good head on your shoulders"—this guide's for you.
Autocratic Style (a.k.a. The Boss Boss)
"My way or the highway." This manager makes decisions alone. No votes. No debate. Just action.
Pros:
✔ Fast decision-making
✔ Great during crises (think fire drills, PR disasters, or when Karen from HR disappears mid-payroll...WTF Karen)
Cons:
✖ Employees feel ignored or micromanaged
✖ Creativity gets stifled faster than a candle in a hurricane
Example: A warehouse supervisor managing a time-sensitive shipping line—no time for group hugs, just results.
Use it when: You need control, speed, and strict adherence to rules.
Don’t use it when: You’re building a team that thrives on innovation or morale.
Democratic Style (a.k.a. The People’s Manager)
"Let’s vote on it!" This manager wants input from everyone. Collaboration is king.
Pros:
✔ Team feels heard and valued
✔ Better problem-solving and buy-in from staff
Cons:
✖ Slower decision-making
✖ Can look indecisive or too chill
Example: A startup founder involving the whole team in naming a new product. "Should it be FlowApp or ZenBot?"
Use it when: You want creative input and a strong, bonded team.
Don’t use it when: A quick, firm decision is needed, like during a crisis or legal issue.
Laissez-Faire Style (a.k.a. The Chill Manager)
"Y’all got this." This is the hands-off manager. They trust the team to do their job without constant hovering.
Pros:
✔ Encourages autonomy and innovation
✔ Great for skilled, self-motivated teams
Cons:
✖ Lack of direction can confuse some employees
✖ Can lead to slacking or misalignment
Example: A creative director who just says, “Make it bold” and dips out till the deadline.
Use it when: You’ve got experts who don’t need babysitting.
Don’t use it when: Your team needs guidance or isn’t used to working independently.
Transformational Style (a.k.a. The Motivator)
"Let’s grow together." This manager leads with vision. They’re like the personal trainer of the office—pushing for more, better, faster.
Pros:
✔ Inspires growth and innovation
✔ Creates high engagement and loyalty
Cons:
✖ Can burn people out if not careful
✖ Not ideal for teams that just want stability, not revolution
Example: A sales manager rallying the team with a new challenge, personal development goals, and maybe a Rocky montage.
Use it when: You want a high-energy, forward-moving culture.
Don’t use it when: The team is already stretched thin and needs a break, not another “big vision.”
Transactional Style (a.k.a. The Rulebook Manager)
"Do this, get that." This manager operates on structure, rewards, and consequences.
Pros:
✔ Clear expectations and boundaries
✔ Works well for repetitive or procedural tasks
Cons:
✖ Little room for innovation
✖ Can feel robotic or uninspiring
Example: A fast-food shift leader who rewards on-time arrivals with preferred shifts, and late ones with mop duty.
Use it when: You run a high-volume, process-heavy operation.
Don’t use it when: You want people to think outside the box.
Coaching Style (a.k.a. The Growth Guide)
"Let’s build you up." This manager is part leader, part mentor. They care about long-term development and help people level up, not just clock in.
Pros:
✔ Builds trust and loyalty
✔ Increases skill development and retention
✔ Boosts confidence and engagement
Cons:
✖ Takes time and patience
✖ Not ideal when quick decisions or hard boundaries are needed
Example: A team leader who gives regular feedback, helps team members set career goals, and checks in on progress—not just tasks. Think Ted Lasso meets Harvard Business Review.
Use it when: You’re developing talent, building future leaders, or creating a team culture rooted in support.
Don’t use it when: You’re managing high turnover roles or need fast results with little training time.
So... Which One Are You? Truth is, great managers blend styles. You might need to be a cheerleader on Monday, a dictator on deadline day, and a therapist by Friday. It’s not about picking one style and tattooing it on your arm—it’s about knowing your team, knowing the moment, and managing like you give a fuck.
Quick Tip Recap:
Autocratic: Use for control and crisis
Democratic: Use for collaboration and morale
Laissez-Faire: Use for high-skill independence
Transformational: Use for growth and energy
Transactional: Use for structure and systems
Coaching: Use for mentorship and long-term team development
Whether you're a Steve Jobs visionary, a coaching-style nurturer, or the “don’t talk to me till I’ve had my coffee” kind of manager—just remember: managing is not about being perfect. It is about being present, human, and willing to adjust. Now, go forth and manage like a boss… but the good kind and as always sending positive vibes your way!
Comments