Each leader has a certain management style.
Management style is a relatively stable system of ways, methods and forms of influence of a manager on subordinates in accordance with goals joint activities. This is a kind of psychological style of working with subordinates. The famous German psychologist K. Lewin described three main management styles:
1. Authoritarian style. The decision is made by the head alone. He acts with authority towards his subordinates, rigidly assigns the roles of participants, exercises detailed control, and concentrates all the main management functions in his hands.
This style is most effective in well-ordered (structured) situations, when the activities of subordinates are algorithmic in nature (according to a given system of rules). Focused on solving algorithmic problems.
2. Democratic style. Decisions are made by the manager together with his subordinates. With this style, the leader seeks to manage the group together with subordinates, giving them freedom of action, organizing a discussion of their decisions, and supporting initiative.
This style is most effective in loosely structured situations and is focused on interpersonal relationships and solving creative problems.
3. Liberal style. Decisions are imposed by subordinates on the leader. He practically removes himself from active management of the group, behaves like an ordinary member, and gives the group members complete freedom. Group members behave in accordance with their desires, their activity is spontaneous. This style is most effective in situations of searching for the most productive areas of group activity.
Authoritarian style: Business, short instructions. Prohibitions without leniency, with threat. Clear language, unfriendly tone. Praise and blame are subjective. Emotions are not taken into account. The leader's position is outside the group. The group’s activities are planned in advance (in their entirety). Only immediate goals are determined, distant ones are unknown. The leader's voice is decisive.
Democratic style: Orders and prohibitions - with advice. The leader's position is within the group. Activities are not planned in advance, but in a group. Everyone is responsible for the implementation of proposals. All sections of the work are not only offered, but also collected.
Liberal style: The tone is conventional. Lack of praise and blame. No cooperation. The leader's position is inconspicuously away from the group. Things in the group go by themselves. The leader does not give instructions. Sections of work are composed of individual intervals or come from a new leader.
Each specific leader cannot have only one style. Depending on the specific situation, most often there is a combination of features of different styles with the dominance of one. One of the three styles finds its real embodiment in an individual management style.
|
Control Style Options |
Types of Management Styles |
||
|
Democratic |
Liberal |
||
|
1. Decision making and task definition |
Personally by the leader |
Taking into account suggestions from subordinates |
Approval and agreement with the opinions of subordinates |
|
2. Method of reaching a decision |
Request, begging |
||
|
3. The degree of regulation of the actions of subordinates |
Optimal |
Low (maximum freedom of subordinates) |
|
|
4. The nature of communication between the manager and subordinates |
Short, businesslike, dry |
Longer, not only business, but also personal |
May not engage in communication if subordinates do not contact him |
|
5. The nature of regulation of behavior and activities of subordinates |
Focuses on collections |
Emphasizes incentives |
Refrains from regulating the behavior and activities of subordinates |
|
6. The manager’s opinion of his subordinates |
Considers all subordinates to be initially good, flexible in changing assessments |
Gives almost no evaluations to subordinates |
|
|
7. The manager’s attitude towards the initiative of subordinates |
Distrustful, negative |
Encouraging initiative |
Reassessment of subordinates' initiative capabilities |
|
8 Moral psychological climate In the organisation |
Tense |
Optimal |
Extremely volatile |
|
9. Organizational performance indicators |
High quantitative, medium quality |
Quantitative averages, high quality |
Unstable performance |
|
10 Manager’s control over the activities of subordinates |
Elevated |
Absent |
Let us highlight a number of important comments in this regard:
In their pure form, these leadership styles are extremely rare. As a rule, there is a combination of different styles, but the signs of one style still predominate;
Among the management styles outlined, there is no universal one, suitable for all occasions, no bad or good. All styles have their own advantages and problems;
The effectiveness of the manual depends primarily on flexibility in use positive aspects a particular style and the ability to neutralize its weaknesses.
For example, in extreme conditions An authoritarian leadership style is vital. In the conditions of everyday life, when there is a friendly and prepared team, a democratic leadership style is successful. The conditions for creative search are dictated by the appropriateness of using elements liberal style
Social management, as we know, is based on the subordination of people to common interests. Sometimes this does not require any official intervention. For example, residents of many houses voluntarily go to cleanup days and clean the area around them. However, local authorities may not know anything about this.
