The authoritarian style of management is most effective if the group. Dictator, liberal, democrat: how to choose a management style

For the convenience of studying the material, we divide the article management styles into topics:

The leader manages a group of people (organization) in accordance with his inherent management style.

The concept of "management style" arose after the allocation of managerial work in the activities of the organization. But unlike management, management style does not have independent stages of its development and is directly dependent on the development of science and management practice. The main difference is that management discards obsolete methods (techniques, models, provisions), enriching itself with new forms and methods. Style reflects not only best practices. The concept of "management style" denotes any form in which managers perform management tasks.

There is a relationship between the concept of "management style" with various categories of management.

Style is at the junction of the following relationships:

Laws - principles - methods - style;
laws - principles - style - methods;
purpose - tasks - methods - style;

Tasks - functions - qualities of a leader - style.

Style combines four interrelated areas into one: style - quality of managerial work - - personnel activity - result.

The relationship of style with the main categories of management is such that style is a consequence, on the one hand, of the methods, tasks and goals of management, on the other hand, style has an impact on the application of a particular management method, so the style of the leader (management) should be considered as a management style .

Style is also subject to the laws in force in social system and management principles. Objective factors (conditions) for the formation of style are the tasks and functions of management.

The unity of tasks, functions, methods of management, qualities of the leader and positions of managerial positions is integrated into the unity of the development of the organizational structure and management style. This unity finds its expression in the appropriate mechanism of management or business activity of the organization.

Management style is a system of established and constantly applied principles, behaviors, rules, procedures, reactions to emerging situations, methods that are characteristic of a particular state, organization and individual.

Depending on what principles the state, organization or individual is guided by in their life, certain styles management.

Basically, there are three leadership styles: autocratic management style (authoritarian, imperious), democratic management style and liberal management style (passive). They are basic, all other types of leadership are ultimately reduced to their combination. However, another classification of styles and types of leaders is also possible.

Characteristics of management styles

Management style - individual-typical characteristics of a stable system of methods, methods, techniques for influencing the leader on the team in order to fulfill organizational tasks and managerial functions. This is the habitual behavior of a leader towards subordinates in order to influence them and encourage them to achieve the goals of the organization. The degree to which a manager delegates, the types of authority he uses, and his concern for human relations first or task first, all reflect the leadership style that characterizes that leader.

For more than half a century, the phenomenon of leadership styles has been studied in social psychology and management. The typology of leadership styles was dealt with by psychologists in different time from the 1930s to the present. One of the earliest studies of management styles was put forth by Kurt Lewin. His typology of individual leadership styles, developed back in the 30s, together with his employees, he conducted experiments and identified three leadership styles that have become classic: authoritarian, democratic, neutral (anarchist). Later, terminological changes were made, and the same leadership styles are referred to as directive, collegial, and permissive (liberal).

In 1964, MIT professor Douglas McGregor's book The Human Side of the Enterprise was published. D. MacGregor considers management to be the art of building human relationships. His writings on practical management contain claims that subordinates behave in the way that their leaders force them to behave. A subordinate of any rank may strive to meet the requirements of his superiors and perform the tasks assigned to him. McGregor's research shows that the initial driver of the goal is, first of all, the desires of the leader. If the leader believes that his employees will cope with the task, he subconsciously manages them in such a way as to improve their performance. But if the actions of the leadership are characterized by uncertainty, this leads to reinsurance, and, consequently, slows down development.

McGregor's work helps managers avoid uncertainty and strive to achieve the maximum. He describes the leadership system from two opposing positions, each of which can be taken by the leader in relation to his subordinates. One of the extreme positions is called "Theory X" and the other "Theory Y".

The main provisions of "Theory X":

"Theory X" describes a type of leader who is in the position of directive, authoritarian methods of management, as he treats his subordinates with distrust. Most often they express their attitude as follows.

1. People initially do not like to work and avoid work whenever possible.
2. People do not have ambition, they are afraid of responsibility and prefer to be led.
3. Most of all, people want security.
4. To force people to work towards a common goal, it is necessary to use various methods of coercion, as well as remind them of the possibility of punishment.

"Theory X" was formed in the 60s and corresponded to the views of managers of that period to a sufficient extent. Managers who adhere to such a position in relation to their subordinates, as a rule, limit the degree of their freedom, autonomy in the organization, try to prevent employees from participating in the management of the company. They strive to simplify goals, break them down into smaller ones, assign a separate task to each subordinate, which makes it easy to control its implementation. The hierarchy in such organizations, as a rule, is very strict, the channels for collecting information work clearly and efficiently. This type of leader satisfies the elementary needs of subordinates and uses authoritarian style management.

The main provisions of "Theory Y":

It describes an ideal situation in which relationships in a team develop as partnerships and the formation of a team takes place in an ideal environment.

This theory is an optimistic view of the work of the organization and includes the following provisions:

1. Labor is a natural process, it is not something special for people. If conditions are favorable, then people will tend to take responsibility for the work.
2. If people have realized the goals, then they will use self-management and self-control and do everything possible to achieve the goals.
3. The reward for work will strictly correspond to how the tasks facing the team are completed.
4. The capacity for creative problem solving is common, and the intellectual potential of the average person is only partially used.

The head is democratic, allowing subordinates to participate in decision-making, supporting the delegation of authority and responsibility, focused on the provisions of "Theory Y".

Leaders who adhere to both "Theory X" and "Theory Y" achieve significant success in their work. But every manager must first assess whether the organization's environment is appropriate for Theory Y, and what the implications of Theory X might be. Model K. Levin.

The studies carried out by K. Levin and his colleagues were carried out before McGregor divided the actions and behavior of leaders into two theories. Let's consider the main leadership styles that K. Levin singled out in his research: authoritarian, democratic, liberal.

Authoritarian management style

Authoritarian management style - a set of management techniques, using which the leader focuses on his own knowledge, interests, goals. An authoritarian leader does not consult with colleagues or subordinates, takes tough positions and uses administrative methods of influencing people, imposing his will on them by coercion or reward.

