Personnel management styles: how to choose the right one. Leadership styles of a leader What makes an authoritarian management style different?

Management style is the way in which the leader manages the employees subordinate to him, as well as the model of the leader's behavior independent of the specific management situation. Through an established management style, job satisfaction can be achieved and employee productivity is encouraged. At the same time, there is no optimal management style, and it is possible to speak about the advantage of one or another management style only for a certain management situation.

There are the following management styles.

Task-oriented management style

The leader's efforts are focused on the task that needs to be completed, while, according to Bisani, the leader:

decries insufficient work;

encourages slow-moving employees to put in more effort;

attaches particular importance to the volume of work;

leads with an iron hand;

draws attention to the fact that his employees are working with full dedication;

encourages employees through pressure and manipulation to make more efforts;

requires more efficiency from low-performing employees.

Research by Halpin-Wiener and Pelz shows that such leaders:

are often more positively characterized by their bosses than personality-oriented leaders;

are positively assessed by their employees if managers have influence “at the top”.

Person-centered management style

With this management style, the focus is on employees with their needs and expectations. According to Bizani, supervisor:

pays attention to the health of employees; takes care of good relations with his subordinates; treats his subordinates as equals;

supports its employees in what they do or should do;

stands up for its employees.

A manager who manages with a personality in mind, however, cannot immediately count on complete employee satisfaction. For this, the influence and respect of the leader "above" is important, on the basis of which he is able to protect the interests of employees.

There are three problems with management style:

1. The results to be achieved with a management style contain several components that cannot be pieced together.
2. The absolutization of the management style is seen as a way by which labor productivity is increased.
3. The management situation is viewed as unchanging, while over time it can change and the manager must accordingly change his attitude towards individual employees.

Control styles can be one- and multi-dimensional. The management style is one-dimensional if one criterion is considered. Authoritarian, corporate, and other management styles are one-dimensional, with the first and second styles being polarized from each other.

Authoritarian management style

With this management style, all production activities are organized by the head without the participation of subordinates. This management style can be applied in solving current problems and assumes a large distance in education between the manager and subordinate, as well as material motivation of employees.

The leader, by virtue of his legitimate authority, controls his subordinates and expects obedience from them. He makes decisions without justifying them to his subordinates, while proceeding from the fact that, unlike his subordinates, he has greater understanding and knowledge of the matter, which, of course, should not be. The decisions of the head have the character of orders that must be unconditionally carried out by subordinates, otherwise they can expect sanctions against themselves;

The leader maintains a distance in relations with subordinates, informs them of the facts that they must know to complete their tasks. He controls whether and to what extent his orders are followed. Signs that emphasize a person's position in the eyes of those around him (for example, a car) maintain a reputation as a powerful leader.

high consciousness;

high self-control;

foresight;

good decision-making ability;

penetrating ability.

Subordinates are the addressees of orders. According to the theory x and xy:

the average person is lazy and shy away from work as much as possible;

workers are dishonest, afraid of responsibility and want to be led;

pressure on subordinates and sanctions against them are necessary to achieve the goals of the enterprise;

strict management of subordinates and private control over them are inevitable.

In this management style, the motivation of subordinates is often limited, because the leader is socially detached, transfers, as a rule, less interesting work to subordinates and maintains their fear of threatening sanctions. Subordinates become indifferent to the leader, as well as to the enterprise. They get information because of the information barriers set by the head in unofficial ways.

recognition of the head as the only authority;

recognition and implementation of orders of the head;

lack of desire for possession of the right of control.

The advantages of an authoritarian management style are the fastest possible decision-making, success in everyday, ordinary work.

The disadvantages of an authoritarian style lie in the weak motivation for the autonomy and development of subordinates, as well as in the danger of erroneous decisions through excessive demands from managers in relation to the quantity and / or quality of work.

Corporate management style

With a corporate management style, production activities are organized in the interaction of a manager and a subordinate. This management style can be applied when the creative content of the work prevails and assumes an approximately equal level of education of the manager and subordinates, as well as non-material incentives for the employee.

Typical signs of a corporate management style:

The manager manages the subordinates, including them in the decision-making process for which he is responsible. He expects concrete help from his subordinates, makes decisions taking into account their proposals and objections. He delegates his powers as much as possible and gives orders only when necessary. At the same time, he recognizes the abilities of his subordinates and realizes that he cannot know everything and foresee everything. Only the result of the work is monitored, self-control is allowed.

The manager not only informs in detail about the actual state of affairs, which must be known to complete the tasks, but also provides other information about the enterprise. Information serves as a means of control. The leader does not need signs that emphasize his position in the eyes of the people around him.

Requirements for a corporate managing director according to Stopp:

openness;

trust in employees;

relinquishment of individual privileges;

ability and willingness to delegate authority;

official supervision;

control of results.

Subordinates are seen as partners who are relatively independent in their “daily work”. When evaluating subordinates with this style of leadership, they most often proceed from the "theory y theory xy", according to which:

unwillingness to work is not innate, but a consequence of poor working conditions that diminish the natural desire to work;

employees take into account the goals, have self-discipline and self-control;

the goals of the enterprise are achieved in the shortest possible way through monetary incentives and the provision of opportunities for individual development;

with a favorable experience, employees are not afraid of responsibility.

The active position of subordinates increases their motivation, which leads to an improvement in labor results.

Requirements for corporately managed subordinates, according to Stopp:

commitment and ability to take personal responsibility;

self-control;

use of control rights.

The advantage of the corporate style is making reasonable decisions, highly motivated employees and unloading the manager. In addition, employee development is supported. Disadvantage - corporate management style can slow down decision-making.

Delegation management

Such management is a technique in which competence and responsibility for actions are transferred, as far as possible, to employees who make and implement decisions. Delegation can be directed to any field of the enterprise. However, one should refuse to delegate the typically managerial functions of the leadership, as well as tasks with far-reaching consequences. Delegating authority removes the burden from the manager, supports the employees' own initiative, increases their work motivation and readiness to take responsibility. In addition, employees should be given the confidence to make decisions on their own responsibility.