This example shows that self-government (illegitimate governance) can assist official authorities in solving social problems, in particular, problems of environmental pollution. However, many managers try not to notice the existence of self-government in the territory subordinate to them, considering it as their potential adversary or competitor (a contender for power). In such cases, they use an authoritarian management style, making their decisions regardless of initiatives from below. This management style characterized by the fact that the leader forcibly introduces and tries to consolidate his OOC, hoping that this will lead to a solution to the problems facing society. In this case, social tension usually arises associated with the forcible introduction of new values and institutions, which, as a rule, contradict the old ones. For example, the forced introduction of the values and institutions of a market economy led to social tension in a society raised on socialist values.
The second style of management is democratic, when the leader tries not to show his own initiative, but supports initiatives from below. In fact, the head of the organization is endowed not only with power, but also certain resources, which he must direct in the right direction, and most initiatives “from below” point precisely to these directions. This management style is characterized by the fact that the manager, through his decisions, chooses and consolidates not his own OOC, but those that “naturally” arose in the organization and are supported by public opinion. Official recognition and consolidation of such OOC occurs smoothly, without social conflicts, because there is support for what has already happened.
The third style of management - mixed - is based on a combination of authoritarian and democratic styles, when the leader resorts to authoritarian management to solve some problems, and democratic management to solve others. This management style is predominant.
Despite the fact that all countries in the world use a mixed style of governance, authoritarian or democratic principles predominate in each of them. Thus, in eastern countries, authoritarian governance is predominant, and in western countries, democratic governance is predominant. It depends on the mentality of the nation and its social values. In Eastern culture, social values dominate (a person should work for the benefit of society), and in Western culture - individual values (society should work for the benefit of a person). In Eastern countries, people are afraid of power, considering it evil; in Western countries, power is afraid of people, always ready to replace it.
Each of these styles has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of an authoritarian management style is the ability to maximally mobilize society's resources to solve specific social problems or achieve certain goals set by the country's leadership, and ensure their most effective use. The disadvantages of the authoritarian style are the suppression of democracy, fear of power, and most importantly, the unpunished commission of gross mistakes, for example, the privatization of state property, the war in Chechnya, GKOs.
The advantage of a democratic management style is reliable protection against making rash decisions and the absence of social tension when introducing new OOC. The disadvantage of the democratic style is the relative slowness of social processes.
A mixed management style allows you to combine the advantages of authoritarian and democratic styles. However, this requires appropriate knowledge.
One-Dimensional Leadership Styles
Using various sources for analysis, different classifications of leadership styles can be determined. There are two approaches to studying styles: traditional and modern. The traditional approach includes “one-dimensional” management styles. “One-dimensional” styles are characterized by one factor, these include: authoritarian, democratic and liberal-permissive
We need to start looking at leadership styles by looking at Douglas McGregor's system. His works on practical management contain statements that subordinates behave in the way that their leaders force them to behave. A subordinate of any rank can try to meet the requirements of his leadership and fulfill the tasks assigned to him. McGregor's research shows that the initial driver of the goal is, first of all, the desires of the leader. If a manager believes that his employees will cope with the task, he subconsciously manages them in such a way as to improve their performance. But if management’s actions are characterized by uncertainty, this leads to reinsurance, and, consequently, slows down development.
McGregor's work helps managers avoid uncertainty and strive to achieve maximum success. He describes the leadership system from two opposing positions, each of which can be taken by a leader in relation to his subordinates. One of the extreme positions is called theory X, and the other theory Y.
Theory X.
Theory X describes a type of leader who takes the position of directive, authoritarian management methods, as he treats his subordinates with distrust. Most often they express their attitude as follows.
Every person has a natural reluctance to work, so he tries to avoid labor wherever possible.
People try to avoid direct responsibility and prefer to be led. Every person strives to ensure complete safety for himself.
In order to force each member of the team to work towards a common goal, it is necessary to use various methods of coercion, as well as remind them of the possibility of punishment.
Managers who adhere to a similar position in relation to their subordinates, as a rule, limit the degree of their freedom and autonomy in the organization, and try to prevent employees from participating in the management of the company. They strive to simplify goals, break them down into smaller ones, and assign each subordinate a separate task, which makes it easy to control its implementation. The hierarchy in such organizations is, as a rule, very strict; information collection channels work clearly and quickly. This type of leader satisfies the basic needs of his subordinates and uses an autocratic management style.
