Leading global companies with an authoritarian management method. About management styles in management in simple words

Authoritarianism in the classical definition means sole and undeniable power in one, arbitrarily appointed person and his immediate circle, or a limited group of people. This type social culture, until the 20th century, dominated the mass consciousness of people with virtually no alternative.

Authoritarianism does not exclude dictatorship and can be part of it, but this is fundamental various concepts. Unlike dictatorship, authoritarianism does not impose significant restrictions on the freedom of people in society when choosing everything that does not relate to power and does not contradict the position of the leader. Only their right to self-government, their own point of view and disobedience is limited.

Authoritarian style

In fact, any new socio-political movement, including revolutions, is authoritarianism, since they are headed by a leader with unquestionable authority. Main characteristics authoritarian style consists of unconditional submission to self-proclaimed authority, regardless of form, scale and direction social structure.

At the same time, the support of the authoritarian leader by the majority of members of society does not play a decisive role. Power can be obtained through traditional, financial and/or coercive leverage. It is enough for an authoritarian leader to win the favor of the people who actually hold power, and through them he will be able to extend it to other members of society.

Authoritarian democratic style

Authoritarianism played an important role in the social consciousness of people. Most striking examples manifestations of everyday authoritarian power Patriarchy and gerontocracy stand out. Such authoritarianism is often called traditional. The personality of the leader is not decisive, since his power is accepted by others as self-evident.

At the same time, authoritarianism was a transitional stage between direct dictatorship and democracy. For example, the authoritarian-democratic style allows for the possibility of expressing own opinion on any issue that does not affect the interests of the ruling elite.

Authoritarian liberal style

The desire for power is integral part ambitious person. The authoritarian liberal style of activity gives rise to a voluntary gathering of a group of less strong-willed people around a person with leadership qualities. The authoritarian-liberal style does not require blind obedience, but only imposes prohibitions and restrictions, without interference in personal life.

An authoritarian personality independently proclaims himself a leader. However, without recognition of this right decisive part community, actual government is impossible. For a person to become authoritarian in the eyes of others, certain conditions must be met.

Authoritarian teaching style

The authoritarian style of raising children, historically expressed in gerontocracy, can be called the most productive and even natural. The authority of parents, teachers and educators is necessary for a child to feel safe.

Moreover, the authoritarian style of the teacher allows you to quickly perceive basic information. The relationship between teacher and students is always built on the principle of authority, since otherwise the acquired knowledge will not be perceived as reliable. However, the authoritarian style of pedagogical communication is not a dictate at all.

Authoritarian parenting style

Proper authoritarianism does not affect personal freedoms. An authoritarian parenting style is characterized by the inadmissibility of controlling aspects of life during the learning process that do not directly affect the quality of perception of the training program. Internal protest to an unreasonable demand can undermine trust in authority, worsening the relationship between the explainer and the listener.

Authoritarian leadership or management style

An authoritarian management style is effective when working with small groups. Lower-level managers are able to use the authoritarian style most productively. To maintain authority, regular direct contact and direct communication with subordinates is necessary.

At the same time, the authoritarian style of decision-making, expressed through the personal responsibility of the leader, is good example for staff. This authoritarian style of leader increases trust in him, strengthens power and allows him to effectively manage. Conversely, a charismatic but irresponsible manager will not be able to force his subordinates to follow his instructions.

Authoritarian style in behavior, communication and relationships

The authoritarian style of decision-making, expressed through the personal responsibility of the leader, is a good example for others. A person who not only strives to make important decisions, but is also responsible for them, finds it much easier to convince others to follow his instructions.

Authoritarian leadership style

First of all, a controlled society must recognize the need for an authoritative leader who will concentrate power in his hands. At the same time, the individual himself, claiming to be an authoritarian leader, must have significant influence, charisma, high leadership qualities and impressive rhetoric.

Pros and cons of an authoritarian style

The authoritarian style remains the most effective in initial stages learning and for primary motivation, especially for labile people. The unconditional authority of the leader suppresses critical perception and appeal to own experience. This approach is productive while the student does not yet have enough information for independent analysis.