In order to successfully use delegation management, you need:

delegation of tasks to employees;

delegation of competencies to employees;

delegating responsibility for actions to employees;

exclusion of the possibility of revoking delegated powers or transferring them from one employee to another;

establishment of the procedure for the regulation of exceptional cases;

exclusion of the possibility of the manager's interference with the correct actions of the employee;

the obligatory intervention of the head in case of an error and the receipt of results, regulated in a special order;

acceptance by the head of responsibility for management;

creation of an appropriate information system.

The transferred tasks must correspond to the abilities of the employees, be predominantly homogeneous, complete in form. Delegated competences and responsibility for actions should correspond to each other in scope.

Benefits of managing the delegation method:

unloading the head;

the ability to quickly make competent decisions; the competencies and responsibility of the engagement are transferred to the employees;

assistance in the development of their own initiative, work motivation among employees.

Disadvantages of managing the delegate method:

the leader delegates as few interesting tasks as possible;

hierarchical relationships can be approved;

strong focus on tasks, not on employees;

the establishment of hierarchical relations "horizontally".

Why are leaders not delegating authority enough?

1. Fear that subordinates are not competent enough to carry out assignments (make mistakes).
2. Mistrust in relation to the competence of subordinates.
3. Fear that subordinates acquire high competence too quickly.
4. Fear of losing one's meaning and the benefits that come with it.
5. Fear of losing your own authority or status.
6. Fear that the manager himself will lose control over this issue.
7. Fear of risk.
8. Reluctance to give up work that the manager himself is good at.
9. Inability to advise and manage subordinates.
10. Lack of time to consult and manage subordinates.

Why are subordinates not ready to take responsibility?

1. Lack of self-confidence.
2. Lack of information.
3. Fear of possible criticism.
4. Insufficient positive response to successfully completed orders.
5. Lack of motivation of the employee.
6. Negative workplace atmosphere.

How to delegate?

1. Carefully select the tasks to be delegated.
2. Carefully choose the person to whom to delegate.
3. Delegate predominantly “final results” instead of precise methods of completing the assignment.
4. Be prepared for mistakes and forgiveness.
5. Give enough authority to complete the assignment.
6. Inform others what is delegated and to whom.
7. Delegate gradually and complicate delegated tasks.

The application of a particular style, as well as its results, depend on many factors. First of all, this is a complete mastery of one of the leadership styles, the predisposition of the collective to the perception of the style of management and leadership imposed on it from above. When mastering the science of management, it is very important to avoid mistakes. Analysis of the activities of managers of different levels and different enterprises allowed specialists to identify the most frequent mistakes made by managers. The ten main mistakes in personnel management at the enterprise can be formulated as follows;

1. The desire to do everything yourself.
2. A tendency to let things go their own way.
3. Prejudice against certain employees.
4. Fixed, schematic or doctrinaire attitudes.
5. Excessive susceptibility to other, including critical, opinions.
6. Self-satisfaction or arrogance.
7. Immunity to employee suggestions.
8. Obvious disrespect for the personality of the employee, for example, the admissibility of criticism in front of others.
9. A clear distrust of employees.
10. Lack of consistency in actions.

Conversely, the experience of successful businesses has shown that business leaders are much more likely to:

1. appreciate knowledge of the matter;
2. treat people as equals;
3. reward fairly;
4. detect errors objectively;
5. reliable and loyal;
6. listen to opinions that differ from their own;
7. appreciate progress;
8. have the authority of experts in the business;
9. are free from bias;
10. tolerate criticism;
11. are capable of change than the heads of unsuccessful enterprises.

The style of management or leadership is the most important factor in the management of an enterprise. A correctly defined and successfully applied style allows the most successful use of the potential of all employees of the company. That is why, in recent years, many companies have been paying so much attention to this issue.

Hello everyone! If a leader holds power only in his own hands, one can even say that he is quite dogmatic and distrustful of his subordinates - this means that he has chosen an authoritarian management style. And today we will consider how justified it is and what pitfalls exist for such a pronounced directivity.

general characteristics

It is not so common in the modern world, because the idea of ​​equality and support prevails. This allows you to unleash the potential of employees, inspire them to achieve and, in general, motivate them to work. In the Soviet Union, authoritarianism was very popular in various enterprises. The people of that time had few opportunities for development, while the majority did not even think about their vocation.

There are such varieties:

• Dictatorial - the manager makes decisions, and his subordinates follow them unswervingly. But not because of trust in a significant figure, but because of the existing sanctions and punishments.
• Autocratic - characterized by the power of the apparatus of power, which is simply limitless.
• Bureaucratic - the use of outdated, sometimes inoperative management techniques in work. The authority of the chief is formal.
• Patriarchal - subordinates treat the director as a father figure. They are ready to follow him and voluntarily obey.
• Supportive - the manager enjoys authority due to the fact that he is more good-natured towards his team than with other types of management.

The main features of authoritarianism

• As mentioned above, dogmatic. That is, faithful adherence to ideas that are considered indestructible, true. And this speaks of the inflexibility of the manager. He is not able to change his mind, even in those situations where it is extremely necessary to do so, otherwise completely unfavorable consequences will follow.
• Ban. For individuality, freedom of action, initiative and so on. Diligence is almost the only trait that is encouraged.
• Lack of trusting relationships.
• Rigidity in handling and exactingness. It is for this reason that diligence is valued. The employee is obliged to strictly follow the instructions and in no case be independent.
• Punishment. The staff is not responsible for the result of their activities, as they are deprived of the ability to make decisions. Why is subject to punishment in case of violation of borders. For example, for being late, absenteeism, untimely assignments.
• The microclimate in the team leaves much to be desired. The relationship is purely collegial, formal, superficial. People do not have a chance to get close to each other, if only for the reason that even this process is controlled by their superiors.
• There is a large distance between the manager and his subordinates. Even thoughts of closer communication are not allowed. The boss is too inaccessible a figure to allow himself liberty in the conversation.
• Lack of emotional support or empathy. Since employees are perceived only professionally, there can be no talk of any of their personal characteristics. What happens inside, what experiences and difficulties arise - no one cares. A person must do his job with high quality, despite the emotional state. You can only get upset and worried at home or outside of working hours.
• Subjectivity. Only one person has the right to an opinion; accordingly, it is quite difficult to objectively think and evaluate the actions of personnel.
• There are few opportunities for taking initiative that can be “punishable”.
• Verticality of information presentation. That is, only from a higher-ranking person to a lower-ranking person.

