Cinema with a democratic management style. How to choose a personnel management style: characteristics of styles and methods

"Style is a person." In the influence on subordinates, communication with partners, clients, the personality traits of any boss are manifested. The concept of leadership style is directly related to the essence of management. How do adherents of radically opposite methods solve various management issues? Read on in our review.

Three methods of leadership

Management methods are varied, but for scientific purposes they are divided into three main groups:

• administrative-organizational, or team methods;
• economic;
• psychological methods.

An experienced manager, taking into account the situation and characteristics of the team, selects a set of the most effective measures from each group.

The choice of methods and the frequency of their use are influenced not only by objective reasons, but also by the personal preferences of the manager. "Favorite" skills in general leave an imprint on all business communication with colleagues. Team leadership styles are a collection of methods and measures implemented by a manager.

Typology of styles

Today Kurt Lewin's typology is in demand and actual. The psychologist identified three management styles: autocratic, democratic and neutral. Styles are different management methods, control systems, presence or absence of delegation of authority.

The authoritarian leadership style is based largely on organizational and administrative methods, sanctions and rationing. Collegiate - social, psychological and economic. The liberal style does not require a clear methodological system.

Authoritarian leadership style

An autocrat tends to focus all work processes under his own close attention: "Where not himself - so there is a grave!" He always relies only on his own strength. Usually the autocrat believes that subordinates do not like to work, as "small children" they need to be forced. Gives orders and orders, insisting on complete obedience. Violation of its requirements is punishable by sanctions. "Minimum democracy, maximum control." All actions of the personnel are clearly regulated by instructions, regulations and require constant participation of the superiors.

This style of leadership in the organization is aimed more at improving the efficiency of the work process. It gives such results as: high productivity, profitability, overfulfillment of the plan. On the other hand, the leader chooses a position outside the group, and the socio-psychological climate and collective interests are not always taken into account. The subordinate ceases to be a person, but turns into a "bolt" of the bureaucratic system.

The advantage of a strong supervisory function sometimes translates into a 25-hour workload for a manager! Strengthening the bureaucracy with the growth of the organization deprives management decisions of efficiency.

The authoritarian style of leadership is not for every managerial power. For an adherent of this style, it is important to "preserve authority" without stopping to permissiveness and arbitrariness. Planning tactics, strategies, focus on results, and not blindly following prescriptions and instructions, will help to avoid traps. The authoritarian style of leadership is characterized by the maintenance of discipline at a high level, therefore, in a crisis, emergency work, it is simply necessary.

Pros and cons of an autocratic style

Weaknesses

one-man management; focus on results; good discipline; efficiency, quick response; minimum time and material costs; efficiency in difficult periods: crisis, organization formation and others.

high dependence of working groups on the leader; great volitional pressure and control from the authorities; suppression of initiative employees, stagnation, inability to apply creative potential; ineffective motivation, poor socio-psychological climate, staff dissatisfaction; sole control, which requires a significant investment of time and effort; the likelihood of error in individual decisions.

Thus, the authoritarian leadership style has many drawbacks, therefore it is effective only with experienced, skillful leadership. Applicable in certain industrial, crisis situations related to debts, interruption of supplies, and possible bankruptcy. But on condition that the subordinates agree to such methods and forgive the "tsar" for the dictator's habits for the results achieved.

Democratic style

A democratic leadership style is efficient in terms of productivity and is not inferior to an autocratic one. Under the leadership of a democrat, employees form a close-knit team, are satisfied with work and labor relations, are active, proactive.

The Democrat leader always organizes the discussion of the problem. As the saying goes, "one head thinks is good, but two or more thinks is better." The collective method of making managerial decisions increases the likelihood of their correctness.

With a collegial style, a lot of time is not wasted in the control process, because the manager's attention is drawn to the results of labor, and not the entire course of work, as in autocratic management. Powers are actively delegated to employees who also monitor the results of work. For a democrat, the staff is the main resource and source of information.

Motivation in the team increases due to interest in the personality of the employee. People feel that they are involved in a common cause. This leadership style in an organization allows for streamlined feedback.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the democratic style?