Any team has its leader, this is the simplest truism. A leader is needed to make decisions and direct the activities of 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 were combined into management styles in management. Read more about what management is in the article:

Management styles in management: authoritarian style

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

Advantages. Clarity of orders given, high speed of execution, does not require large financial costs. Promotes team unity “against the authorities.”

Flaws. Lack of motivation for employees, no work to create favorable climate. In such companies, many subordinates cannot withstand the pressure and quit.

Democratic management style

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

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

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 encourages you to work better.

Flaws. Democratic governance requires a lot of effort and attention to control. Moreover, to create the best atmosphere in the team, it requires careful selection of workers.

Liberal management style

This management style is the most destructive for the firm's economy. A liberal manager differs from a democrat by his apparent detachment from the work process. In such a company, management plays a minimal role, entrusting everything to subordinates.

Typically, this style of management is characterized by a timid manager without obvious features leader. In this case, subordinates' hands are freed and they receive complete freedom of choice. Not to be confused with the democratic style. In both cases, there is no visible pressure and suppression of initiative, but the democratic manager still remains extremely attentive to the team and controls them with an “invisible hand.” For a liberal, the manifestation of such traits is a consequence weak character or lack of interest in work.

Advantages. An excellent opportunity for a subordinate to realize his potential, take the place of a manager or lead a team without official authority. Loyalty from superiors is often the reason for generous pay.

Flaws. This style does not contribute to improving the efficiency of the company as a whole. Liberalism in an enterprise creates duality in management: formally the manager has the authority, but the leader (one of his colleagues) actually manages the team.

"Style is a person." The personal traits of any boss are revealed in influencing subordinates, communicating with partners, and clients. The concept of leadership style is directly related to the essence of management. How do adherents of radically opposing methods solve various management issues? Read our review.

Three Methods of Guidance

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

• administrative-organizational, or command 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 generally leave an imprint on all business communication with colleagues. Team management styles are a set of methods and measures implemented by the manager.

Typology of styles

Kurt Lewin's typology is in demand and relevant today. The psychologist identified three management styles: autocratic, democratic and neutral. Styles differ in management methods, control systems, and the presence or absence of delegation of authority.

The authoritarian leadership style is based on to a greater extent on organizational and administrative methods, sanctions and regulation. Collegial - social, psychological and economic. The liberal style does not require a clear methodological system.

Authoritarian leadership style

It is common for an autocrat to concentrate all work processes under his close attention: “Where he is not himself, there is a grave!” He always relies only on his own strength. Typically, an autocrat believes that his subordinates do not like to work, and that they must be forced like “little children.” Gives orders and instructions, insisting on complete obedience. Violation of its requirements is punishable by sanctions. “Minimum democracy, maximum control.” All personnel actions are clearly regulated by instructions, regulations and require constant participation superiors.

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

Such an advantage as a strong control function sometimes turns into a 25-hour workload a day for a manager! The strengthening of bureaucracy as the organization grows deprives management decisions of efficiency.

Not every manager can handle an authoritarian leadership style. For an adherent of this style, it is important to “maintain authority” without stooping to permissiveness or arbitrariness. Planning tactics, strategies, focusing on results, and not blindly following prescriptions and instructions, will help you avoid pitfalls. An authoritarian leadership style is characterized by maintaining discipline high level, therefore, in times of crisis, emergency situations, it is simply necessary.

Pros and cons of the autocratic style

Thus, the authoritarian leadership style has many disadvantages, and therefore is effective only with experienced, skillful leadership. Applicable in certain production and crisis situations related to debts, cessation of supplies, and possible bankruptcy. But provided that subordinates agree to such methods and forgive the “king” for the dictator’s habits for the results achieved.

Democratic style

The democratic leadership style is effective in terms of productivity and is not inferior to the autocratic one. Employees under the leadership of a democrat form a cohesive team, are satisfied with their work and labor relations, are active and proactive.

The democratic leader always organizes a discussion of the problem. As they say, “one head thinks good, but two or more are better.” The collective method of making management decisions increases the likelihood of their correctness.

With a collegial style, much time is not lost in the control process, because the manager’s attention is drawn to the results of work, and not the entire progress of work, as with autocratic management. Powers are actively delegated to employees who monitor the results of the work. For a democrat, staff is the main resource and source of information.