This style is most in demand in the period of formation, that is, on initial stage organization formation, labor collective when employees do not have the skills to see goals and ways to achieve them. The negative qualities of the authoritarian style include the fact that it helps to reduce the creative initiative of subordinates, worsens the socio-psychological climate, and leads to staff turnover.

The autocratic style of management is typical for owners and managers, who usually decide on their own most of the issues related to the activities of the team, regardless of the opinions of others. Such leaders usually do not tolerate objections and comments from subordinates. They exaggerate the role of administrative management methods - instructions, orders, directives, instructions and orders. With an autocratic leadership style, the passivity of the performers, their flattery, secrecy, servility, and self-isolation are inevitable. The exchange of information between people is limited, they hide shortcomings in their work and their knowledge, distort the actual state of affairs, which leads to a decrease in the quality of their work. Subordinates develop the habit of constantly turning to the manager, endlessly demanding advice and instructions. People try to get rid of responsibility, preferring to be led. What they want most is security.

The “exploitative” authoritarian style boils down to the fact that the leader, not trusting his subordinates and not asking for their opinions and advice, single-handedly resolves all issues and takes responsibility for everything, giving the performers only instructions on what, how and when to do, but as The main form of incentive uses punishment.

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

For the leader, all this also does not pass without losses, 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 and notice a lot, keep quiet, either getting 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 made, since the subordinates did not participate in the development of the decision. Thus, a kind of vicious circle is formed, which sooner or later leads to the development of an unfavorable moral and psychological climate in an organization or subdivision and the creation of grounds for the development of industrial conflicts.

With a softer “benevolent” variety of the authoritarian style, the leader treats his subordinates condescendingly, in a fatherly way, he is interested in their opinion when making decisions. But even if the opinion expressed is justified, he can act in his own way, often doing it defiantly, which significantly worsens the moral and psychological climate in the team. When making decisions, he can take into account individual opinions of employees and gives a certain independence, however, under strict control, if the general policy of the company is strictly observed and all requirements of the instructions are strictly followed.

Threats of punishment, although present, do not prevail.

The claims of an authoritarian leader for competence in all matters generate chaos and, ultimately, affect the effectiveness of work. 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, as you know, largely depends on them. Disgruntled subordinates can let him down or misinform him.

Special studies have shown that although under the conditions of an authoritarian style of leadership it is possible to perform a quantitatively larger amount of work than in a democratic one, the quality of work, originality, novelty, the presence of elements of creativity will be by the same order lower. Authoritarian style is preferred for leadership simple views activities 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 dual 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 in conditions of maximum concentration of all types of resources. On the other hand, there are tendencies to curb individual initiative and one-way flow of information from top to bottom, there is no necessary Feedback.

But it has its drawbacks, which can lead to turnover:

A sharp decrease in the initiative of subordinates;
The risk of wrong decisions increases;
Constant tension and poor psychological climate;
Dissatisfaction of subordinates with their position.

Democratic management style

Democratic management style - a set of management techniques, a leader's manner of behavior based on a combination of the principle of one-man command with active involvement in decision-making, management, organization and control of subordinates. A democratic leader prefers to influence people with the help of convictions, a reasonable belief in the diligence and skill of subordinates.

The democratic style is the most suitable for the formation of team relationships, since it forms goodwill and openness of relationships both between the leader and the subordinate, and between the subordinates themselves. This style combines the methods of persuasion and coercion to the maximum extent, helps each employee to clearly formulate his personal goals, establish effective communication between the leader and the subordinate. The negative consequences of using the democratic style include additional time to discuss the problem, which in extreme conditions can drastically reduce management efficiency.

Democratic management style - the adoption of fundamental management decisions, laws, policy documents, taking into account, with the consent of the majority of persons who are subject to the adopted rules and regulations. The opposite of an autocratic leadership style.

The democratic style is characterized by granting independence to subordinates within the limits of their functions and their qualifications. This is a collegial style that gives greater freedom to subordinates under the control of the leader.

The Democratic leader prefers mechanisms of influence that appeal to the needs of more high level: participation, belonging, self-expression. He prefers to work in a team rather than pull the strings of power.

A Democrat's view of his employees boils down to this:

1) labor is a natural process. If conditions are favorable, then people will not only take responsibility, they will strive for it;
2) if people are attached to organizational decisions, they will use self-control and self-management;
3) involvement is a function of the reward associated with the achievement of the goal;
4) the ability to creatively solve problems is common, and the intellectual potential of the average person is only partially used.

A true democrat avoids imposing his will on his subordinates. He shares power with them and controls the results of their activities.

Enterprises dominated by a democratic style are characterized by a high decentralization of powers. Subordinates take an active part in the preparation of decisions, enjoy freedom in performing tasks. The necessary prerequisites for the performance of the work have been created, a fair assessment of their efforts is being carried out, respectful attitude subordinates and their needs.

The leader puts a lot of effort into creating an atmosphere of openness and trust so that if subordinates need help, they can not hesitate to contact the leader.

In his activities, the leader-democrat relies on the entire team. He tries to teach subordinates to delve into the problems of the unit, give them effective information and show them how to look for and evaluate alternative solutions.

Personally, the leader deals only with the most complex and important issues, leaving subordinates to decide everything else.

He is not subject to stereotypes and varies his behavior in accordance with changes in the situation, the structure of the team, etc.

Instructions are issued not in the form of prescriptions, but in the form of proposals, taking into account the opinions of subordinates. This is not due to a lack of opinion or a desire to share responsibility, but to the conviction that in a skillfully organized process of discussion, the best solutions can always be found.

Such a leader is well versed in the merits and demerits of subordinates. Focuses on the capabilities of the subordinate, on his natural desire for self-expression through his intellectual and professional potential. He achieves the desired results by convincing the performers of the expediency and significance of the duties assigned to him.

The democrat leader constantly and thoroughly informs his subordinates about the state of affairs and the prospects for the development of the team. This makes it easier to mobilize subordinates for the implementation of the tasks set, to instill in them a sense of true masters.