Flaws

Mistrust

Let's remember the dogma. If a person is not able to change his point of view, then he is not able to find a compromise. But how, then, to regulate conflicts and situations when someone is not satisfied with something? When is there only one correct opinion? That's right, very difficult. In any case, one side must constantly obey and bend, even realizing that the management is making a gross mistake that will affect the success of the company or enterprise.

Blind adherence to your beliefs can undermine your credibility. Employees will no longer consider such a leader to be a professional, experienced and knowledgeable. Accordingly, what kind of trust can we talk about? Moreover, both sides will doubt each other's abilities. The bosses believe that employees cannot be left even for a minute, otherwise they will ruin everything, and they, in turn, think that they are not particularly lucky with a manager who does not at all understand what he is doing. And not only does he not understand, but also does not want to listen to those who offer sensible ideas.

Expenses

The work of an authoritarian leader is quite highly paid. Just imagine how much responsibility one person has. He needs to think for a large number of people, make difficult decisions on his own that can cost him a career. This negatively affects his family relationships and health. Usually, such people cannot afford to relax, even while on vacation. After all, this is not just a type of leadership, it is already a lifestyle.

Accordingly, wages should compensate for the sacrifices they have to pay. The company needs to do its best in order not only to hire a competent manager, but also to keep him as long as possible.

Relationship

Due to the control of behavior, employees sometimes have a difficult time in the workplace. Since there is practically no opportunity to get the support of colleagues, help. Due to the fact that people are not united due to the lack of connections and cannot act independently, in the event of a manager leaving or "falling out" of the system, the entire team will disintegrate. They cannot function without a leader who tells whom to do.

Limitation

Only one person's resources, creativity and thinking abilities are being used. And, as we know, there are no ideal people and everyone can make a mistake, stumble. Therefore, the lack of an opportunity to look at the problem from a different angle, more broadly and objectively is sometimes expensive.

And creative personalities cannot withstand such pressure from authority. They need to have freedom of action, only then can they express themselves. Suppression of talents and desires can lead to an uncontrolled outbreak of aggression, especially if you had to hold yourself for a long time.

Benefits of an authoritarian management style

Stability

A person does not need to think, another thinks for him. No matter how scary or rude this phrase may sound, in fact it includes pluses - subordinates do not spend energy looking for solutions to problems. They do not need to be responsible for the process, the result, and so on. The only thing required is to follow orders. And if you do your job well, then you will have confidence in the future.

Survival

This style is most effective and justified in crisis situations. When there is panic, lack of coordination in actions, people cannot decide on the choice of a leader and, in general, do not know what to do, whom to listen to. In such cases, directiveness allows not only to work effectively, but also to achieve results as quickly as possible.

Performance

It is believed that a person, if possible, will seek to avoid work. Therefore, when he is not controlled, he relaxes. Although this claim is controversial, the company's performance under this management style is usually at a high level, as orders and threats of punishment do their job.

On the plus side, common tasks are completed faster when there is a clear flow of action, when responsibilities are assigned and everyone knows what piece of work they are responsible for. Creativity and liberality in such cases will slow down the process.

In addition, as you know, deadlines encourage you to work harder, to give 100%, and a competent manager organizes them systematically. To keep the staff in good shape and develop the company as quickly as possible, bypassing competitors. Agree, a rare person will independently set himself strict requirements and complex tasks.

Completion

The material was prepared by a psychologist, gestalt therapist, Zhuravina Alina

0

"One-dimensional" styles of Levin and Likert leadership. “Multidimensional” Leadership Styles: Blake and Mutton's Management Grid; paternalism; opportunism; facadeism; the situational leadership models of Fiedler, Hersey and Blanchard; Tannenbaum and Schmidt's model; the path-to-goal approach of Mitchell and House; Vroom-Yetton model.

17.1 ."One-Dimensional" Levin and Likert Leadership Styles

"Style" - from the Greek "handwriting", i.e. leadership style is the "handwriting" in the actions of the manager. The "style" of management is a relatively stable system of methods, methods and forms of practical activity of a manager.

Moreover, under management style understand the manner and way of behavior of a manager in the process of preparing and implementing management decisions.

Style is a system of constantly applied management methods. Style serves as a form of implementation of methods.

Management style strictly individual, since it is determined by the specific characteristics of a particular person.

The "one-dimensional" (that is, conditioned by one some factor) management styles include (Fig. 17.1):

rice. 17.1"One-dimensional" management styles

Democratic;

Liberal (conniving, non-interference, anarchic).

The study of the management style and the very emergence of this type are associated, first of all, with the name of the German psychologist K. Levin. In the 30s. of the last century, together with a group of his employees, he was forced to emigrate from Nazi Germany to the United States, he conducted a series of experiments, during which he identified three leadership styles that have become classic: authoritarian, democratic, liberal (anarchist).

On the centralization of power in the hands of one leader;

On giving orders and commands without explanation and connection with the tasks of the organization.

Effective in military service, directing and coaching, for leading simple activities focused on quantitative results.

Varieties: exploitative, benevolent.

Exploitative reduce the authoritarian management style to the fact that the manager does not trust his subordinates, does not ask their opinions and advice, decides all issues on his own and takes responsibility for everything, gives the performers only instructions that, how and when to do it, but as the main form of incentive and enjoys punishment.

As a result, an unfavorable moral and psychological climate is formed; the ground is created for the development of industrial conflicts.

Benevolent an authoritarian management style is characterized by the fact that the leader treats subordinates condescendingly but, in a fatherly way, asks for the opinion of subordinates, but acts in his own way, often demonstratively; provides subordinates with a relation; full independence, motivation by fear of punishment is minimal.

Democratic style management is based:

At a high degree of decentralization of powers, an asset "
participation of employees in decision-making;

On constant contact between the manager and his subordinates.