Theory U.
It describes an ideal situation in which relationships in a team develop as partnerships and the formation of the team takes place in an ideal environment. This theory is an optimistic view of organizational performance and includes the following points.
Work is not something special for any of us. A person does not refuse to perform certain duties, but strives to take on a certain responsibility. Working is as natural for a person as playing.
If members of an organization strive to achieve the set styles, they develop self-government, self-control, and do everything possible to achieve goals.
The reward for work will strictly correspond to how the tasks facing the team are completed.
Ingenuity and creativity remain hidden in subordinates due to the high development of technology.
Significant success in their work is achieved by managers who adhere to both Theory X and Theory Y. But each manager must first assess whether, in the conditions in which the organization is located, the application of Theory Y is possible, as well as what consequences the application of Theory X may cause.
There are conditions under which the development of an organization is carried out according to the principles of the theory of U. Managers in this case, under conditions of equality, have full support from subordinates and middle managers. At the same time, the leader is a mentor for the subordinate. They may have different positions on other issues, but they must respect each other’s opinions. A manager who adheres to Theory Y allows his subordinate to set his own deadlines for completing tasks if he wants to combine different kinds activities.
Concepts corresponding to Y theory operate most effectively in a situation where all team members are adapted to a similar management style. Professions such as researcher, teacher, and physician are most suited to guidance on the theory of U.
Low-skilled workers who require constant supervision and control tend to adapt better to Theory X management.
The widespread application of Y theory in management work allows one to achieve a high level of productivity, develop the creative potential of employees, create flexible jobs, encourage teamwork, and also achieve a high level of personnel qualifications.
Within the framework of “one-dimensional” management styles, two models can be considered. The classic model of classification of leadership styles proposed by K. Levin and the alternative model of classification of Likert styles. Let us consider and analyze these models. K. Lewin's model is based on the fact that the main role in the classification of leadership styles was given to the personality traits and character traits of the leader. In the Likert model, this is based on the leader's focus on either the job or the person. Both models under consideration belong to the behavioral approach, which created the basis for the classification of leadership styles. The effectiveness of management according to this approach is determined by how the manager treats his subordinates.
K. Levin's model
Research conducted by K. Levin and his colleagues was conducted before M. Gregor divided the actions and behavior of leaders into two theories. Let's consider the main leadership styles that K. Levin identified in his research: authoritarian, democratic, liberal.
Autocratic-liberal continuum of leadership styles
Authoritarian leadership is characterized by excessive centralization of the leader's power, autocratic resolution of all issues related to the organization's activities, and limitation of contacts with subordinates. This style is characteristic of decisive, powerful, strong-willed people who are tough towards others. The autocrat “knows everything himself” and does not tolerate objections. Doesn't trust anyone, doesn't let anyone know about his intentions; gives businesslike, brief instructions; prohibitions are often accompanied by threats. Praising and blaming employees is highly subjective. The emotions of subordinates and colleagues are not taken into account. Work in the team is planned in advance in its entirety; only immediate goals for each employee are determined. The leader's voice is decisive, and his position is outside the group.
The “exploitative” authoritarian style comes down to the fact that the manager, not trusting his subordinates and without asking their opinions and advice, single-handedly decides all issues and takes responsibility for everything, giving performers only instructions on what, how and when to do, as The main form of stimulation is punishment.
Employees treat the manager’s orders indifferently or negatively, rejoice at any of his mistakes, and find in them confirmation that they are right. In general, as a result of this, an unfavorable moral and psychological climate is formed in the organization or division, and an atmosphere is created for the development of industrial conflicts.
With a softer “benevolent” version of the authoritarian style, the leader treats subordinates condescendingly, is interested in their opinion when making decisions, but, despite its validity, can act in his own way. If this is done demonstratively, the psychological climate worsens. This leadership style provides subordinates with a certain amount of independence, even if to a limited extent. Motivation by fear is present here, but it is minimal.
The emergence of an autocratic leader is associated with the peculiarities of his character. In most cases, these are powerful, persistent and stubborn people, with exaggerated ideas about own abilities with a great desire for prestige and power. By temperament they are choleric.