Being well informed about the true state of affairs in the unit he leads and about the moods of his subordinates, he is always tactful in relationships, treats their interests and requests with understanding. He perceives conflicts as a natural phenomenon, tries to benefit from them for the future, delving into their root cause and essence. With such a system of communication, the activities of the leader are combined with his work to educate his subordinates, a sense of trust and respect is strengthened between them.

The democratic style encourages the creative activity of subordinates (largely through the delegation of authority), contributes to the creation of an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.

People are fully aware of their importance and responsibility in solving the problems facing the team. Discipline is transformed into self-discipline.

The democratic style does not at all impede unity of command, does not weaken the power of the leader. Rather, on the contrary, his authority and real power increase, since he manages people without brute pressure, relying on their abilities and taking into account their dignity.

The democratic style of management is characterized by a high degree of decentralization of powers, active participation of employees in decision-making, the creation of such conditions under which the performance of official duties is attractive, and the achievement of success serves as a reward for them.

There are two types of democratic style: advisory and participatory.

In a consultative environment, the manager largely trusts his subordinates, consults with them, and seeks to use the best that they offer. Among incentive measures, encouragement prevails, and punishment is used only in exceptional cases. Employees are generally satisfied with such a management system, despite the fact that most decisions are actually prompted from above, and usually try to provide their boss with all possible assistance and moral support when necessary.

The participatory variety of the democratic style of management assumes that leaders fully trust their subordinates in all matters, always listen to them and use all constructive proposals, organize a wide exchange of comprehensive information, involve subordinates in setting goals and monitoring their achievement. At the same time, responsibility for the consequences of the decisions made is not shifted to subordinates.

Usually, the democratic style of management is used when the performers are well, sometimes even better than the leader, understand the intricacies of the work and can bring novelty and creativity to it. If necessary, a democrat leader can compromise or even abandon the decision taken if the logic of the subordinate is convincing. Where an autocrat would act by order and pressure, a democrat tries to convince, to prove the expediency of solving the problem and the benefits that employees can receive. At the same time, the internal satisfaction received by the subordinate 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. When exercising control, the manager appreciates the end result, not paying much attention to the little things. The conditions and forms of using the democratic style of management are given in Table. one.

Table 1. Conditions and forms of using democratic style

Control function	Conditions and forms
Decision-making	Collegiate (consensus), detailed consideration of all proposed alternatives, with the exception of simple and routine solutions
Definition and formulation of goals	Involvement of all team members in the discussion of goals with the task of achieving their understanding and understanding
Distribution of duties	The manager, together with the employees, determines their roles in common work sets personal goals
	The manager agrees on additional work volumes, overtime employment, time and amount of vacations
Stimulation and motivation	The manager uses all forms of material and moral rewards, supports and encourages employees; provides a fair assessment of personal and collective work; seeks to determine the personal needs and motivational preferences of subordinates for their correction; ascertains the need for advanced training

If you want to form a reliable and cohesive team, democratic style the best choice. It will help to instill openness, honesty and a sense of teamwork in subordinates. The boss, on the other hand, must correctly combine methods of coercion and persuasion that will help each employee formulate their own goals.

However, this style also has disadvantages:

Large time costs for discussion and decision making;
Reducing the level of management efficiency in emergency situations;
The dissoluteness of the team with the wrong approach.

Liberal management style

Liberal management style - a set of management techniques, the behavior of the leader, based on the transfer of tasks to subordinates, who also take on part of the responsibility for their implementation. A leader who prefers a delegating style gives subordinates almost complete freedom.

The liberal style is designed for managers who are well-versed in the situation and are able to recognize the levels of maturity of employees, transferring to them only those responsibilities that they can handle. Delegation can only be discussed if these are highly effective teams and if those who are given the right to independently solve the problem are high-class specialists.

Its essence lies in the fact that the leader poses a problem for the performers, creates the necessary organizational conditions for their work, sets the boundaries of the solution, and himself fades into the background. For himself, he retains the functions of a consultant, arbiter, expert, evaluating the results.

At the same time, reward and punishment recede into the background compared to the internal satisfaction that subordinates receive from the realization of their potential and creative possibilities. Subordinates are spared from constant control and “independently” make decisions and try to find a way to implement them within the framework of the powers granted. They do not realize that the leader has already thought through everything in advance and created for this process. the necessary conditions that determine the end result.

Such work brings them satisfaction and creates a favorable moral and psychological climate in the team.

The use of this style is becoming more widespread due to the growing scale of scientific and technical activities and developmental developments, which are carried out by highly qualified specialists who do not want to be under pressure and patronage. Its effectiveness depends on the real desire of subordinates for this, a clear formulation by the manager of the tasks and conditions for their activities, his fairness in relation to the evaluation of results and remuneration.

But such a style can turn into a bureaucratic one when the leader is completely removed from business. He transfers all control into the hands of independent leaders who manage the team on his behalf, using harsh authoritarian leadership methods. He himself pretends that the power is in his hands, but in fact he is becoming more and more dependent on his assistants.

Becoming a leader-liberal can be explained by many reasons. By nature, such leaders are indecisive, good-natured people, afraid of quarrels and conflicts. They underestimate the importance of the activities of the team and the fact that the team needs them. But it may turn out that this is a highly creative person, captured by some sphere of his interests, but devoid of organizational talent. For this reason, the duties of the leader are overwhelming for this leader.

The liberal leadership style is distinguished by lack of initiative and constant expectation of instructions from above, unwillingness to take responsibility for decisions and their consequences, if they are unfavorable. The head of the liberal style interferes little in the affairs of subordinates, is inactive, very cautious, inconsistent in actions, easily influenced by others, inclined to give in to circumstances and put up with them, can cancel earlier without serious reasons decision.

In relations with subordinates, the liberal leader is polite and friendly, treats them with respect, tries to help in resolving their problems. He is ready to listen to criticism and considerations, but for the most part it turns out to be untenable to realize the sensible thoughts prompted to him. Insufficiently demanding of subordinates. Not wanting to spoil relations with them, he often avoids drastic measures, it happens that he persuades them to do this or that work.