This style is applicable in the conditions of formation, growth of an enterprise with a fairly stable team. It is very useful in crisis situations during internal environment firms, when problems arise in relationships, work processes.

Authoritarian democratic style

The presence of the indisputable merits of collegial management does not mean “scrapping” the authoritarian style. In the practice of management, a combined style of leadership is actively used - "authoritarian-democratic", which combines the advantages of two styles.

A complex approach, based on contradictions. What to keep in priority: creativity(democratic methods) or discipline (organizational methods)? The selection of the main parameter for a particular situation is carried out by ranking factors or a combination of methods. For example, maintaining democracy in the decision-making process and authoritarianism at the stage of their implementation.

Conclusion

Basic leadership styles should be applied as appropriate. An experienced manager has different approaches. But it is impossible to radically change styles because of the psychological inclination to certain methods of management. An autocrat is not able to turn into a democrat overnight, but he can adjust his own management style according to the circumstances.

A varied arsenal of methods and methods of personnel management contributes to successful activities in the field of management. The development of these skills cannot happen by itself, as managerial talent does not arise spontaneously, it must be developed and trained.

Each leader has a specific management style.

Management style is a relatively stable system of ways, methods and forms of influence of the head on subordinates in accordance with the goals 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 loosely 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 assist the official authorities in solving social problems, in particular, the problems of pollution of the environment. 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 values ​​and institutions market economy led to social tension in a society brought up on socialist values.

The second management style is democratic, when the leader tries not to show own initiative, and supports initiatives "from below." 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.

The word "style" is of Greek origin, which originally meant a rod for writing on a wax board, and later came to be used in the meaning of "handwriting." Thus, the leadership style is the "handwriting" in the actions of the leader.

The management style depends on the characteristics of the manager's administrative and leadership qualities. In the process of labor activity, an individual type, "handwriting" of the leader is formed, which makes it possible to focus on the fact that there are no and cannot be two identical leaders with the same leadership style. Thus, the leadership style is a strictly individual phenomenon, as it is determined by the specific characteristics of a particular person and reflects the peculiarities of working with people.

Also, the style of leadership is understood as the steadily manifested features of the interaction of the leader with the team, which are formed under the influence of both objective and subjective conditions of management, and the individual psychological characteristics of the leader's personality.

An effective leader, when choosing a management style, should keep in mind the following circumstances:

Know yourself;

Understand the situation;

Assess the management style adequately to the situation and the level of subordinates;

Consider the needs of the group;

Consider the needs of the situation and of the subordinates.

Each leader has his own personal characteristics, which are manifested in the leadership process, therefore, different leadership styles are formed. According to the most common in management activities the classification distinguishes the following management styles:

2 Democratic (collegial).

3 Liberal (permissive, permissive, neutral).

Authoritarian leadership style

The authoritarian style of leadership (influence) is imperious, based on the desire to assert one's influence, authority. With this style, the leader is committed to the formal nature of the relationship with subordinates. He provides his employees with only a minimum of information, because he does not trust anyone, tries to get rid of strong workers and talented people. For him, the best employee is the one who knows how to understand the thoughts of the boss. In such an atmosphere, gossip and intrigue flourish. However, such a management system does not contribute to the development of the independence of workers, since subordinates try to resolve all issues with the management. None of the employees knows how their manager will react to certain events; he is unpredictable. People are afraid to tell him bad news, and as a result, he lives in the confidence that everything turned out as he intended. Employees do not argue and do not ask questions, even if they see serious mistakes in the manager's decision. As a result, the activity of such a leader does not allow subordinates to show initiative, interferes with their work.

This leadership style is characterized by the centralization and concentration of power in the hands of one leader. He single-handedly decides all issues, determines the activities of subordinates, not giving them the opportunity to show initiative. Subordinates do what is ordered; the information they need is kept to a minimum. The activities of subordinates are strictly controlled. It consists in the fact that the leader seeks to concentrate power in his hands, takes full responsibility for the results. Such a leader has enough power to impose his will on the workers.

So, under an authoritarian management style, the subordinate is perceived as having aversion to work and, if possible, avoiding it. In this case, the employee needs constant coercion, control, punishment. The subordinate constantly avoids responsibility, prefers to be led.

