Management styles. Relations with subordinates. Democratic leadership scheme

An employee appointed to the position of manager is faced with the need to manage the rest of the employees of the companies. The concept of "management style" includes a combination of various techniques and methods aimed at increasing efficiency labor activity staff. According to experts, the effectiveness of the company's work depends on the effectiveness of the chosen methodology. Over the past ten years, all classic styles have undergone significant changes. The reasons for these changes are technological innovations and changes in the very conditions of work. In this article, we propose to consider the most effective HR styles.

Leadership style - a way, a system of methods of influencing a leader on subordinates

A competent leader as the basis for a successful business

The word "leader" is formed by merging the phrase "leading by the hand." Each company has an employee who is responsible for controlling the operation of all mechanisms. The labor collective is precisely the mechanism on which the future fate of the company depends. This means that the primary task of management is to track all the actions of employees. The administration of the company must make every effort to achieve the goals set by its owner. To accomplish this task, it is necessary to establish a competent connection between the management and the rest of the team.

The management style is the model of behavior chosen in relation to employees.

The term "style" has Greek roots. The word was originally used to refer to a metal rod that was used to write on wax boards. A little later, this word began to be used to refer to a unique handwriting. Based on the meaning of this word, we can conclude that the management style is a kind of method of communication with subordinates. The leadership style may differ depending on the personal qualities person. The formation of "handwriting" occurs in the process of working on managerial position... Many experts in the field of psychology note that all people have a unique model of behavior, despite the fact that they follow the same rules and regulations.

Types of styles in management

Personnel management methods are a hot topic around which loud controversy constantly arises. Psychologists and management specialists cannot come to a single solution regarding this issue. The very theory of personnel management appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century. During this time, the created methods have been repeatedly modified and acquired new meaning. The development of this science has led to the creation of several fundamental models of personnel management. Each methodology is unique and distinct from other leadership styles.

The leader at all levels of the organization's management system acts as a leading person

Authoritarianism

This term denotes an overbearing type of personnel management. The basis of this style is the desire to establish one's own power in all areas of the company's life. This method of management assumes that the employees of the firm will receive the least bit of information. This approach to management activities due to the fear of losing their own position and mistrust of the staff. Bosses who adhere to this style tend to fence themselves off from strong and talented employees.... The best employees are those who are able to guess the boss's thoughts from the first word.

This management style leads to gossip and intrigue within the team. It should be noted that in this case the workers are incapable of independent actions. Majority production issues are solved only with the help of their superiors, since none of the subordinates can predict the director's reaction to the initiative.

An authoritarian management style is characterized by the unpredictability of the actions of the person in charge. In such a situation, employees are afraid to talk about possible negative consequences. decisions taken... The chosen demeanor leads to the creation of the illusion that everything is happening according to an established plan. Employees do not dare to defend their own position even in a situation when they see inaccuracies in the manager's decision. It is important to note that such a policy of the company's administration interferes with the work of personnel due to strong moral pressure.

An authoritarian style implies the transfer of power to one person. The person who holds the position of the general director independently solves work issues, determines the role of each subordinate and deprives employees of the ability to make decisions on their own. The task of employees is to fulfill orders unquestioningly. It is the need for tight control that explains the fact that employees receive minimal information about the plans of their superiors. The person who has chosen this management model must be tough and domineering. The effectiveness of this method is observed only when the boss manages to impose his own will on his subordinates.

According to the director of the company himself, all subordinates try to avoid performing their immediate tasks. That is why bosses use different methods control and compulsion to work. These managers often implement various punishment systems in their businesses. The very atmosphere that prevails in the team is rarely taken into account, since the boss sets strict boundaries between himself and the employees. According to psychologists, this behavior has a number of adverse consequences. In this case, the company's employees are viewed only as a tool used to achieve the set goals. People working in such a collective often feel dissatisfaction with their work.

The emergence of intrigue, attempts to please bosses and expose their colleagues are excellent breeding grounds for the development of stress. An increase in psychological stress leads to the emergence of various diseases. The use of this behavior model is advisable only in a few cases:

1. Army and conditions of hostilities.
2. State structures that require building a clear hierarchical ladder.
3. Companies with a low level of employee consciousness.