Effective for managing complex activities where quality is paramount.

Varieties: advisory, participatory.

Advisory a democratic management style boils down to the fact that the manager largely trusts his subordinates, consults with them, seeks to use all the best that they offer. Subordinates seek to provide the leader with all possible assistance and support morally. Participatory a democratic management style is characterized by the fact that the leader fully trusts his subordinates in all matters, always uses all constructive proposals, organizes a wide exchange of information, and all members of the team make management decisions.

With an authoritarian style of management, it is possible to perform twice as much work as under conditions of democratic leadership, but the quality of work, originality, novelty, and the element of creativity are by the same order of magnitude lower.

Liberal style management is based:

Full delegation of authority to subordinates; the head reserves the functions of a consultant, an arbitrator;

On a soft, benevolent relationship with subordinates,
; satisfying.

It is effective in teams where it is required to stimulate the creative approach of performers to solving the assigned tasks (design bureau, academic teams, etc.).

Two directions are possible:

- positive, beneficial;

- negative, collapsing organization.

Positive direction of the liberal management style:

subordinates are relieved of annoying control, make decisions on their own and look for ways to implement them within the granted powers, sometimes not suspecting that the leader foresaw and took into account these ways of solving problems and created the necessary conditions for this process. Such work brings satisfaction to both the leader and subordinates.

Negative direction: liberalism from a close-minded mind and indecision of the leader leads to the fact that the initiative in the team is intercepted by informal leaders, which does not lead to the solution of tasks set "from above", but to complete anarchy, the collapse of the organization. Therefore, the “negative” leader becomes a bureaucrat.

Management styles can be classified by comparing the autocratic and democratic continua. R. Likert and his colleagues at the University of Michigan have developed an alternative system, comparing high productivity groups and low productivity groups in various organizations. They believed that leadership style could explain the difference in performance. Similarly to the McGregor theories X and Y continuum, leaders of high and low productivity groups were classified along a continuum ranging from one extreme (work-focused (theory X) [to the other, person-centered ( theory "Y").

A work-focused leader, also known as task-oriented leader, primarily takes care of task design and development of a reward system to increase labor productivity. Frederick W. Taylor is a classic example of a work-centered leader. He structured the task on technical principles of efficiency and rewarded workers who exceeded a quota carefully calculated based on measuring potential output.

The potential benefits of a task-oriented management style are very similar to those of an authoritarian style. They consist in the speed of making decisions and actions, strict control of the work of subordinates. However, this style puts performers in a position of dependence, generates their passivity and ultimately leads to a decrease in work efficiency.

The leader here basically informs the subordinates about their duties, tasks, determines how they need to be solved, distributes responsibilities, approves plans, sets norms, and controls.

In contrast, the people-centered leader's primary concern is people. It focuses on increasing productivity by improving human relations, emphasizes mutual understanding, allows workers to participate as much as possible in decision-making, avoids petty tutelage and sets a high level of labor productivity for subdivisions. The leader actively takes into account the needs of subordinates, helps them solve problems, encourages their professional growth. Essentially, a person-centered leader behaves similarly to a leader who engages workers in management. The use of this leadership style reduces absenteeism, injury, turnover, creates a higher morale, improves team relationships and the attitude of subordinates to the leader. Based on his research, Likert concluded that style; leadership will invariably be either job-oriented or person-oriented. I have not met a single leader who showed both of these qualities to a significant extent and at the same time. Likert proposed four systems of leadership style (Table 17.1).

four systems of leadership style

INTRODUCTION

The effective formation of market relations in Russia is largely determined by the formation of modern management relations, an increase in the manageability of the economy. It is management, management that provides connectivity, integration of economic processes in the organization.

Management is the most important concept in a market economy. It is studied by economists, entrepreneurs, financiers, bankers and everyone related to business.

"To manage is to lead an enterprise towards its goal, making the most of the available resources." Specialists of the new era need deep knowledge of management, and for this it is necessary to clearly understand the essence and concept of management.

Personnel management at an enterprise is a type of activity that allows you to implement, summarize a wide range of issues of adaptation of an individual to external conditions, taking into account a personal factor in building a personnel management system of an enterprise.

DEFINITION OF CONTROL STYLE

In the literature, there are many definitions of the concept of "management style", which are similar to each other in their main features. It can be viewed as a set of decision-making methods that are systematically used by a manager, influencing subordinates and communicating with them.

Management style– it is a stable complex of traits of the leader, manifested in his relationship with subordinates.

In other words, it is the way in which the boss manages the subordinates and in which the model of his behavior, independent of specific situations, is expressed.

The management style does not characterize the leader's behavior in general, but rather stable, invariant in him. Constantly manifested in various situations. Finding and using the best management styles is designed to enhance employee achievement and satisfaction.

The concept of management styles was intensively developed after the Second World War. However, even now its developments are faced with a number of unsolved problems. The main problems are:

Difficulty determining the effectiveness of a management style. The results to be achieved with a particular style involve many components and are not easy to boil down to one value and compare with other styles.

The difficulty of establishing causal relationships between the management style and the effectiveness of its use. Typically, management style is seen as the cause of achieving a certain consequence - employee productivity. However, this causal relationship does not always correspond to reality. Often it is the nature of the employees' achievements (minor or high achievements) that prompts the manager to use a certain style.

The variability of the situation, primarily within the organization itself. Management styles show their effectiveness only under certain conditions, but these conditions do not remain unchanged. Over time, both the manager and the employees can change their expectations and attitudes towards each other, which can make the style ineffective, and the assessment of its use - unreliable.

Despite these and some other difficulties, management styles are an important guideline in solving the problems of improving the effectiveness of leadership.

There are 2 ways to define the management style:

By clarifying the characteristics of the individual management style that the boss uses in relation to subordinates.

With the help of the theoretical development of a set of typical requirements for the behavior of the leader, aimed at integrating employees and their use in the process of achieving the goals of the organization.

You can also consider the style of leadership as "stably manifested features of the interaction of the leader with the team, formed under the influence of both objective and subjective conditions of management, and the individual psychological characteristics of the personality of the leader."