In an effort to acquire and strengthen authority, he is able to pay undeserved bonuses, allow business trips unjustified by official needs, and is inclined to endlessly put off a worthless employee. Rarely uses his right to say “no”, easily gives out impossible promises.

When his superiors ask him to do something that is inconsistent with current regulations or rules of conduct, it never occurs to him that he has the right to refuse to comply with such a request. If a subordinate does not show a desire to fulfill his instructions, then he will rather do the required work himself, rather than force an undisciplined worker to do so.

Such a leader prefers such an organization of activities, when everything is scheduled on the shelves, and relatively rarely there is a need to make original decisions and interfere in the affairs of subordinates.

The head of the liberal style does not show any pronounced organizational skills, irregularly and weakly controls the actions of subordinates.

Becoming a leader-liberal can be explained by many reasons. Among them, the most important are the type of temperament and character: for the most part, such leaders are by nature indecisive and good-natured people, they are afraid of quarrels and conflicts like fire. Another reason may lie in the underestimation of the social significance of the activities of the collective and one's duty to it. Finally, he may turn out to be a highly creative person, completely captured by some particular area of his interests, but devoid of organizational talent, as a result of which the duties of an administrator are overwhelming for him.

The liberal style of management is characterized by minimal participation of the manager in management, the staff has complete freedom to make independent decisions in the main areas production activities organizations (coordinating them, of course, with the head). This style is justified if the staff performs creative or individual work and is staffed by highly qualified specialists with justifiably high ambitions. This style of management is based on high consciousness, devotion to a common cause and creative initiative of all personnel, although managing such a team is not an easy task.

A liberal leader must master the principle of delegation of authority, maintain good relations with informal leaders, be able to correctly set tasks and determine the main areas of activity, and coordinate the interaction of employees to achieve common goals.

Managers of a liberal management style, as a rule, do not have authority, their instructions are not carried out or carried out poorly. Their behavior is characterized by inconsistency and excessive softness. Such managers often do not impose specific requirements on subordinates, their activities are sometimes unplanned and subject to chance. There is no serious fight against malfunctions and violations of discipline, no one pays attention to the lack of qualifications. They easily agree with any proposals and try to make life easier for themselves by providing subordinates with all the information and resources. They assign themselves the role of an intermediary in relations with the external environment.

Effectiveness of management style

The most effective management style is considered to be one in which the manager is focused on high performance, combined with trust and respect for people. This ensures both high morale and high efficiency. The success of the organization is perceived as the success of the entire team and each employee individually. However, studies have not revealed a clear relationship between management styles and.

The success of a management style can be judged by its impact on profits and costs. The assessment should also use criteria related to the tasks:

For product development,
- organizations,
- (length of absence, job satisfaction, willingness to change jobs, self-esteem, creativity, initiative, readiness to study).

Finally, the application of management styles has certain limitations (legal, ethical, entrepreneurial values).

The effectiveness of management styles cannot be assessed outside of specific situations. This should take into account:

Personal qualities (ideas about values, self-awareness, main position, attitude to risk, the role of personal motives, authority, production and creative potential, level of education);
- dependence on upcoming tasks (whether they contain creative or innovative elements, degree of formulation, experience in solving them, whether they are solved according to plan or as sudden ones, whether they should be performed individually or in a group, deadline pressure);
- organizational conditions (the degree of rigidity of the organizational structure, centralized and decentralized problem solving, the number of decision-making instances, the clarity of information and communication paths, the degree of control);
- terms environment(degree of stability, conditions of material support, social security, dominant social values and structures).

Probabilistic model managerial efficiency

This concept comes from the following very important premises:

The style of management is always correlated with the effectiveness of the functioning of the team headed by the leader;
The relationship between the style (type) of management and efficiency is due to a number of parameters (features of the team and its members, the specifics of the tasks being solved, etc.), giving it a probabilistic character.

The essence of the probabilistic model of managerial effectiveness, developed by the famous American specialist in the field of social and managerial psychology F. Fiedler, is as follows:

The effectiveness of management (regardless of style or type) is mediated by the degree of control the leader has over the situation in which he acts.

Any situation can be represented as a combination of three main parameters:

The degree of favorable relations between the leader and subordinates;
- the magnitude of the power (influence) of the leader in the group (his ability to control the actions of subordinates and use various kinds stimulation);
- the structure of the group task (which includes the clarity of the goal, ways and means of solving it, etc.)

Cumulative quantification of all these parameters allows us to judge the magnitude of the degree of situational control of the leader over the situation. How do management styles and the "probabilistic model" relate to each other?

A number of experimental studies have shown that an authoritarian leader is most effective in situations with high and low situational control, and a democratic leader is most effective in situations with medium situational control. So by itself situational control, even if it is very high, cannot be an indicator of effectiveness. Management can be effective both with high and low situational control. On the other hand, even with high situational control, management can be ineffective. And this means that the effectiveness of management is not determined by situational control. The degree of situational control cannot act as a criterion for effective management. This led the researchers to the conclusion that the criteria for management effectiveness lie in the field of psychology and can be expressed in the formula: effective management = effective leader.

So, what style should a leader choose? It seems that for this he first of all should evaluate the subordinate. If this is a beginner who, moreover, does not have high qualifications, then in this case an authoritarian style will be preferable, manifested in clearly defined tasks with indication of sources. necessary resources. To manage an experienced worker who is a professional in his field, it is undoubtedly better to choose a democratic or delegating style.

If it is necessary to solve complex problems and there is time to develop an optimal solution, and the subordinates are not beginners, it is better to turn to the democratic style. In an extreme, emergency or urgent situation, even for the existing team, the authoritarian style will again be the best.

Back | |

The manager at all levels of the organization's management system acts as leading person, since it is he who determines the focus of the work of the team, the selection of personnel, the psychological climate and other aspects of the enterprise.

Management- the ability to influence individuals and groups, encouraging them to work towards the goals of the organization.

One of the most important characteristics activity of the leader is the style of leadership.