Leadership style - the manner in which the leader behaves towards subordinates in order to influence and induce them to achieve the goals of the organization

Democracy

This management methodology is based on the fact that all employees of the company take part in the life of the organization. The task of the bosses includes an equal division of responsibility between all participants in the labor process. The name of this technique is derived from the Latin word "demos", which translates as "power of the people." Many psychologists claim that this style is one of the most effective models management... An analysis of the effectiveness of various management techniques showed that the option under consideration makes it possible to increase the productivity of workers by several times.

The bosses who use this technique have complete confidence in their employees and the decisions they make. In such a collective, equality reigns, and all workers accept Active participation in solving all important issues on the agenda. The use of this technique implies the creation of a trusting relationship between the employee and the administration.... This relationship is based on mutual understanding between all participants in the workflow.

Democratic management style allows you to find new ways to solve administrative issues, thanks to the participation of each employee in the discussion. This explains the desire of the authorities to listen to the opinion of all workers. This approach guarantees an improvement in the quality of work and acceleration of internal processes. Choosing this model of behavior means that the company's management will use methods of persuasion and incentives to subordinates, instead of trying to impose their own decisions. This method implies the use of penalties only in a situation where general manager will try all other available methods.

Many psychologists note the high efficiency of this behavior strategy. The bosses who use this technique are sincerely interested in the achievements of the employees. All decisions are made taking into account the needs of employees. A benevolent attitude contributes to the growth of initiative and activity of workers. A person who is completely satisfied with his job seeks to improve his professional skills and work results. In such an atmosphere, each person is content with his own situation. Most experts note that such an atmosphere has a positive effect on the psychological and physical health of employees.

The chosen leadership style is closely related to the personality traits of a person. Those who choose a democratic model of behavior have high authority among the staff. For this style to be effective, the boss needs to be an experienced speaker and subtle psychologist.... Only in the presence of all of the above qualities, this style will bring the desired result. Otherwise, the attempts of the bosses to adjust the work of the internal mechanisms of the company are doomed to failure.

Liberalism

The liberal management style in the organization can be called a free model of behavior, which implies tolerance and condescension to the employee's misconduct. This method implies complete freedom of action for each worker. The boss himself is rarely directly involved in working moments. As a rule, such persons seek to shift their functions to a deputy, entrusting him with control over the situation.

The choice of this model of behavior clearly demonstrates to others that the person in a leading position does not understand his responsibilities well. In this case, decisive action is taken only when such instructions come directly from the owner of the company. In the event of problems, such a director will try to evade the responsibility assigned to him. The decision of important issues related to the activities of the company is shifted to the deputy or other persons. In order to earn credibility among workers, liberals write bonuses or benefits to employees.

The leader is the leader and organizer in the management system

Despite all the shortcomings, this style also demonstrates effectiveness in some areas of business. This behavior pattern can be used in the following areas:

1. An affiliate company set up by several lawyers.
2. Writers' Union.
3. Firms involved in the creative field.

The opinions of psychologists are very contradictory in the case of this behavior model. In this case, it all depends on the nature of the workers themselves. The effectiveness of this management technique is observed in those companies where each employee is an independent, qualified and responsible employee. However, even in this case, the leader needs assistants who will from time to time establish strict discipline within the company.

It should be noted that there are a number of organizations in which subordinates manage management. In such companies, the boss is a good friend and companion. In the event of controversial issues and conflicts, employees show pronounced resistance. The very development of conflicts and other negative phenomena is explained by the lack of discipline and the devil-may-care attitude of the authorities. Such directors try to distance themselves from the management of the firm as far as possible. The main issue that worries such a director is maintaining a friendly relationship with subordinates.

Coaching as a new direction in management

Coaching is a mixture of psychoanalysis and business. This view management activity appeared just a few years ago. It is important to note that this business management system is rapidly gaining momentum.
In this case, the business coach does not give direct instructions and rarely delves into the problems of the team. Such consultations are based on the fact that the employee who describes his own problem independently finds the right solutions. Today this style is considered one of the promising areas.

Management Styles by Douglas McGregor Theory

Having considered the main management styles of the leader, it is necessary to mention the theory of Douglas McGregor. This American psychologist in the early sixties put forward two theories on the motivation of workers and managerial activity.

One-dimensional

The one-dimensional methodology is based on the fact that in the minds of the management, all the workers of the company are trying to step aside from their obligations because of their laziness. In order to induce them to perform their work functions, it is necessary to use various methods of reward. This behavior of workers forces the administration to carefully monitor the team. Those in leadership positions rarely trust their workers. A climate of mistrust negatively affects team performance. The one-dimensional leadership style bears a strong resemblance to the authoritarian style.