Democratic leadership style (collegial)
The democratic style is formed by people who do not like to take responsibility; responsibility is not concentrated, but distributed in accordance with the delegated powers. Management is characterized by a high degree of decentralization of powers and active participation of employees in decision making. An atmosphere is created in which performing official duties becomes attractive, and achieving success serves as a reward. This style provides instructions in the form of sentences, not dry speech, but a comradely tone, praise and blame - taking into account the opinion of the team. Team events are being planned. Orders and prohibitions are carried out on the basis of discussions. The position of the leader is within the group, i.e. leader, behaves like one of the group members; Each employee can freely express himself on various issues in front of him. By nature, such a leader is absent-minded, careless, cannot really set goals, is too soft in character, communicative, but a weak organizer. When exercising control, a democrat pays attention to the end result. Such an environment creates conditions for self-expression of subordinates; they develop independence, which contributes to the perception of achieving the organization’s goals as their own. Such interaction between a manager and subordinates can be defined as cooperation.
In practice, there are two types of democratic style: “consultative” and “participative”.
In a “consultative” environment, the manager trusts his subordinates, consults with them, and strives to use everything best tips, which are offered by subordinates. Among incentive measures, encouragement predominates, and punishment is used in exceptional cases. Employees are satisfied with this management system, despite the fact that most decisions are prompted to them from above. Subordinates try to provide their boss with help and moral support when necessary.
The “participatory” variety of democratic leadership style is based on the fact that managers completely trust subordinates in all matters, always listen to them and use all their suggestions, organize the exchange of comprehensive information, involve subordinates in setting goals and monitoring their implementation.
Typically, a democratic management style is used when the performers are well versed in the work being performed and can bring novelty and creativity to it.
Liberal leadership style (neutral, permissive)
It is formed in people who do not like to take responsibility. The manager poses a problem to the performers, creates the necessary organizational conditions for their work, sets the boundaries of the solution, and he himself fades into the background. He retains the functions of a consultant, arbiter, and expert evaluating the results obtained.
At the same time, reward and punishment take a back seat compared to the internal satisfaction that subordinates receive from realizing their potential and creative capabilities. Subordinates are freed from constant control and make decisions “independently” and try to find a way to implement them within the framework of the powers granted. They don’t realize that the manager has already thought through everything in advance and created a process for this the necessary conditions, which predetermine the final result. Such work brings them satisfaction and creates a favorable moral and psychological climate in the team.
The use of this style is becoming increasingly widespread due to the growing scale of scientific and technical activities and development projects, which are carried out by highly qualified specialists who do not want to be under pressure and patronage. Its effectiveness depends on the real desire of subordinates for this, the clear formulation by the leader of the tasks and conditions of their activities, his fairness in relation to the assessment of results and remuneration.
But this style can turn into a bureaucratic one, when the manager completely withdraws from business. He transfers all control to the hands of independent managers, who manage the team on his behalf, using strict authoritarian leadership methods. He himself pretends that power is in his hands, but in fact he becomes more and more dependent on his assistants.
The emergence of a liberal leader can be explained by many reasons. By nature, such leaders are indecisive, good-natured people, afraid of quarrels and conflicts, who do not like to take responsibility, are absent-minded, careless, they really cannot set goals, they are too soft in character. They underestimate the importance of the team’s activities and the fact that the team needs them. But it may turn out that this is a highly creative person, captured by some area of his interests, but devoid of organizational talent. For this reason, the responsibilities of a manager turn out to be overwhelming for this manager.
To assess the effectiveness of each management style, R. Likert proposed calculating the liberal-authoritarian coefficient (LAC). It is determined by the ratio of the sums of liberal and authoritarian elements in the leader’s behavior. In his opinion, in modern conditions the optimal value of this coefficient is 1.9. Thus, today, to obtain effective results, managers must use twice as many elements of persuasion as coercion.
In his research, Lewin found that authoritarian leadership got more work done than democratic leadership. However, with authoritarian management there is low motivation, less originality, less friendliness in groups, lack of groupthink and other negative factors. With a liberal leadership style, the amount of work decreases, the quality of work decreases, and more play appears.
More recent studies have not fully supported the findings that authoritarian leadership leads to higher productivity but lower satisfaction than democratic leadership. Lewin's research provided the basis for other scientists to study this issue.
Thus, Lewin's research was based primarily on studying the influence of a leader's personal qualities on the choice of leadership style. In each specific case, there is a certain balance between the authoritarian, democratic and liberal styles, and an increase in the proportion of elements of one of them will lead to a decrease in the others.
