Review of Hopkins and Ballons Articles Which Claim...

The first article (Hopkins, 1998) and the second (Ballon, 1998) exemplify managerial styles that are paternal and dictatorial. Bloomberg from the Hopkins article claims to give and expect high levels of loyalty, at least as long as hes the one telling the story. He encourages his employees to think of the company first and foremost, something which Im sure works well for the company but maybe not so much for the employees. The style of Hartnett at Sonic is slightly different, but has the same paternal overtones. His micromanagement of employees lives is highly paternal, and he also seeks a high level of loyalty and dedication from his employees. There are a number of examples that illustrate the behavior of these two managers. Hopkins, for his part, becomes involved in the personal lives of employees. His way of thinking is that personal problems can affect somebodys ability to work, so he should be involved in personal lives to ensure that no such problems arise, or that if they do that they are resolved quickly. Hartnett also works actively with managers to solve business problems, but part of his approach is to instill confidence in his managers. His approach is a classic break them down and build them up model where the loyalty to him and to his level of involvement reduces their individuality, but then Hartnett rebuilds them in his own vision. This was the case with Pat Langston, the manager from Lawrence, KS, who was in charge of a struggling restaurant.