Leadership style- the manner of behavior of the leader in relation to subordinates in order to influence them and encourage them to achieve.

The leader is the leader and organizer in the management system. Management of the activities of groups and teams is carried out in the form of leadership and leadership. These two forms of government have certain similarities.

One of the most popular leadership theories is K. Levin's theory of leadership(1938).

She identifies three leadership styles:

authoritarian leadership style - characterized by rigidity, exactingness, unity of command, prevalence of power functions, strict control and discipline, focus on results, ignoring socio-psychological factors;
democratic leadership style - based on collegiality, trust, informing subordinates, initiative, creativity, self-discipline, consciousness, responsibility, encouragement, publicity, orientation not only on results, but also on ways to achieve them;
liberal leadership style - characterized by low demands, connivance, lack of discipline and exactingness, the passivity of the leader and the loss of control over subordinates, giving them complete freedom of action.

K. Levin's research provided the basis for the search for a management style that can lead to high and satisfaction of performers.

Considerable attention was paid to the study of leadership styles in the works of R. Likert, who in 1961 proposed a continuum of leadership styles. Its extreme positions are work-centered leadership and person-centered leadership, with all other leadership behaviors in between.

According to Likert's theory, there are four leadership styles:

Exploitative-authoritarian: the leader has clear characteristics of an autocrat, does not trust subordinates, rarely involves them in decision-making, and forms tasks himself. The main stimulus is fear and the threat of punishment, rewards are random, interaction is based on mutual distrust. and are in conflict.
paternalistic-authoritarian: the manager favorably allows subordinates to take limited part in decision-making. Rewards are real and punishments are potential, both of which are used to motivate workers. Informal organization is somewhat opposed to formal structure.
Advisory: the leader makes strategic decisions and, showing trust, delegates tactical decisions to subordinates. The limited involvement of employees in the decision-making process is used for motivation. The informal organization does not coincide with the formal structure only partially.
Democratic leadership style is characterized by full trust, based on the wide involvement of staff in the management of the organization. The decision-making process is dispersed across all levels, although it is integrated. The flow of communications goes not only in vertical directions, but also horizontally. Formal and informal organizations interact constructively.

R. Likert called model 1 task-oriented with a rigidly structured management system, and model 4 - relationship-oriented, which are based on team work organization, collegial management, and general control. According to R. Likert, the last approach is the most efficient.

Choice of management style

Management style- represents the manner of behavior of the leader in relation to subordinates, which allows you to influence them and force them to do what is in this moment need.

Management styles are influenced by specific conditions and circumstances. In this regard, we can distinguish "one-dimensional", i.e. due to one, some factor, and "multidimensional", i.e. taking into account two or more circumstances when building a relationship "leader-subordinate", leadership styles.

"One-Dimensional" Control Styles

Parameters of interaction between a leader and subordinates		Democratic style management	liberal style management
Decision-making techniques	Single-handedly resolves all issues	When making decisions, he consults with the team	Waits for instructions from management or gives the initiative to subordinates
The way to bring decisions to the performers	command, command, command	Offers, asks, approves proposals of subordinates	Asking, begging
Distribution of responsibility	Completely in the hands of the leader	In accordance with the powers	Completely in the hands of the performers
Attitude towards the initiative	Suppresses completely	Encourages, uses in the interests of business	Gives initiative to subordinates
	Afraid of skilled workers, tries to get rid of them	Selects business, competent workers	Does not recruit
Attitude towards knowledge	Thinks he knows everything	Constantly learning and demanding the same from subordinates	Replenishes his knowledge and encourages this trait in subordinates
Communication style	Strictly formal, uncommunicative, keeps a distance	Friendly, likes to communicate, positively makes contacts	Afraid of communication, communicates with subordinates only on their initiative, allow familiar communication
The nature of the relationship with subordinates	Mood, uneven	Equal, benevolent, demanding	Soft, undemanding
Attitude to discipline	Rigid, formal	A supporter of reasonable discipline, carries out a differentiated approach to people	soft, formal
Attitude to moral influence on subordinates	Considers punishment the main method of stimulation, encourages the elect only on holidays	Constantly uses different stimuli	Uses reward more often than punishment

Douglas McGregor's theories "X" and "Y" became the prerequisite for the establishment of various "one-dimensional" management styles. Thus, according to Theory X, people are inherently lazy and avoid work at the first opportunity. They completely lack ambition, so they prefer to be leaders, not to take responsibility and seek protection from the strong. To force people to work, you need to use coercion, total control and the threat of punishment. However, according to McGregor, people are not like this by nature, but because of the difficult living and working conditions that began to change for the better only in the second half of the 20th century. Under favorable conditions, a person becomes what he really is, and his behavior is reflected by another theory - "Y". In accordance with it, in such conditions, people are ready to take responsibility for the cause, moreover, they even strive for it. If they are attached to the goals of the company, they are willingly included in the process of self-management and self-control, as well as in creativity. And such attachment is

a function not of coercion, but of reward associated with the achievement of goals. Such workers rely on a leader who professes a democratic style.

The characteristic of "one-dimensional" management styles was suggested by the domestic researcher E. Starobinsky.

"Multidimensional" management styles. "Theory X" and "Theory Y"

In 1960, Douglas MacGregor published his point of view on the bipolarity of opinions about how people should be managed. "Theory X" and "Theory Y", presented in the book "The Human Side of the Enterprise", have won wide acceptance among managers.

Theory X

A person initially does not like to work and will avoid work.
A person should be coerced, controlled, threatened with punishment in order to achieve the goals of the organization.
The average person prefers to be led, he avoids responsibility.

Theory Y

Work is as natural as play for a child.
A person can exercise self-management and self-control. Reward is the result associated with the achievement of a goal.
The average person seeks responsibility.

Thus, two views of governance are emerging: an authoritarian view leading to direct regulation and tight control, and a democratic view that supports the delegation of authority and responsibility.