Management styles are shaped by specific conditions and circumstances.

Multidimensional

Those using this model of behavior believe that each employee has an internal incentive to improve their labor results... Such bosses fully trust the staff, believing that the latter receive satisfaction from the tasks performed. This theory suggests that giving leeway and not having rigid rules significantly increases productivity.

Likert control styles

Rensis Likert is an American psychologist who has developed his own system of principles of managerial behavior. According to this theory, all people in management positions are divided into two distinct groups. Representatives of the first group focus on solving production problems. Persons belonging to the second group put relationships in the team in the first place.

According to the scientist, the company's profitability depends on the level of productivity and dynamics of legal relations in the team. This means that a good result can be achieved only with the competent use of the labor force. A competent leader must know all the pluses and minuses of each employee. This approach allows you to divide the entire team into several separate groups, each of which will demonstrate high efficiency.

According to Likert, the effectiveness of a company depends not only on the skill level of personnel, but also on human motives. This means that creating a team where all participants in the process work together will significantly increase labor results.

Conclusions (+ video)

In this article, we looked at management styles in management. Each of the above styles has unique features, pros and cons. It is important to note that most people use mixed behaviors. The mixing of these models is explained by the individual characteristics of the personality of each person.

In contact with

Management style is the way in which the leader manages the subordinates and the model of the leader's behavior. With the help of the adopted management style, satisfaction of subordinates with work is achieved, labor productivity is encouraged.

There are the following styles of governance: autocratic, democratic and liberal (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Types of control styles

The choice of a management style is based on a specific situation and a set of factors. Subjective factors include the temperament of the leader and subordinates, a person's abilities, and manner of communication. Objective factors include the content of the work performed, the complexity of the problem being solved, the complexity of the working conditions of the organization or unit, the hierarchy of management, the socio-political situation.

Characteristics of organizational management styles

The authoritarian (directive) style of management is characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of one leader; subordinates do not participate in the organization of activities. Signs of using an authoritarian style are:

• the leader, by virtue of his power, manages employees and expects them to fulfill orders,
• there is no justification for the decisions made in front of subordinates,
• manager's decisions are orders that are binding,
• in case of non-fulfillment of the orders of the head of the subordinates, they are waiting for sanctions,
• significant distance between the leader and subordinates.

At the same time, the following requirements should be presented to the leader: conscientiousness, self-control, the ability to make decisions and take responsibility for them. The advantage of using this management style is quick decision making, especially in emergencies. The disadvantages are the low level of independence and initiative of the performers, the excessive exactingness of the head to the subordinates, which leads to a large turnover of personnel.

The democratic management style is based on the interaction of a manager and a subordinate, in which authority and responsibility for their implementation is transferred to the company's employees. At the same time, the burden is removed from the head, the initiative of employees is encouraged, their work motivation and readiness to take responsibility are enhanced.

Factors for the successful application of a democratic management style are: delegation of authority and responsibility to subordinates, establishment of a procedure for regulating relations in a team, coordination of decisions made by a leader, use of reasonable discipline and a differentiated approach to people.

The advantages of using this management style include unloading the manager, the appearance labor motivation from members labor collective... Disadvantages include a strong focus on tasks rather than on team members.

The liberal management style is characterized by insignificant managerial interference in the functioning of the organization. Most often, the tasks of a manager are reduced to mediation and providing the performers with the necessary information.

A feature of this style is that an informal leader or deputy liberal leader is singled out from the team, who assumes the authority and responsibility in making managerial decisions.

In cases of managing creative teams, this style is more effective than others; in other cases, its effectiveness is low.

Any team has its own leader, this is the simplest common truth. A leader is needed to make decisions and guide society. At the enterprise, these functions are performed by a manager (foreman, head of department or chief specialist). Scientists have noticed that each manager leads in his own way. And leadership characters have been combined into management styles in management. For more information on what management is, see the article:

Management styles in management: authoritarian style

An authoritarian manager is characterized by a dry character, a lack of trusting relationships with subordinates. The process of working in this spirit resembles a tough army style: orders are not discussed. True, even such a working mood has its advantages.

Advantages. Clarity of the given orders, high speed of execution, does not require large financial costs... Promotes team rallying against the bosses.

Disadvantages. Lack of motivation for employees, no work to create a favorable climate. In such companies, many subordinates cannot withstand the onslaught and are fired.