The objective, external conditions that form the management style at a particular management level include the nature of the team (production, research, etc.), the specifics of the tasks at hand (regular, habitual or urgent, unusual), the conditions for fulfilling these tasks (favorable, unfavorable or extreme), methods and means of activity (individual, pair or group). Along with the above, such a factor as the level of development of the team stands out. Individually psychological characteristics of this or that leader bring originality to his managerial activity. Based on the corresponding transformation of external influences, each leader exhibits his own individual management style.

The study of leadership style has been conducted by psychologists for over half a century. So researchers have accumulated by now considerable empirical material on this problem.

Management style- the way, the system of methods of influence of the head on subordinates. One of the most important factors in the effective work of the organization, the full realization of the potential capabilities of people and team. Most researchers identify the following management styles:

Democratic style (collegiate);

Liberal style (anarchist).

Management style- it habitual demeanor of the leader in relation to subordinates, in order to influence them and induce them to achieve the goals of the organization. The extent to which a manager delegates authority, the types of authority he uses, and his concern primarily for human relationships or, above all, for the performance of a task all reflect the leadership style that characterizes a given leader.

Each organization is a unique combination of individuals, goals and objectives. Each manager is a unique person with a number of abilities. Therefore, management styles do not always fit into a specific category.

Authoritarian (directive) style management is characterized by high centralization of leadership, dominance of one-man management. The manager requires that all cases be reported to him, alone makes decisions or cancels them. He does not listen to the opinion of the team, he decides everything for the team himself. The predominant management methods are orders, punishments, remarks, reprimands, deprivation of various benefits. Control is very strict, detailed, depriving subordinates of initiative.

The interests of the case are put much higher than the interests of people; harshness and rudeness prevail in communication.

The manager who applies it gives preference to the official nature of the relationship, maintains a distance between himself and his subordinates, which they have no right to violate.

This style of leadership has a negative impact on the moral and psychological climate, leads to a significant decrease in initiative, self-control and responsibility of employees.

Authoritarian management style - a leadership style in which the leader sets goals and the entire policy as a whole, distributes responsibilities, and for the most part specifies the appropriate procedures, manages, checks, evaluates and corrects the work performed.

1) in extreme conditions (crisis, extraordinary circumstances, etc.), when quick and decisive actions are required, when the lack of time does not allow holding meetings and discussions;

2) when, due to previous conditions and reasons, anarchist sentiments prevail in a given organization, the level of performing and labor discipline is extremely low

Historically, the first and until now the most widespread in practice is the authoritarian style, which is considered universal.

Experts distinguish two types of authoritarian style. "Exploitative" assumes that the leader completely concentrates in his hands the solution of all issues, does not trust his subordinates, is not interested in their opinion, takes responsibility for everything, giving the executors only instructions. As the main form of stimulation, he uses punishment, threats, pressure.

If a leader makes a decision alone, and then simply communicates it to his subordinates, then they perceive this decision as imposed from the outside and critically discuss it, even when it is really successful. Such a decision is carried out with reservations and is indifferent. Employees, as a rule, rejoice at any manager's mistake, finding in it confirmation of their negative opinion about him. As a result, subordinates get used to being executors of someone else's will, reinforcing the stereotype “our business is small” in their minds.

For the leader, all this also does not pass without loss, since he finds himself in the position of the culprit responsible for all the mistakes, not seeing and not knowing where and how they were made. Subordinates, although they know a lot and notice, but keep quiet, either, receiving moral satisfaction from this, or believing that he still cannot be re-educated. The leader understands the current situation, but is powerless to blame others for the mistakes they made, since the subordinates did not participate in working out the decision. This is how a kind of vicious circle is formed, which sooner or later leads to the development in an organization or unit of an unfavorable moral and psychological climate and the creation of grounds for conflicts.

Softer "Benevolent" a kind of authoritarian style. The leader treats his subordinates already condescendingly, in a paternal way, sometimes he is interested in their opinion. But even if the opinion expressed is justified, he can act in his own way, doing it often demonstratively, which significantly worsens the moral and psychological climate in the team. When making decisions, he can take into account the individual opinions of employees and gives a certain independence, however, under strict control, if at the same time the general policy of the company is strictly observed and all requirements and instructions are strictly followed.

Threats of punishment, although present, do not prevail.

The claims of an authoritarian leader to be competent in all matters create chaos and ultimately affect performance. Such a boss paralyzes the work of his apparatus. He not only loses the best workers, but also creates a hostile atmosphere around him that threatens himself. Subordinates depend on him, but he also largely depends on them. Disgruntled subordinates can let him down or misinform.

Special studies have shown that although under conditions of an authoritarian style of management it is possible to perform a larger amount of work in quantitative terms than under conditions of a democratic one, the quality of work, originality, novelty, and the presence of elements of creativity will be by the same order of magnitude lower. An authoritarian style is preferable for leading simple activities that are focused on quantitative results.

Thus, the basis of the authoritarian style is the concentration of all power and responsibility in the hands of the leader, which gives him an advantage in setting goals and choosing the means to achieve them. The latter circumstance plays a double role in the possibility of achieving efficiency.

On the one hand, the authoritarian management style is manifested in the order, the urgency of the task and the ability to predict the result under conditions of maximum concentration of all types of resources. On the other hand, tendencies are formed to curb individual initiative and one-way flow of information from top to bottom, there is no necessary feedback.

The use of an authoritarian style, although it ensures high labor productivity, does not form the internal interest of performers in effective work. Excessive disciplinary measures cause fear and anger in a person, destroy incentives to work.

This style is applicable when subordinates are completely in the power of the leader, for example, in military service, or they trust him infinitely, like actors to a director or athletes to a coach; and he is sure that they are not able to act in the correct way on their own.

DEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT STYLE (COLLEGE)

Democratic style management is characterized by the distribution of powers, initiative and responsibility between the head and deputies, the head and subordinates. The leader of the democratic style always finds out the opinion of the team on important production issues, makes collegial decisions. The members of the team are regularly and timely informed on issues of importance to them. Communication with subordinates takes place in the form of requests, wishes, recommendations, advice, rewards for high-quality and efficient work, kindly and politely; orders are applied as needed. The leader stimulates a favorable psychological climate in the team, defends the interests of subordinates.