Motivation in a team increases due to interest in the employee’s personality. People feel involved in a common cause. This leadership style in an organization allows for the implementation of well-functioning feedback.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the democratic style?

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

Authoritarian-democratic style

The presence of undeniable advantages of collegial management does not mean that the authoritarian style has been “discarded.” In management practice, a combined leadership style is actively used - “authoritarian-democratic”, combining the advantages of the two styles.

A complex approach containing contradictions at its core. What should you prioritize: 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 to the situation. An experienced manager owns different approaches. But it is impossible to radically change styles due to psychological inclination towards certain management methods. An autocrat cannot turn into a democrat overnight, but he can adjust his own management style to suit the circumstances.

A diverse arsenal of methods and methods of personnel management contributes to successful activities in the field of management. The development of these skills cannot happen on its own, just as managerial talent does not arise spontaneously; it must be developed and trained.

Leadership style- a method, a system of methods of influence of a leader on subordinates. One of the most important factors for the effective operation of an organization, the full realization of the potential capabilities of people and teams. Most researchers identify the following leadership styles:

Democratic style (collegial);

Liberal style (permissive or anarchic).

Authoritarian management style characterized by high centralization of leadership and dominance of unity of command. The manager demands that all matters be reported to him and makes decisions alone 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, and deprivation of various benefits. Control is very strict, detailed, depriving subordinates of initiative. The interests of the business are placed significantly above the interests of people, harshness and rudeness predominate in communication. An authoritarian leadership style has a negative impact on the moral and psychological climate and leads to a significant decrease in initiative, self-control and responsibility of employees.

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

the average person is lazy and avoids work as much as possible;

employees are unambitious, afraid of responsibility and want to be led;

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

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

Theory "X"

1. Average person has an innate aversion to work and will strive to avoid it if possible.

2. Therefore, the majority of people must be forced to work, controlled and directed under threat of punishment, so that they can make their contribution to achieve the goal.

3. The employee is inclined to be led, he avoids responsibility, he has little ambition, he wants to be protected in everything.

Theory "Y"

1. A person does not have an innate antipathy to work. Work is natural, as is rest.

2. If a person identifies himself with goals, then he develops self-discipline and self-control. External control and the threat of punishment are unsuitable means.

3. The responsibility to set goals is the reward function.

4. Under appropriate circumstances, a person not only learns to accept responsibility, but also strives for it.

5. Resourcefulness and creative spirit are widespread among the working people.

6. Spiritual potential is barely activated in industrial life 1 . Theory "X" and theory "Y" allow us to imagine two opposite types of people. McGregor believed that every leader bases his leadership style on the adoption of one of these theories. Moreover, “X” is characteristic of autocrats, and “Y” is characteristic of democrats.

In itself, McGregor's model is not a pure theory of management styles, but it was it that made it possible to more fully and accurately understand and analyze the classifications that existed at that time.

In this style of management, the motivation of subordinates is often limited because the leader withdraws socially, delegates, as a rule, less interesting work to subordinates and maintains in them the fear of threatening sanctions. Subordinates become indifferent to the leader, as well as to the enterprise. They obtain information through unofficial means due to information barriers set by the manager.

The disadvantages of the authoritarian style lie in the weak motivation for independence and development of subordinates, as well as in the danger of erroneous decisions through excessive demands from managers regarding the quantity and (or) quality of work.

INTRODUCTION

The effective development of market relations in Russia is largely determined by the formation of modern management relations and increased controllability of the economy. It is management that ensures coherence and integration of economic processes in an 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 means to lead an enterprise towards its goal, extracting the maximum from 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 and generalize a wide range of issues of adaptation of an individual to external conditions, taking into account the personal factor in building an enterprise personnel management system.

THE CONCEPT OF MANAGEMENT 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 considered as a set of decision-making methods systematically used by a leader, influencing subordinates and communicating with them.

Management style– This is a stable set of traits of a leader, manifested in his relationship with subordinates.

In other words, this is the way in which the boss controls his subordinates and in which a pattern of his behavior independent of specific situations is expressed.

Management style does not characterize the leader’s behavior in general, but rather what is stable and invariant in it. Constantly manifested in various situations. Finding and using optimal management styles is designed to enhance employee achievement and satisfaction.