An autocrat deliberately appeals to the needs of a lower level of his subordinates on the assumption that this is the level that is most important to the subordinates.

From a psychological point of view, an authoritarian management style is unfavorable. The autocrat leader has no interest in the employee as a person. Due to the suppression of their initiative and creativity, employees are passive. They are not satisfied with their work and position in the team. With this style of leadership, additional reasons appear that affect the emergence of an unfavorable psychological climate: “sycophants” appear, intrigues are created. All this is the cause of increased psychological stress, which is harmful to the mental and physical health of people.

In conditions emergencies, accidents, hostilities;

At the first stages of creating a new team;

In collectives with a low level of consciousness of members.

1.4.1.1 Aggressive leadership style

The leader who adopts this style assumes that people are generally lazy and stupid by nature, which means that they try to avoid work at the first opportunity. Therefore, subordinates must be forced to work. Such a leader does not allow himself to be soft and involved. In dealing with people, he is usually unfriendly, often rude. Seeks to keep subordinates at a distance from himself, limits contact with them. When communicating with employees, he often raises his voice, actively gestures, and offends people.

1.4.1.2 Aggressively Compliant Leadership Style

This style is characterized by selectivity. The leader is aggressive towards his subordinates and at the same time pliable, servile towards his superiors. They are afraid to show their own weaknesses and shortcomings.

1.4.1.3 Selfish Leadership

A leader who shares this leadership style solves all issues of production and the activities of the team single-handedly. It seems to him that he knows everything himself, and therefore strives for autocracy, does not tolerate any objections, is inclined to hasty, but not always correct decisions.

1.4.1.4 Kind-hearted leadership style

The basis of this style is the authoritarian nature of leadership, however, the leader gives his subordinates the opportunity to participate, within a limited framework, in making certain decisions. To assess the performance of employees, along with the dominant system of punishments, rewards are also used.

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 the complex typical requirements to 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, 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 best workers, but also creates a hostile atmosphere around him that threatens him. 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. Superfluous disciplinary action 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, emphasizes mutual assistance, allows performers to participate as much as possible in decision-making, 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 softer and more focused 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 personality traits, is both "democrat" and "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.

The leader at all levels of the organization's management system acts as a leading person, since it is he who determines the purposefulness 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 achieving the objectives of the organization.

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

Leadership style- the demeanor of the leader in relation to subordinates, in order to influence them and induce them to achieve.

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

One of the most common leadership theories is leadership theory by K. Levin(1938).

She identifies three leadership styles:

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

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

Considerable attention was paid to the study of leadership styles in the writings of R. Likert, who in 1961 proposed a continuum of leadership styles. Its extremes are work-centered leadership and person-centered leadership, with all other types of leadership behavior in between.

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

1. Exploitative-authoritarian: the leader has clear characteristics of an autocrat, does not trust his subordinates, rarely involves them in decision-making, and forms the tasks himself. The main incentive is fear and the threat of punishment, rewards are random, interaction is based on mutual distrust. and are in confrontation.
2. Paternalistic-authoritarian: The leader favorably allows subordinates to have limited participation in decision-making. The reward is real and the punishment is potential, both are used to motivate workers. The informal organization is in part opposed to the formal structure.
3. Advisory: the leader makes strategic decisions and, by showing trust, tactical decisions delegates to subordinates. The limited involvement of workers in the decision-making process is used for motivation. The informal organization does not coincide with the formal structure only partially.
4. Democratic the management style is characterized by complete trust, based on the wide involvement of personnel 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 organization interact constructively.

R. Likert called model 1 task-oriented with a rigidly structured management system, and model 4 - relationship-oriented, which are based on the brigade organization of labor, collegial management, and general control. According to R. Likert, the latter approach is the most effective.

Choosing a management style

Management style- represents the demeanor of the leader in relation to subordinates, allowing you to influence them and force them to do what is needed at the moment.

