None of the management styles described here was considered ideal for juvenile corrections management. Instead, the authors recommend a blended management approach that takes the strengths from the various management styles to create a strong and proactive management style. Gaining staff commitment and competence are also necessary for effective juvenile corrections management. Three main managerial styles emerged during the course of the study: charismatic, bureaucratic, and technocratic. Interviews with staff members led to these three managerial styles being further divided into five categories: (1) charismatic control; (2) charismatic reform; (3) bureaucratic control; (4) bureaucratic reform; and (5) technocratic control. The analysis illustrates how superintendents who exercised either charismatic control or bureaucratic control followed a “shake-up” model in which they attempted to bring order to perceived disorder. Those who ruled through charismatic reform and bureaucratic reform followed a “fix-it” model that focused on bringing positive benefits to residents’ lives. Superintendents who ruled through technocratic control followed an “efficiency” model that was concerned with the appearance of stability in rules and procedures. The analysis also focuses on the successes and failures of particular superintendents and offers recommendations for effective and humane juvenile detention management. A case study design was used to examine the management styles emerging during a 30-year period in one juvenile detention training school in Ohio. The original study was published in a number of articles appearing between 1973 and 1976. The follow-up study, conducted 30 years later, involved conducting interviews with 15 of the top-, middle-, and lower-level staff and conducting 20 semi-structured interviews with 3 to 4 juvenile residents in each cottage and with 4 administrative and research staff of the Department of Youth Services. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for emerging themes. References