Based on these theories, others have been developed, which are various combinations of the above. Also popular in Western business "management grid" theory, developed by R. Blake and J. Mouton. They pointed out that labor activity unfolds in a force field between production and man. The first line of force determines the attitude of the head to production. The second line (vertical) determines the attitude of the manager to the person (improvement of working conditions, taking into account desires, needs, etc.).

Consider the different leadership styles shown in Fig. ten.

Fig.10. Leadership styles

Type 1.1 - the manager does not care about anything, works in such a way as not to be fired. This style is considered purely theoretical.
Type 9.1 - a style of strict administration, in which the only goal for the manager is the production result.
Type 1.9 - liberal or passive leadership style. In this case, the leader focuses on human relations.
Type 5.5 is in the middle of the "administrative grid". With such a compromise, average results of labor are achieved, there cannot be a sharp breakthrough forward. At the same time, this leadership style promotes stability and non-conflict.
Type 9.9 is considered the most efficient. The leader tries to build the work of his subordinates in such a way that they see in it opportunities for self-realization and confirmation of their own significance. Production goals are determined jointly with employees.

Concepts of situational marketing

Attempts to define a universal leadership style have failed because The effectiveness of leadership depends not only on the management style of the leader, but also on many factors. Therefore, the answer began to be sought within the framework of situational theories. The main idea of the situational approach was the assumption that managerial behavior should be different in different situations.

A model describing the dependence of leadership style on the situation was proposed in the 70s. T. Mitchell and R. Howes. At its core, it is based on motivational expectancy theory. Performers will strive to achieve the goals of the organization when there is a connection between their efforts and work results, as well as between work results and remuneration, i.e. if they get some personal benefit from it. The Mitchell and House model includes four management styles:

If employees have a great need for self-respect and belonging to the team, then the "style" is considered the most preferable. support".

When employees strive for autonomy and independence, it is better to use " instrumental style ", similar to that oriented towards the creation of organizational and technical conditions of production. This is explained by the fact that subordinates, especially when nothing depends on them, wanting to complete the task as soon as possible, prefer to be told what and how they need to do, and create necessary working conditions.

Where subordinates aspire to high results and are confident that they will be able to achieve them, a style focused on " participation"subordinates in decision-making, most of all corresponds to the situation when they strive to realize themselves in management activities. At the same time, the leader must share information with them, widely use their ideas in the process of preparing and making decisions.

There is also a style focused on " achievement"when the leader sets feasible tasks for the performers, provides the conditions necessary for work and expects independent work without any coercion to complete the task.

One of the most modern is the model of leadership styles proposed by American scientists. V.Vrooman and F. Yetton. They, depending on the situation, the characteristics of the team and the characteristics of the problem itself, divided managers into 5 groups according to leadership styles:

The manager himself makes decisions based on the available information.
The manager communicates the essence of the problem to subordinates, listens to their opinions and makes decisions.
The leader presents the problem to subordinates, summarizes their opinions and, taking them into account, makes his own decision.
The manager discusses the problem together with subordinates, and as a result they develop a common opinion.
The leader constantly works together with the group, which either develops a collective decision or accepts the best, regardless of who its author is.

The specific features of the authoritarian management style are unity of command and high power distance. The authoritarian style is characterized by the fact that the leader takes the reins of government into his own hands, demanding complete obedience from his subordinates. This style of management implies that all decisions in the organization are made by the head without taking into account the opinions of employees.

Characteristics of an authoritarian management style

Pronounced with an authoritarian style of management and control - strict, driving ordinary employees into a rigid framework and depriving them of the opportunity to show initiative. As for communication in an organization, it is only a means for employees to carry out common activities.

Friendship relationships are not welcome, since it is not the interests of the individual that are valued above all, but the interests of the company. The leader, in turn, also prefers to maintain a certain distance between himself and his subordinates, which no one has the right to violate.

Methods of authoritarian management style

Unlike other management styles, the authoritarian style focuses more on punishing employees for any faults than on rewards for any achievements. Among the main methods of this management style are: reprimands, orders, comments, deprivation of all kinds of bonuses and benefits.
Main psychological factor that affects the employees of the organization is fear - the fear of shame, punishment, dismissal. Thus, it cannot be said that the authoritarian management style is characterized by a lack of motivation. Motivation exists, but it is a reinforcement of the activities of workers with fear.

Due to the fact that the authoritarian style of management comes in two forms (benevolent and exploitative), management methods depend on what kind of authoritarian style is operating in the organization. It is easy to guess that the benevolent form of the authoritarian style implies a softening of management methods, as well as a significant reduction in the number of punishments.

Disadvantages of an authoritarian management style

Of course, the authoritarian style is by no means the best management style for the normal functioning of the organization. Experts believe that it is possible to use this style in working with subordinates only in certain cases:

1. In emergency situations, which means all sorts of emergency circumstances and disruptions in the company's work, requiring prompt action and quick decision-making, as well as in conditions of limited time.

2. Anarchist moods of the organization, requiring the immediate restriction of employees by introducing strict discipline that does not allow the occurrence of various riots, strikes, etc.

In a company that does not have clearly defined problems, an authoritarian management style can lead to internal discord in the functioning of the organization, the destruction of self-control, a decrease in efficiency, a deterioration in the socio-psychological climate, a lack of initiative and creativity of subordinates, increased staff turnover, and a decrease in employees' responsibility for their work.

How do you communicate with employees? Do you control every step imperiously, let everything take its course, practice an individual approach? Well, how does it work? Today we will talk about management styles of the leader. Get comfortable, let's get started!

Or maybe you have not thought about leadership style at all? Business is going on, the online store is developing, why complicate something? let's Let's look at the main management styles, as well as the pros and cons of each. This will help you understand the strengths and weak sides your guide and determine what style to follow in the future.