Democratic management style

Democracy is the official form of government of the people in the state. At the enterprise, this style is reflected in similar features, only the chief is still not elected here. Democracy is expressed in trade unions or similar associations, in periodic meetings and collective decision-making.

Such companies are characterized by fast career growth, active motivation and the latest management formulas. This style is recognized as the best for modern society therefore, many leading firms are actively working to get as close as possible to democratic management.

Advantages. Psychological motivation for work, creating a favorable climate for work. Perspective career growth for the employee, due to which there is no professional "stagnation" at the enterprise. Natural competition in working conditions, which additionally stimulates to work better.

Disadvantages. Democratic governance requires a lot of effort and focus to control. Moreover, in order to create the best atmosphere in the team, it requires careful selection of employees.

Liberal management style

This management style is the most damaging to the firm's economy. A liberal manager differs from a democrat in his apparent detachment from the work process. In such a company, the management plays a minimal role, giving everything on bail to subordinates.

Typically, this management style is characterized by a timid manager without clear leadership traits. In this case, subordinates are untied their hands and they receive complete freedom of choice. Not to be confused with the democratic style. In both cases, there is no visible onslaught and suppression of initiative, but the democrat manager still remains extremely attentive to the team and controls it with an “invisible hand”. For a liberal, the manifestation of such traits is the result of a weak character or lack of interest in work.

Advantages. An excellent opportunity for a subordinate to realize himself, take the place of a manager or lead a team without official authority. The loyalty of superiors is often the reason for generous wages.

Disadvantages. This style is not conducive to improving the efficiency of the firm as a whole. Liberalism in the enterprise creates duality in management: formally, the manager has authority, but his leader (one of his colleagues) actually manages the team.

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." Modern specialists need deep knowledge of management, and for this they need 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", 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 include many components, and it is not easy to reduce them to one value and compare with the results of applying 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 increasing 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 his subordinates.

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

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

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- method, 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 the team. Most researchers identify the following management styles:

Democratic style (collegiate);

Liberal style (anarchic).

Management style- this is 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. The 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 leadership style 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, assigns responsibilities, and for the most part specifies the appropriate procedures, manages, checks, evaluates and corrects the work being done.

1) in extreme conditions(crisis, emergency, etc.) when quick and decisive action is required, when time pressure does not allow for 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 only instructions to the executors. 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 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 a lot and notice, but keep quiet, either, receiving moral satisfaction from this, or believing that he still cannot be re-educated. The leader understands the current situation, but is powerless to blame others for the mistakes they made, since the subordinates did not participate in working out the decision. This is how a kind of vicious circle is formed, which sooner or later leads to the development in an organization or unit of an unfavorable moral and psychological climate and the creation of grounds for conflicts.

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

Threats of punishment, although present, do not prevail.

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

Special studies have shown that although under conditions of an authoritarian style of management it is possible to perform in quantitative terms a larger amount of work 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 restrain individual initiative and one-way flow of information from top to bottom, there is no necessary feedback.

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

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

DEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT STYLE (COLLEGE)

Democratic style management is characterized by the distribution of powers, initiative and responsibility between the head and deputies, the head and subordinates. The leader of the democratic style always finds out the opinion of the team on important production issues, makes collegial decisions. Members of the team are regularly and promptly 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 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 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 granted powers, 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 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 leader focuses on solving the task assigned to him (distributes tasks among subordinates, plans, draws up work schedules, develops approaches to their implementation, provides everything necessary, etc.) was called task-oriented (instrumental). The style when the leader creates a favorable moral and psychological climate, organizes joint work, focuses on mutual assistance, allows the 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 performers in a position of dependence, generates their passivity, which ultimately leads to a decrease in work efficiency.

The leader here basically informs the subordinates about their duties and 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 is 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 on the basis of their own opinion, taking into account the opinions of subordinates.

LIBERAL, INCLUDING BUROCRATIC

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, determines 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 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 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 the affairs, handing them over to the "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 degree 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, each of the three leadership styles is present to one degree or another.

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

THEORY OF CONTROL STYLES

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

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

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

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

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

extreme situations requiring immediate solutions;

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

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

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

Management science is based on a system of basic provisions, elements, models, leadership styles, 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 characteristics 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 employees, 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 leadership style. Even the most experienced leader, who is fluent in management theory, is not immune to an unreasonable, emotional reaction to a situation.

Not only the authority of the leader and the effectiveness of his work depends on the choice of the leadership style, but also the atmosphere in the team and the relationship between subordinates and the leader. When the whole 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.