The concept of management styles received intensive development after the Second World War. However, its developments still face a number of unsolved problems. The main problems:

Difficulties in determining the effectiveness of management style. The results to be achieved by a particular style involve many components and are not easily reduced to a single value and compared with the results of other styles.

The difficulty of establishing cause-and-effect relationships between management style and the effectiveness of its use. Typically, management style is viewed as the reason for achieving a certain outcome - employee productivity. However, such a cause-and-effect relationship does not always correspond to reality. Often it is the nature of employee achievements (minor or high achievements) encourages the leader to use a certain style.

The variability of the situation, primarily within the organization itself. Management styles are effective only under certain conditions, but these conditions do not remain unchanged. Over time, both the manager and 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 problems of increasing management effectiveness.

You can determine your management style in 2 ways:

By identifying 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 a manager, aimed at integrating employees and their use in the process of achieving the goals of the organization.

You can also consider the leadership style as “stably manifested features of the interaction of the leader with the team, 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 shape the management style at a particular management level include the nature of the team (production, research, etc.), the specifics of the tasks at hand (urgent, habitual or urgent, unusual), the conditions for the implementation of these tasks (favorable, unfavorable or extreme), methods and means of activity (individual, pair or group). Along with the above, the factor that stands out is the level of development of the team. The individual psychological characteristics of a particular leader bring originality to his management activities. Based on the corresponding transformation of external influences, each manager exhibits his own individual management style.

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

Management style- a method, a system of methods of influence of a leader on subordinates. One of the most important factors for the effective operation of an organization, the full realization of the potential capabilities of people and teams. Most researchers identify the following management styles:

Democratic style (collegial);

Liberal style (anarchic).

Management style- This habitual the way a leader behaves towards subordinates in order to influence them and motivate them to achieve the goals of the organization. The extent to which a manager delegates his authority, the types of power he exercises, and his concern primarily with human relations or, above all, with task accomplishment, all reflect the management style that characterizes a given leader.

Every organization is a unique combination of individuals, goals and objectives. Each manager is a unique personality with a number of abilities. Therefore, management styles cannot always be classified into any specific category.

Authoritarian (directive) style management is characterized by highly centralized leadership and the dominance of unity of command. The manager demands that all matters be reported to him, and makes decisions alone 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, and deprivation of various benefits. Control is very strict, detailed, depriving subordinates of initiative.

The interests of the business are placed significantly above the interests of people, harshness and rudeness predominate in communication.

The leader who uses it gives preference to the official nature of the relationship and maintains a distance between himself and his subordinates, which they do not have the right to violate.

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

Authoritarian management style is a leadership style in which the manager defines goals and policies as a whole, distributes responsibilities, and also, for the most part, specifies the appropriate procedures, manages, checks, evaluates and corrects the work performed.

1) in extreme conditions(crisis, emergency circumstances, etc.) when quick and decisive action is required, when time constraints do not allow meetings and discussions;

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

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

Experts distinguish two types of authoritarian style. "Exploitation" assumes that the manager completely concentrates the solution of all issues in his hands, does not trust his subordinates, is not interested in their opinions, takes responsibility for everything, giving only instructions to the performers. He uses punishment, threats, and pressure as the main form of stimulation.

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

For the manager, 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. His subordinates, although they know and notice a lot, remain silent, either because they receive moral satisfaction from this, or because they believe that he cannot be re-educated anyway. The manager understands the current situation, but is powerless to blame others for the mistakes made, since his subordinates did not participate in the development of the decision. This is how a kind of vicious circle which sooner or later leads to the development of an unfavorable moral and psychological climate in an organization or department and creates the ground for conflicts.

Softer "benevolent" a type of authoritarian style. The manager treats his subordinates condescendingly, in a fatherly manner, and is sometimes interested in their opinion. But even if the expressed opinion is justified, he can act in his own way, often doing it 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, but under strict control, if 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 competence in all matters create chaos and, ultimately, affect work efficiency. Such a boss paralyzes the work of his apparatus. He not only loses best workers, but also creates a hostile atmosphere around himself that threatens him. His subordinates depend on him, but he also depends on them in many ways. Dissatisfied subordinates may let him down or misinform him.

