Research Paper on:
Hands On Management (Case Study Analysis)

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
many management styles which fits into a variety of management models. In some ways, a hands on approach is negative because it does not allow for true and appropriate delegation.  It to some extent mitigates other roles. There is a sense of enmeshment where no one knows where the bosss role ends and the subordinates begins. Thornton & Reed  (2005) for example provide another kind of case study. Actually, it is a true predicament but can be used to get a sense of when a hands on approach is  indicated and when it is not. They write: " Phil Purcell, please, please, do something about your aloof management style. Thats the message that shareholders and investment bankers have been  blasting for weeks. They want the Morgan Stanley CEO to go with bankers on their client calls, walk the trading floors, woo shareholders -- and hang out with Masters of  the Universe in New York on Saturday nights instead of scuttling home to Chicago" (Thornton & Reed, 2005, p.35). Yet, while it is true that some corporate environments mandate such  efforts, there is a risk that micromanaging is dangerous. In the case study at hand, there is a sense that the hands on approach is detrimental as it does not  give Georges underlings a chance to move and use their own creative devices. Hence, for this particular company, Georges style is not conducive to growth. Because growth is what George  wants to see happen, he must loosen the reigns a bit. Shelley Stern, in the case study, had been on board for a little while but finds Latours style of  management lacking and various other individuals give their take on the subject (Bronwyn, 2004). She in some way is one reason why George Latour must change. An independent individual