Democratic management style - a leadership style in which the leader develops directives, commands and orders based on proposals developed by a general meeting of employees or a circle of authorized persons.

DEMOCRATIC: CONSULTATIVE AND PARTICIPATIVE

Organizations dominated by the principle of democratic leadership are characterized by a high degree of decentralization of powers, active participation of employees in decision-making, and the creation of such conditions in which the performance of official duties is attractive to them and success is a reward.

A true democratic leader tries to make the responsibilities of subordinates more attractive, avoids imposing his will on them, involves in decision-making, and provides the freedom to formulate his own goals based on the ideas of the organization.

Within the framework of "Advisory" the leader is interested in the opinion of subordinates, consults with them, seeks to use all the best that they offer. Among the stimulating measures, encouragement prevails; punishment is used only in exceptional cases. Employees are generally satisfied with this management system, despite the fact that most decisions are actually prompted to them from above, and usually try to provide their boss with all possible assistance and support morally when necessary.

"Participatory" the form of democratic management assumes that the manager fully trusts his subordinates in all matters (and then they answer in the same way), always listens to them and uses all constructive suggestions, involves employees in setting goals and monitoring their implementation. At the same time, responsibility for the consequences of decisions made is not shifted to subordinates. All this brings the team together.

Usually, a democratic management style is used when the performers are good, sometimes better than the leader, understand the intricacies of the work and can bring a lot of novelty and creativity into it. A democrat leader, if necessary, can compromise or reject the decision altogether if the subordinate's logic is convincing. Where an autocrat would act by order and pressure, a democrat tries to convince, to prove the expediency of solving the problem, the benefits that employees can receive.

At the same time, the inner satisfaction received by subordinates from the opportunity to realize their creative abilities is of paramount importance. Subordinates can independently make decisions and look for ways to implement them within the framework of the powers granted, without paying special attention to trifles.

As a rule, the environment created by a democrat leader is also educational in nature and allows you to achieve goals at low cost. There is a positive resonance of the authorities: the authority of the position is supported by personal authority. Management takes place without harsh pressure, relying on the abilities of employees, respecting their dignity, experience and skills. This creates a favorable moral and psychological climate in the team.

Research has shown that an authoritarian style can do about twice as much work as a democratic one. But its quality, originality, novelty, the presence of elements of creativity will be by the same order of magnitude lower. From this we can conclude that the authoritarian style is preferable for simpler types of activity, focused on quantitative results, and the democratic style is preferable for complex ones, where quality comes first.

Subsequent developments led to the substantiation of two new styles, in many respects close to authoritarian and democratic.

The style in which the manager focuses on solving the task assigned to him (distributes tasks among subordinates, plans, draws up work schedules, develops approaches to their implementation, provides everything necessary, etc.) was called task-oriented (instrumental). The style when the leader creates a favorable moral and psychological climate, organizes joint work, focuses on mutual assistance, allows performers to participate in decision-making as much as possible, encourages professional growth, etc. got the name subordinate-oriented (human relations).

A subordinate-oriented leadership style close to a democratic one contributes to increased productivity, since it gives room to creativity of people, increases their satisfaction. Its use reduces absenteeism, creates a higher morale, improves team relationships and the attitude of subordinates to leadership.

The potential benefits of a task-oriented leadership style is largely similar to that of an authoritarian one. They consist in the speed of making decisions and actions, strict control over the work of subordinates. However, it puts the performers in a position of dependence, gives rise to their passivity, which ultimately leads to a decrease in work efficiency.

The leader here basically informs the subordinates about their duties, tasks, determines how they need to be solved, distributes responsibilities, approves plans, sets norms, and controls.

Typically, leaders use either a democratic, people-centered style, or an authoritarian, work-oriented style.

LIBERAL MANAGEMENT STYLE (BUROCRATIC)

Liberal style management is characterized by the lack of active participation of the leader in the management of the team. Such a leader "goes with the flow", waits or demands instructions from above, or falls under the influence of the collective. He prefers not to take risks, "not stick his head out", dodges the resolution of urgent conflicts, seeks to reduce his personal responsibility. He lets the work take its course, rarely supervises it. This leadership style is preferable in creative teams, where employees are distinguished by independence and creative individuality.

Liberal management style - a leadership style in which the leader develops directives, commands and orders that are subject to strict execution by the persons subordinate to the leader based on their own opinion, taking into account the opinions of subordinates.

LIBERAL, INCLUDING bureaucratic

In the same place where it is a question of the need to stimulate the creative approach of performers to their work, it is most preferable liberal management style. Its essence lies in the fact that the manager sets a task for subordinates, creates the necessary organizational conditions for work, defines its rules and sets the boundaries of the solution, while he himself fades into the background, leaving behind himself the functions of a consultant, arbitrator, expert evaluating the results obtained and in case of doubts and disagreements, the executors make the final decision. He also provides employees with information, encourages, trains.

Subordinates, freed from annoying control, independently make the necessary decisions and seek, within the framework of the powers granted, ways to implement them. Such work allows them to express themselves, brings satisfaction and forms a favorable moral and psychological climate in the team, generates trust between people, contributes to the voluntary acceptance of increased obligations.

The use of this style is becoming more widespread due to the growing scale of scientific research and development, carried out by the forces of highly qualified specialists. They do not accept command, pressure, petty tutelage, etc.

In advanced firms, coercion gives way to persuasion, and strict control gives way to trust, obedience to cooperation, cooperation. This kind of soft governance, aimed at creating “manageable autonomy” of the units, facilitates the natural application of new management methods, which is especially important when creating innovations.

At the same time, this style can easily transform into bureaucratic, when the leader completely removes himself from affairs, handing them over to the hands of "promoted". The latter manage the collective on his behalf, using more and more authoritarian methods. At the same time, he pretends that the power is in his hands, but in fact he becomes more and more dependent on his volunteer assistants. A sad example of this is the army hazing.