All of the leadership styles described above can be presented in the form of a summary table proposed by researcher E. Starobinsky.
Table 1.1.
Leadership styles
|
Democratic |
Liberal |
||
|
Concentration of all power and responsibility in the hands of the leader |
Delegation of powers with retention of key positions by the leader |
The leader's abdication of responsibility and abdication in favor of the group or organization |
|
|
Personal goal setting and choice of means to achieve them |
Decision making is divided into levels based on participation |
Providing the group with the ability to self-manage in the mode desired by the group |
|
|
Communication flows come predominantly from above |
Communications are carried out actively in two directions |
Communications are built mainly horizontally |
|
|
Strengths |
Attention to urgency and order, predictability of results |
Strengthening personal commitment to work performance through participation in management |
Allows you to start a business the way you see it without the intervention of a leader |
|
Weak sides |
Individual initiative is inhibited |
Takes a lot of time to make decisions |
The group may lose direction and slow down without leader intervention |
|
Decision making method |
Sole leader with subordinates |
Based on consultation from above or group opinion |
Based on directions |
|
Method of communicating decisions to the executor |
Order, instruction, commands |
Offer |
Request, begging |
|
Distribution of Responsibility |
Completely in the hands of the leader |
In accordance with authority |
Completely in the hands of the performer |
|
Attitude towards the initiative of subordinates |
Allowed |
Encouraged and used |
Fully transferred to subordinates |
|
Principles of personnel selection |
Getting rid of strong competitors |
Focus on business-minded, knowledgeable employees and helping them in their careers |
|
|
Attitude to knowledge |
Believes he knows everything himself |
Constantly learns and demands the same from subordinates |
Indifferent |
|
Attitude to communication |
Negative, keeps distance |
Positive, actively makes contacts |
Shows no initiative |
|
Attitude towards subordinates |
In mood, uneven |
Smooth, friendly, demanding |
Soft, undemanding |
|
Attitude to discipline |
Rigid, formal |
Reasonable |
Soft, formal |
|
Attitude towards stimulation |
Punishment with rare reward |
Reward with rare punishment |
No clear orientation |
A job-focused manager (or task-oriented manager) is concerned with task design and reward systems to improve job performance.
In contrast to the first type of leader, Likert identifies a person-centered leader whose main concern is people. It focuses on increasing productivity through improving human relationships. This type of manager allows employees to participate as much as possible in decision making, avoids patronage and establishes a high level of labor productivity for the unit. They also help subordinates solve problems and encourage their professional growth.
Thus, Likert concluded that the leadership style would be either job-oriented or people-oriented. A people-centered leadership style improves productivity. But this management style is not always the optimal leadership behavior. As an extension of his research, Likert proposed four basic leadership styles.
Likert leadership styles
Let's consider each system separately.
Leaders belonging to system 1 have the characteristics of an autocrat. System 2 is called benevolent-authoritarian. These managers may maintain authoritarian relationships with their subordinates, but they allow subordinates limited participation in decision making. System 3 leaders show significant but incomplete trust in subordinates. Important decisions are made at the top, but many specific decisions are made by subordinates.
System 4 is characterized by group decision making, the participation of workers in the development and implementation of decisions. Managers have complete trust in their subordinates. Relationships are friendly and trusting. Leaders are people-oriented, as opposed to System 1 leaders who are work-oriented. According to Likert, system 4 is the most effective in managing organizations, but according to his research, its practical application is rare. F.Z. Turdukulov, E.R. Kasymova “Fundamentals of Management” Bishkek - 2000
"Multidimensional" leadership styles
In modern conditions, the success of a business is determined not only by the nature of the relationship between the manager and the subordinate and the degree of freedom that is given to them, but also by a number of other circumstances. An expression of this are “multidimensional” management styles, which represent a complex of complementary, intertwined approaches, each of which is independent of the others.
Initially, the idea of a “two-dimensional” management style was formed, which is based on two approaches. One of them focuses on creating a favorable moral and psychological climate in the team, establishing human relationships, and the other - on creating appropriate organizational and technical specifications, in which a person can fully reveal his abilities.
F. Fiedler's model of leadership effectiveness
Fred Fiedler is known as one of the first management experts who believed that the effectiveness of a management style can be assessed if the chosen style is appropriate for a given situation. He also believed that the success or effectiveness of a particular management style depends on three factors: the relationship of the leader with subordinates, the structure of work tasks and the level of power of the leader.