Authoritarian style, or "As I said, so be it"

Gennady Pavlovich P. has been leading the team for many years. How did he get into management back in Soviet times, and leads. It is clear that for so many years his style has already been formed and is not subject to change. And it would be necessary: Gennady Pavlovich is one of those bosses who firmly believe in the instructions from the joke: “Point 1. The boss is always right. Point 2. If the boss is wrong - see point 1”. Yes, yes, there are still. No wonder that in the team he has a turnover: young people come, brought up in a new society, who are not afraid to offer their ideas and are very surprised when they encounter the principles of the boss. They are surprised and leave - to more loyal leaders. Only the main backbone is delayed in the team - people who have been working for more than a dozen years and have long been accustomed to Gennady Pavlovich's quirks. And everything would be fine, only this backbone is almost entirely pensioners. alien to them - the company has no development, everything goes the old fashioned way. The company is not doing well.

Do you know such Gennadiev Pavlovich? They are also found among the younger generation of entrepreneurs. Usually, very authoritarian, harsh in judgments, recognize only their own opinion. They do not allow the slightest deviation from instructions, regulations, charters and the order established in the company. They tremblingly observe subordination - they do not allow liberties with the common people, this is not a master's business. Here is the paradox: they do not trust their own employees, but at the same time they want their work tasks to be performed flawlessly.

Disadvantages of an authoritarian style

A child can be thrown out with water: one who is used to not listening to opinions risks not hearing valuable ideas that will bring profit to the company. Someone who does not allow informal relationships with subordinates may not notice the love of their life or someone who can become a best friend. Human relationships sometimes go beyond subordination.
Stubbornness is not perseverance. Fanatical following instructions a step to the left - a step to the right is equal to execution - a disastrous position for the company. Read the biographies of great entrepreneurs: they all recognize the need to break the rules, think big, allow creativity.
Not everyone agrees to work with a dictator- In companies where the authoritarian style of management reigns, the percentage of layoffs is higher. And leave, as a rule, the most talented. In such a collective, opportunists or conservatives survive, who do not care.
Employees in such companies do not develop, do not offer ideas, do not learn new things. Maybe they would be happy - but why, because it will still be the way the local god ordered. And since the initiative is punishable - why show it at all?

Advantages of an authoritarian style

Iron discipline. You can't spoil a dictator: either you fulfill all his requirements, or the door to the street is open. As a rule, fines for the slightest violation bloom in such a team. Total subordination makes employees obedient and agreeable to any demand from management.
Clarity and transparency of all business processes. The boss-dictator knows exactly how and what happens in the company at each stage, what tasks are solved and who performs them.
The employees do not get confused, but they will clearly follow the orders of their superiors - they are no strangers. Under democratic or liberal style leadership is more difficult to implement: in the event of force majeure, both bosses and employees can storm like a ship in bad weather. And this is fraught with hastily made and erroneous decisions.

Democratic style, or "Let's think together"

Aleksey K., a young leader, resigned from the company of Gennady Pavlovich and founded own business. He decided to learn from the mistakes of others and realized that he would not allow such a dictatorship that reigned in his same place work. Alexey recruited young employees who were more like-minded than his subordinates. From the first days, he began to adhere to a democratic leadership style: he discussed the company's development strategy with employees, listened to their ideas and opinions, trusted him to independently work on projects. For the workers, he was not a strict boss, but his own boyfriend Lekha. Once, this almost ruined the company: the employees relaxed and stopped taking Alexei seriously. Some people started to be late, miss the deadlines for completing tasks, and to the bewilderment of the boss he said: “What are you doing, don’t worry!”. When deals with profitable clients began to fail and the company lost profits, the young businessman realized that it was time to change something.

Democratic management style is a deceptive thing. Young and modern, it seems the only acceptable and in line with the spirit of the times (well, don’t work the old fashioned way!), but it’s worth loosening the reins a little - and it will turn out like in the example above. So that democracy does not turn into anarchy and permissiveness, the leader must have managerial experience.

In general, the democratic style is really a priority in young modern companies. The leader does not make decisions alone - he consults with the team, arranges brainstorming sessions, tries to ensure that each employee reveals his potential. He himself works on an equal footing or assigns himself the role of a consultant, mentor. If the Democrat boss is wrong, he does not blame the staff for everything, but draws conclusions. At the same time, he remains a leader - he does not remove himself from the main role, he does not emphasize that "we are all equal here, guys." That is, a team is a team, but the hierarchy must be built clearly.

Cons of democratic style

The possibility of anarchy, belittling the role of the leader, the emergence of opposition in the team. In general, everything that is described on the example of Alexei K.
Decisions can take a long time. The more people involved in the discussion, the longer the process can take. The case will be saved by clear deadlines for setting tasks. For example, 3 days are given for discussion and introduction of rationalization proposals - and not a second longer. This disciplines employees and speeds up business processes.

Advantages of democratic style

If no mistakes are made, a democratic style can become the basis for creating.

Strengthens team spirit makes employees real like-minded people united by one goal. Well, if the company has worked out - the mission and values, the main tasks for the coming years, the common Big Idea.
Reduces the number of errors in the work. The more people involved in solving the problem, the greater the chance that there will be best option. Just remember, the discussion should not be delayed.
Minimum staff turnover. Why leave the team if you share its values and tasks, you feel involved in one common purpose? That's right, no need. Employees rarely leave companies with a democratic management style (unless, of course, they join the team and share common values).

Person-centered style, or "Don't be afraid, I'm with you"

Olga B. worked with both Gennady Pavlovich and Alexei. The woman realized that both authoritarian and democratic styles have their pros and cons, and decided to act differently. Actually, she did not come up with anything new - she used a completely individual approach. Olga realized that each employee needs to work in their own way, and what is suitable for one is categorically unacceptable for another. For example, a quiet person may be shy at general planning meetings and brainstorming sessions, but in a personal conversation, she will begin to gush creative ideas. It is difficult for an owl man to come to the office by 9 am - his head does not understand, things are not being done, but in the evening the most fruitful time comes. Olga organized a free schedule for several comrades, she allowed introverts not to speak at the planning meeting in front of everyone. The employees appreciated the good attitude and began to call the boss “our mommy”. But without a fly in the ointment, there was a group of people who quickly found a good attitude as a weakness and began to openly score on work. Olga was worried, held soul-saving conversations, and only when the team filed a collective request for the dismissal of the offenders, she decided to take a bold step.