Management styles are shaped by specific conditions and circumstances. In this regard, it is possible to 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" management styles

Parameters of interaction between the manager and subordinates		Democratic style management	Liberal style management
Decision making techniques	Solves all issues on his own	When making decisions, consults with the team	Waits for instructions from the management or gives the initiative into the hands of subordinates
A way of communicating decisions to executors	Orders, orders, commands	Proposes, asks, approves the proposals of subordinates	Asks, begs
Distribution of responsibilities	Completely in the hands of the leader	According to the authority	Completely in the hands of the performers
Attitude towards initiative	Suppresses completely	Encourages, uses in the best interests of the cause	Gives initiative to subordinates
	Afraid of skilled workers, trying to get rid of them	Selects business, literate workers	Not engaged in recruiting
Attitude towards knowledge	He believes that he knows everything himself	Constantly learns and demands the same from subordinates	Enhances his knowledge and encourages this trait in subordinates
Communication style	Roughly formal, uncommunicative, keeps distance	He is friendly, loves to communicate, positively goes to contacts	Afraid of communication, communicates with subordinates only on their initiative, we allow familiar communication
The nature of relations with subordinates	By mood, uneven	Smooth, friendly, demanding	Soft, undemanding
Discipline attitude	Tough, formal	Reasonable disciplinarian, takes a differentiated approach to people	Soft, formal
Attitude towards moral influence on subordinates	Considers punishment as the main method of incentives, encourages the elite only on holidays	Constantly uses different incentives	Uses reward more often than punishment

Douglas McGregor's "X" and "Y" theories became a prerequisite for the establishment of various "one-dimensional" management styles. So, according to Theory "X", people are inherently lazy and avoid work at the first opportunity. They are completely lacking in ambition, so they prefer to be leaders, not take responsibility and seek protection from the strong. To get people to work, you need to use coercion, total control and the threat of punishment. However, according to McGregor, people are not such by nature, but due to difficult living and working conditions, which began to change for the better only from the second half of the twentieth century. In favorable conditions, a person becomes who he really is, and his behavior is reflected in 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 involved in the process of self-management and self-control, as well as in creativity. And such an introduction is

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

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 McGregor published his point of view on the bipolarity of opinions on how to manage people. Theory X and Theory Y, presented in The Human Side of the Enterprise, are widely recognized by managers.

Theory X

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

Theory Y

1. Work is as natural as play is for a child.
2. A person can exercise self-control and self-control. A reward is a result associated with the achievement of a goal.
3. The average person strives for responsibility.

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

On the basis of 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 humans. The first line of force determines the manager's attitude to production. The second line (vertical) determines the manager's attitude to the person (improving working conditions, taking into account desires, needs, etc.).

Let's take a look at the different leadership styles shown in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10. Leadership styles

• Type 1.1 - the manager does not care about anything, works so as not to be fired. This style is considered purely theoretical.
• Type 9.1 is a rigid administration style in which the only goal for the manager is the production result.
• Type 1.9 is a liberal or passive leadership style. In this case, the head focuses on human relations.
• Type 5.5 is in the middle of the "management grid". With such a compromise, average labor results are achieved; there can be no sharp breakthrough forward. At the same time, this leadership style contributes to stability and conflict-freeness.
• Type 9.9 is considered the most effective. The leader tries to structure 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.

Situational Marketing Concepts

Attempts to define a universal leadership style have failed because the effectiveness of management depends not only on the management style of the leader, but also on many factors. Therefore, they began to look for the answer 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.Hous... At its core, it is based on motivational expectation 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 any personal benefit from it. The Mitchell and House model includes four management styles:

If employees have a great need for self-esteem and belonging to the team, then the "style support".

When employees strive for autonomy and autonomy, it is better to use " instrumental style "similar to the one 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 the necessary conditions work.

Where subordinates strive for high results and are confident that they will be able to achieve them, a style oriented towards " participation"subordinates in decision-making, most of all corresponds to a situation when they strive to realize themselves in managerial activities. The leader must share information with them, widely use their ideas in the process of preparation and decision-making.

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

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

1. The manager himself makes decisions based on the information available.
2. The leader informs the subordinates of the essence of the problem, listens to their opinions and makes decisions.
3. The leader presents the problem to his subordinates, summarizes the opinions expressed by them and, taking them into account, makes his own decision.
4. The leader, together with his subordinates, discusses the problem, and as a result, they develop a common opinion.
5. The leader constantly works in conjunction with a group that either develops collective decision, or accepts the best, no matter who the author is.