In real life, there is no “pure” leadership style, therefore, each of the above, to one degree or another, contains elements of the others.

One can understand why both the autocratic approach and the approach from the standpoint of human relations have won many supporters. But now it is already clear that both those and other supporters sinned by exaggeration, drawing conclusions that are not fully supported by facts. There are many well-documented situations where the supportive autocratic style has proven to be highly effective.

The democratic style has its strengths, successes and weaknesses. Certainly, many organizational problems could be solved if improved human relations and worker participation in decision-making always lead to greater satisfaction and higher productivity. Unfortunately, this does not happen. Scientists have encountered situations where workers were involved in decision making, but, nevertheless, the level of satisfaction was low, as well as situations where satisfaction was high and productivity low.

It is clear that the relationship between leadership style, satisfaction, and performance can only be determined through lengthy and extensive empirical research.

There are no “bad” or “good” management styles. The specific situation, type of activity, personal characteristics of subordinates and other factors determine the optimal ratio of each style and the prevailing style of leadership. The study of the practice of managing organizations shows that in the work of an effective leader, to one degree or another, each of the three leadership styles is present.

Contrary to popular stereotypes, the prevailing leadership style is virtually gender-independent. There is a misconception that female leaders are more lenient and focused primarily on maintaining good relationships with business partners, while male leaders are more aggressive and result-oriented. The reasons for the separation of leadership styles may be more likely to be personal characteristics and temperament, rather than gender characteristics. Successful top managers - both men and women - are not adherents of just one style. As a rule, they intuitively or quite deliberately combine different leadership strategies.

THEORY OF CONTROL STYLES

The outstanding psychologist K. Levin, who was engaged in the creation of the theory of personality, developed and substantiated the concept of management styles. On the basis of experimental data, he identified and described 3 main styles: authoritarian (directive); democratic (collegial); liberal (neutral). Below is a comparative characteristic of the main management styles according to K. Levin.

The authoritarian (directive) style is characterized by the centralization of power in the hands of one leader. The leader alone makes decisions, rigidly determines the activities of subordinates, fettering their initiative.

Democratic (collegial) style is based on the fact that the leader decentralizes his managerial power. When making a decision, he consults with subordinates, who get the opportunity to take part in the development of the decision.

The liberal (conniving) style is characterized by minimal interference by the leader in the activities of subordinates. The leader acts, most often, as an intermediary, providing his subordinates with information and materials necessary for work.

It is easy to see that the main criterion that distinguishes one management style from another is the way the leader makes a decision. There are two ways, ways of making managerial decisions - democratic and authoritarian. Which one is more effective? Some researchers are inclined to believe that the democratic path is more effective: the risk of making a wrong decision decreases, alternatives appear, during the discussion new solutions appear that are impossible with an individual analysis, it becomes possible to take into account the positions and interests of each, etc. At the same time, further research showed that K. Levin's concept, despite its clarity, simplicity and persuasiveness, has a number of significant drawbacks: it was proved that there is no reason to believe that a democratic style of government is always more effective than an authoritarian one. K. Levin himself established that the objective performance indicators for both styles are the same. It was found that in some cases, an authoritarian style of government is more effective than a democratic one. What are these cases?

extreme situations requiring immediate solutions;

the qualifications of workers and their general cultural level are quite low (an inverse relationship has been established between the level of development of workers and the need to use an authoritarian management style);

some people, due to their psychological characteristics, prefer to be ruled in an authoritarian manner.

It was found that both of these management styles do not occur in their pure form. Each leader, depending on the situation and his personal qualities, is both a "democrat" and a "dictator". Sometimes it can be very difficult to recognize which management style is actually followed by a leader (both effective and ineffective).

It happens that the form and content of the leader's work do not coincide: the authoritarian, in fact, the leader behaves outwardly democratically (smiles, is polite, thanks for participating in the discussion, but the decision is made alone and before the discussion begins) and vice versa. In addition, much depends on the situation - in some situations the leader can act authoritarian, and in others - as a "democrat".

Thus, the effectiveness of management does not depend on the style of management, which means that the way of making decisions cannot act as a criterion for effective management. In other words, management can be effective or ineffective, regardless of how the leader makes a decision - authoritarian or collegial.

CONCLUSION

The science of management is based on a system of basic provisions, elements, models, styles of leadership, inherent only in it, while associated with management. The behavior of one of the main and most complex subjects of management - a person - is also based on certain activities, internal beliefs that determine his attitude to reality.

Close attention is paid to the development and practical application of the basic basic provisions of management activities, correlated with the peculiarities of social interactions of individuals. At the same time, importance is attached to ensuring the effectiveness of management activities: the preparation and adoption of decisions, their scientific validity, their practical implementation, and control over their implementation.

Leaders now need to pay more attention to the human qualities of their people, their dedication to the firm, and their ability to solve problems. The high rates of obsolescence and constant changes that are characteristic of almost all industries today force managers to be constantly ready to carry out technical and organizational reforms, as well as to change the style of leadership. Even the most experienced leader, who is fluent in management theory, is not immune from an unreasonable, emotional reaction to a situation.

The choice of leadership style determines not only the authority of the leader and the effectiveness of his work, but also the atmosphere in the team and the relationship between subordinates and the leader. When the entire organization works efficiently and smoothly enough, the leader discovers that in addition to the goals set, many other things have been achieved, including simple human happiness, mutual understanding and job satisfaction.

A modern specialist, even if he is not a leader, can fully express himself at work, but, actively interacting with the team and management, he must have the necessary culture of communication.

Personnel management is a universal science. It covers 3 business areas:

Public services

Commercial organizations

Non-profit organizations.

The convergence of the organizational and managerial foundations of the 3 sectors of business activity requires knowledge in the field of leadership of employees of commercial and non-profit organizations.

Each leader has a specific management style.

Management style is a relatively stable system of methods, methods and forms of influence of the head on subordinates in accordance with the goals of joint activities. This is a kind of psychological signature of working with subordinates. The famous German psychologist K. Levin described three main management styles:

1. Authoritarian style. The decision is made by the head alone. He acts in relation to subordinates imperiously, rigidly consolidates the roles of the participants, exercises detailed control, concentrates in his hands all the main functions of management.