Practicing an individual approach is the right thing to do. Typically, bosses of this type (usually women) like to conduct psychological tests, arrange corporate parties and joint gatherings in order to get to know their employees better. However, you should not overprotect workers: you are not a hen, and they are not helpless chickens. Trust, but verify, be not a mom, but a boss - this is the moral of this fable.

Cons of a person-centered approach

As a rule, bosses of this type are soft, sensitive people. A good relationship they are more important than the profit of the company and its development. Therefore, as sad as it is, a soft boss can quickly be “eaten” his more resourceful colleagues or one of the number of subordinates.
Absence . Instead of giving clear instructions and controlling the process of completing tasks, such leaders either do everything themselves or forgive endless delays. Wake up guys, this is business! Here you need to make difficult decisions and take big risks, otherwise there is a risk of burnout and.

Advantages of an individual approach

Good relations in the team. Human relations are almost the main thing for half of the employees. If you are lucky enough to find an understanding boss, many will hold on to this place with their hands and teeth, even despite the low salary and small career prospects.
In a crisis situation employees will stand behind the boss with a mountain and will not let the company fall apart. “One for all and all for one” - this slogan still works.

So how should you?

In each of the three styles, we found our flaws. So what management style to choose, how to behave with subordinates? Much, of course, depends on your personality and type of character. A dictator by nature will never “deliver snot” and take care of the personality of each employee. And a quiet, intelligent woman is simply not able to crack her fist on the table and force her subordinates to work.

What to do? Combine management styles depending on the situation. This is called situational management. For example, if a force majeure event occurs, you need to turn on the dictator mode and give clear instructions that can save the situation. If you see that an employee is not coping with work, use an individual approach, talk to the person personally, find out what worries him. If you need to solve a new problem - stick to a democratic style, get the opinions of all employees and solve the problem together. Moreover, even in interaction with the same person, it is possible to apply different styles management - again, depending on the situation. Somewhere to be a tough leader, somewhere - a wise mentor, sometimes to provide the necessary paternal support. Here is a table to help you skillfully navigate between several management styles.

Of course, for this you need to be an experienced leader and a fairly flexible person. All this comes with time. Good luck to you, let everything work out!

The leader manages a group of people (organization) in accordance with his inherent management style.

The concept of " management style” arose after the allocation of managerial labor in the activities of the organization. But unlike the management style, it does not have independent stages of its development and is directly dependent on the development of science and management practice. The main difference is that management discards obsolete methods (techniques, models, provisions), enriching itself with new forms and methods. Style reflects not only best practices. The concept " management style» stands for any form in which managers perform management tasks.

There is a relationship between the concept management style» with different control categories. Style is at the junction of the following relationships:

laws - principles - methods - style;
laws - principles - style - methods;
– tasks – methods – style;
tasks - functions - qualities of a leader - style.

The style combines four interrelated directions into one: style – quality of managerial work – managerial decision – staff activities – result.

Relationships style with the main categories of control are such that the style is a consequence, on the one hand, of the methods, tasks and goals of management, on the other hand, the style has an impact on the application of a particular management method, so the style of the manager (management) should be considered as management style.

Style subject also to the laws in force in the social system, and the principles of management. Objective factors(conditions) style formation the tasks and functions of management act.

Management style- this is a system of established and constantly applied principles, behaviors, rules, procedures, reactions to emerging situations, methods characteristic of a particular state, organization and individual.

Depending on what principles the state, organization or individual is guided by in their life, certain management styles are formed.

autocratic(from Greek autokrateia - autocracy, autocracy) management style is a form of government when the leader has sufficient power to impose his will on the performers, and if necessary, without hesitation resorts to this.

Autocratic management style includes the following styles: totalitarian, authoritarian(command) and authoritarian-legal.

totalitarian style characterized on the basis of the complete centralization of power and authority, using coercion, subordination, suppression of people, groups and peoples up to their open destruction (examples: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc.). With the development of democracy and the creation of legal states, this style is becoming a thing of the past.

Authoritarian (command) style characterized by the fact that the leader usually centralizes authority as much as possible, structures the work of subordinates and gives them almost no freedom to make decisions. To ensure the performance of the work, he can apply psychological pressure through threats. This style is also based on rigid centralized management - oligarchy with a pronounced element of coercion (examples: Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Andropov, etc.).

This style of management was widely used in the Soviet period under the administrative-command system of economic management. AT modern conditions this style has been preserved by some leaders, entrepreneurs and businessmen in the countries in transition, in the CIS and in Ukraine.

Authoritarian-legal style management is characterized by the fact that methods, forms and means are built at the administrative level and are based on administrative - legal norms, rules, procedures and laws established by the constitutions and parliaments of countries.

Democratic style management is carried out through democratic norms, rules, procedures, which are regulated by the constitution and laws. This style is based on the observance of the rights and freedoms of the individual, on the wide involvement of people in management (develops self-government) and involves the preparation and decision-making with the interested participation of team members, the most trained specialists and capable organizers. Democratic-dominated organizations are characterized by high degree decentralization of powers. The head of this style personally deals only with the most complex and important issues, leaving subordinates to decide on their own all the rest in proportion to their qualifications and functions performed. Management through influence and reliance on employees is feature democratic management style, so this style is considered the most effective.

liberal style management is characterized by minimal participation of the head in management, the staff has complete freedom to make independent decisions in the main areas of the organization's production activities (having agreed upon them, of course, with the head). This style is justified if the staff performs creative or individual work and is staffed by highly qualified specialists with justifiably high ambitions. This style of management is based on high consciousness, devotion to a common cause and creative initiative of all personnel, although managing such a team is not an easy task.

conniving style management. With this style of management, the leader shows very little concern both for achieving the goals of the organization and for creating a favorable socio-psychological climate in the team. In fact, the leader withdraws from work, lets everything take its course and just spends time passing information from superiors to subordinates and vice versa.

mixed style management is inherent in managers who show equal care both for achieving high production results and for subordinates. Such leaders achieve average results in both areas of style components.