Special studies have shown that although under conditions of an authoritarian management style it is possible to perform a quantitatively greater amount of work than under democratic conditions, the quality of work, originality, novelty, and the presence of elements of creativity will be the same order of magnitude lower. The authoritarian style is preferable for managing simple activities focused on quantitative results.

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT STYLE (COLLEGIAL)

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

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

DEMOCRATIC: CONSULTATIVE AND PARTICIPATIVE

Organizations in which the principle of democratic leadership dominates are characterized by a high degree of decentralization of powers, active participation of employees in decision-making, and the creation of conditions under 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 them in decision making, and provides freedom to formulate their own goals based on the ideas of the organization.

Within "advisory" the manager is interested in the opinions of his subordinates, consults with them, and strives to use the best that they offer. Among incentive measures, encouragement predominates; 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 moral support in necessary cases.

"Participative" a form of democratic management presupposes that the manager fully trusts his subordinates in all matters (and then they respond in kind), 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 decisions taken is not transferred to subordinates. All this brings the team together.

Typically, a democratic management style is used in the case when the performers are well, sometimes better than the manager, understand the intricacies of the work and can bring a lot of novelty and creativity to it. A democratic leader, if necessary, can compromise or abandon the decision altogether if the subordinate’s logic is convincing. Where an autocrat would act with orders and pressure, a democrat tries to convince and prove the feasibility of solving the problem and the benefits that employees can receive.

At the same time, the internal satisfaction received by subordinates from the opportunity to realize their Creative skills. Subordinates can independently make decisions and look for ways to implement them within the framework of the powers granted, without paying much attention to the details.

As a rule, the environment created by a democratic leader is also educational in nature and allows one to achieve goals at low cost. There is a positive resonance of power: the authority of the position is reinforced by personal authority. Management occurs 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 in an authoritarian style, you can get about twice as much work done as in a democratic style. But its quality, originality, novelty, and the presence of creative elements will be the same order of magnitude lower. From this we can conclude that the authoritarian style is preferable for simpler types of activities focused on quantitative results, and the democratic style is preferable for complex ones, where quality comes first.

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

The style in which the manager is focused 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.) is called task-oriented (instrumental). A style when a leader creates a favorable moral and psychological climate, organizes working together, 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 that is close to a democratic one helps to increase productivity because it gives room to people’s creativity and increases their satisfaction. Its use reduces absenteeism, creates higher morale, improves team relationships and the attitude of subordinates towards management.

The potential benefits of a task-oriented leadership style are much the same as an authoritarian leadership style. They consist in speed of decision-making 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 manager here mainly informs subordinates about their responsibilities and tasks, determines how they need to be solved, distributes responsibilities, approves plans, sets standards, and controls.

Typically, managers use either a democratic style, focused on human relations, or an authoritarian style, focused on work.

LIBERAL MANAGEMENT STYLE (BUREAUCRATIC)

Liberal style management is characterized by the lack of active participation of the manager in the management of the team. Such a leader “goes with the flow,” waits or requires instructions from above, or falls under the influence of the team. He prefers not to take risks, “keep his head down,” avoids resolving urgent conflicts, and strives to reduce his personal responsibility. He lets his work take its course and rarely controls it. This leadership style is preferable in creative teams where employees are independent and creative.

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

LIBERAL, INCLUDING BUREAUCRATIC

In the same place we're talking about about the need to stimulate the creative approach of performers to their work, the most preferable liberal management style. Its essence is that the manager sets a task for his 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, reserving the functions of a consultant, arbiter, expert who evaluates the results obtained and in case of doubts and disagreements between performers, makes the final decision. It also provides employees with information, encouragement, and training.

Subordinates, freed from intrusive control, independently make the necessary decisions and look for ways to implement them within the framework of the powers granted. Such work allows them to express themselves, brings satisfaction and creates a favorable moral and psychological climate in the team, generates trust between people, and promotes the voluntary assumption of increased obligations.

The use of this style is becoming increasingly widespread due to the growing scale scientific research and experimental design developments carried out by highly qualified specialists. They do not accept command, forceful pressure, petty supervision, etc.

In leading companies, coercion gives way to persuasion, strict control to trust, and submission to collaboration. Such soft management, aimed at creating “managed autonomy” of departments, facilitates the natural application of new management methods, which is especially important when creating innovations.