This style is most effective in well-ordered (structured) situations when the activities of subordinates are algorithmic in nature (according to a given system of rules). Focused on solving algorithmic problems.

2. Democratic style. Decisions are made by the manager together with his subordinates. With this style, the leader seeks to manage the group together with his subordinates, giving them freedom of action, organizing a discussion of their decisions, supporting the initiative.

This style is most effective in poorly structured situations and is focused on interpersonal relationships, solving creative problems.

3. Liberal style. Decisions are imposed by subordinates on the leader. He practically eliminates himself from active management of the group, behaves like an ordinary member, and gives the members of the group complete freedom. Group members behave in accordance with their desires, their activity is spontaneous. This style is most effective in situations of finding the most productive areas of group activity.

Authoritarian style: Business, brief orders. Prohibitions without leniency, with a threat. Clear language, unfriendly tone. Praise and blame are subjective. Emotions are not taken into account. The leader's position is outside the group. Things for the group are planned in advance (in full). Only immediate goals are determined, distant ones are unknown. The voice of the leader is decisive.

Democratic style: Orders and prohibitions - with advice. The leader's position is within the group. Events are not planned in advance, but in a group. Everyone is responsible for the implementation of the proposals. All sections of the work are not only offered, but also collected.

Liberal style: The tone is conventional. Lack of praise, censure. No collaboration. The leader's position is imperceptibly aloof from the group. Things in the group go by themselves. The leader gives no direction. Sections of work are added from separate intervals or come from a new leader.

Each specific leader cannot have only one style. Depending on the developing specific situation, a combination of features of various styles with the dominance of one or the other is most often observed. Some of the three styles find their real embodiment in the individual management style.

Control style options	Types of control styles
	Democratic	Liberal
1. Making decisions and defining tasks	Personally by the head	Taking into account the proposals of subordinates	Approval and agreement with the opinion of subordinates
2. Method of communicating the decision			Request, begging
3. The degree of regulation of the actions of subordinates		Optimal	Low (maximum freedom of subordinates)
4. The nature of communication between the manager and his subordinates	Short, businesslike, dry	Longer, not only business, but also personal	May not enter into communication if subordinates do not contact him
5. The nature of the regulation of the behavior and activities of subordinates	Emphasizes foreclosure	Emphasizes rewards	Refrains from regulating the behavior and activities of subordinates
6. The opinion of the manager about subordinates		Considers all subordinates initially good, flexibility in changing grades	Subordinates practically does not evaluate
7. The attitude of the leader to the initiative of subordinates	Distrustful, negative	Encouraging the taking of initiative	Reassessment of the initiative of subordinates
8 Moral and psychological climate in the organization	Tense	Optimal	Extremely volatile
9. Performance indicators of the organization	High quantitative, medium quality	Average quantitative, high quality	Unstable performance
10 Supervisor's control over the activities of subordinates	Elevated		Missing

Let us highlight a number of important remarks in this regard:

These leadership styles are extremely rare in their pure form. As a rule, there is a combination of various styles, but signs of one style still prevail;

Among the outlined management styles, there is no universal, suitable for all occasions, there is no good or bad. All styles have certain advantages and problems;

The effectiveness of leadership depends primarily on the flexibility in using the positive aspects of a particular style and the ability to neutralize its weaknesses.

For example, in extreme conditions, an authoritarian leadership style is vital. In the conditions of everyday life, when there is a friendly and prepared team, the democratic style of leadership is successful. The conditions of creative search dictate the advisability of using elements of the liberal style

Social management, as we know, is based on the subordination of people to common interests. Sometimes this does not require any formal intervention. For example, residents of many houses voluntarily go to the cleanup and clean up the area around it. At the same time, local authorities may not know anything about this.

This example shows that self-government (illegitimate governance) can provide assistance to the official authorities in solving social problems, in particular, the problems of environmental pollution. However, many leaders try to ignore the existence of self-government in their subordinate territory, considering it as their potential adversary or competitor (power contender). In such cases, they use an authoritarian style of management, making their decisions independently of initiatives "from below." characterized by the fact that the leader forcibly introduces and tries to consolidate his OOK, hoping that this will lead to the solution of the problems facing society. At the same time, social tension usually arises, associated with the forcible introduction of new values ​​and institutions, as a rule, contradicting the old ones. For example, the forcible introduction of the values ​​and institutions of a market economy has led to social tension in a society brought up on socialist values.

The second style of management is democratic, when the leader tries not to show his own initiative, but supports initiatives "from below." "it is precisely these directions that indicate. This management style is characterized by the fact that the leader, by his decisions, chooses and fixes not his own OOK, but "naturally" arising in the organization and supported by public opinion. The official recognition and consolidation of such OOKs occurs smoothly, without social conflicts, since there is support for what has already taken shape.

The third management style - mixed - is based on a combination of authoritarian and democratic styles, when to solve some problems the leader resorts to authoritarian management, and others - to democratic. This management style is predominant.

Despite the fact that all countries of the world use a mixed management style, each of them is dominated by an authoritarian or democratic principle. Thus, in the eastern countries, authoritarian rule prevails, and in the western countries, democratic. It depends on the mentality of the nation and its social values. In Eastern culture, social values ​​dominate (a person must work for the good of society), and in Western culture - individual values ​​(society must work for the good of a person). In eastern countries, people are afraid of power, considering it evil, in Western countries - the power is afraid of people, always ready to replace it.

Each of these styles has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of the authoritarian style of management is the ability to maximally mobilize the resources of society to solve specific social problems or achieve certain goals set by the country's leadership, and ensure their most effective use. The disadvantages of the authoritarian style are the suppression of democracy, fear of power, and most importantly, committing gross mistakes with impunity, for example, the privatization of state property, the war in Chechnya, GKOs.

The advantage of a democratic management style is reliable protection against rash decisions and the absence of social tension when introducing new OOCs. The disadvantage of the democratic style is the relative slowness of social processes.

The mixed management style combines the merits of the authoritarian and democratic styles. However, this requires appropriate knowledge.