At the same time, this style can easily be transformed into bureaucratic, when the manager completely withdraws from affairs, transferring them into the hands of “promotes”. The latter manage the team on his behalf, using more and more authoritarian methods. At the same time, he himself pretends that power is in his hands, but in reality he becomes more and more dependent on his volunteer assistants. A sad example of this is army hazing.

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

One can understand why both the autocratic approach and the human relations approach have won many supporters. But it is now clear that both supporters committed exaggerations, drawing conclusions that were not fully supported by the facts. There are many well-documented situations where the benevolent-autocratic style has proven to be very effective.

The democratic style has its own attractive sides, successes and disadvantages. Of course, many organizational problems could be solved if improved human relations and worker participation in decision making always led to greater satisfaction and higher productivity. Unfortunately, this does not happen. Scientists have encountered situations where workers participated in decision making, but, nevertheless, the degree of satisfaction was low, as well as situations where satisfaction was high and productivity was low.

It is clear that the relationship between leadership style, satisfaction and performance can only be determined through long-term 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 balance of each style and the prevailing leadership style. A study of the practice of leading organizations shows that each of the three leadership styles is present to varying degrees in the work of an effective leader.

Contrary to popular stereotypes, the prevailing leadership style is largely independent of gender. It happens erroneous opinion that female leaders are softer and focused primarily on supporting good relations with business partners, while male managers are more aggressive and result-oriented. The reasons for the separation of leadership styles may be more likely to be personality traits and temperament, rather than gender characteristics. Successful top managers - both men and women - do not follow only one style. As a rule, they intuitively or quite consciously combine different leadership strategies.

THEORY OF MANAGEMENT STYLES

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

The authoritarian (directive) style is characterized by the centralization of power in the hands of one leader. The manager makes decisions alone and strictly determines the activities of his subordinates, constraining their initiative.

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

The liberal (permissive) style is characterized by minimal interference by the manager in the activities of subordinates. The manager acts, most often, as an intermediary, providing his subordinates with the 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 manager makes decisions. There are two ways of making management decisions - democratic and authoritarian. Which one is more effective? Some researchers tend to believe that the democratic path is more effective: the risk of making a wrong decision is reduced, alternatives appear, during the discussion new solutions appear that are impossible with individual analysis, it becomes possible to take into account the positions and interests of everyone, etc. At the same time, further research has shown that K. Levin’s concept, despite its clarity, simplicity and persuasiveness, has a number of significant shortcomings: it has been proven that there is no reason to believe that a democratic management style 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 has been found that in some cases the authoritarian management style is more effective than the democratic one. What are these cases?

extreme situations requiring immediate solutions;

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

Some people, due to their psychological characteristics, prefer to be led authoritarianly.

It was found that both of these management styles pure form do not meet. Each leader, depending on the situation and his personal qualities, can be both a “democrat” and a “dictator”. Sometimes it can be very difficult to recognize what management style a leader actually adheres to (both effective and ineffective).

It happens that the form and content of a leader’s work do not coincide: an essentially authoritarian leader behaves outwardly democratically (smiles, is polite, thanks for participating in the discussion, but makes decisions individually and before the discussion itself begins) and vice versa. In addition, a lot depends on the situation - in some situations a leader can act authoritarian, and in others - like a “democrat”.

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

CONCLUSION

Management science is based on a system of basic provisions, elements, models, leadership styles that are unique to it, and at the same time related to 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 main 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: preparing and making decisions, their scientific validity, their practical implementation, control over their implementation.

Nowadays, managers must pay more attention to the human qualities of their subordinates, their dedication to the company and their ability to solve problems. The high rate of obsolescence and constant changes that characterize almost all industries today force managers to be constantly prepared to carry out technical and organizational reforms, as well as to change their leadership style. Even the most experienced manager, who is fluent in management theory, is not immune from an unreasonable, emotional reaction to a situation.

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 depend on the choice of leadership style. When the entire organization works quite efficiently and smoothly, the manager discovers that in addition to the set goals, much more has been achieved, including simple human happiness, mutual understanding and job satisfaction.

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

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

Civil 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 managing employees of commercial and non-profit organizations.