Relationship between leader and subordinates.
One of the most important factors in determining the effectiveness of management is the degree of loyalty of the manager to team members. When the relationship between them is close, the leader can count on support and understanding at any moment, but if these relationships cannot be like that, then the power of the leader’s word is automatically reduced.
Structure of production tasks.
In this case, the structure of production tasks refers to the degree of routine (simple and extensive) or non-routine (complex and unique) work. Complex tasks require coordination, sensitive participation of the manager, initiative and enthusiasm from subordinates, and additional time expenditure. On the other hand, they are designed for a high level of responsibility, are not routine in nature, and require the use of a democratic management style.
Leader's level of power.
The amount of formal and informal power of a leader is of great importance. The amount of this power is measured by the authority of the leader. This power allows him or her to give orders, encouragement, or punishment. A high level of power allows the use of authoritarian management methods and vice versa.
Fiedler believed that these three factors in combination could produce the image of an ideal leader.
When the tasks are clearly formulated, the manager's authority is significant, and his relationships with subordinates are favorable, then it is easy to influence subordinates. In the opposite case, it is better for the manager to focus on solving organizational and technical problems without focusing on special attention issues of team building and human relations. This ensures unity of goals, efficiency in making and implementing decisions, and reliability of control.
In this situation, there is no need to waste time building relationships, and employees operate under clearly defined conditions. simple tasks and instructions. A leader can simultaneously adhere to an authoritarian style, but a slight dictatorship is also necessary.
A management style focused on strengthening the team and maintaining human relations is most suitable in moderately favorable situations for the leader, when he does not have enough power to ensure the necessary level of cooperation with subordinates, but if the relationships are good, people do what is asked of them. Under these conditions, an orientation towards the organizational side can cause a conflict, as a result of which the weak influence of the manager on subordinates will only further decline. Seiner R. Styles of behavior of managers in conflict situations. // Issues of theory and practice of management. -1994.-No. 3. P.168-172. Focusing on human relations, on the contrary, can increase his influence and improve relationships with subordinates.
Like all other models, Fiedler's model is not without flaws and has not received full support from theorists. By determining that an organizationally-oriented leadership style would be appropriate in less favorable situations and that a relationship-oriented style would be better suited in moderately favorable situations, Fiedler laid the foundation for the future situational approach to management. His approach shows that there is no optimal leadership style regardless of circumstances. To assess leadership style, Fiedler developed a unique but controversial method. He asked managers to describe their least favorite colleagues and work assistants. Fiedler argued that a manager who describes disliked subordinates in a more restrained style is predisposed to a democratic management style. These are people who are positively disposed to communication, exchange of opinions, i.e. communication-oriented leaders. In contrast, those who described their subordinates in an angry, unsympathetic manner are those who are production-oriented managers. Their description can be found in Tannenbaum and Schmidt. It was the research methodology that Fiedler used that did not inspire confidence in many researchers.
Model life cycle P. Hersey and C. Blanchard
P. Hersey and K. Blanchard developed a situational theory of leadership, which they called life cycle theory. In accordance with this model, the use of style depends on the degree of maturity of subordinates, their ability to be responsible for their behavior, education and experience in solving specific problems, and the desire to achieve their goals. Hersey and Blanchard formulated four basic leadership styles: directing, selling, participating, and delegating.
The essence of the first style is to tell immature, incapable and unwilling employees what to do and how to do it. Here the manager must focus on solving organizational and technical problems, and not on establishing human relationships and creating a team.
The second style - “selling” - is effective for employees when subordinates want and can bear the responsibility of working independently without the help and instructions of a manager. Hersey and Blanchard recommend delegating authority and creating conditions for collective management.
In general, critics of this life cycle model note the lack of a consistent method for measuring maturity; a simplified division of styles and uncertainty about whether managers in practice will be able to behave as flexible and adaptive as the model requires.
Life cycle theory: Hersey and Blanchard developed a model in which the most effective leadership styles depend on the “maturity” of the performers. Maturity involves the ability to take responsibility for one's behavior, the desire to achieve a goal, and education and experience regarding the specific task that needs to be accomplished.
The Vroom-Yetton model of managerial decision-making.
According to the authors of this model, depending on the situation, the characteristics of the team and the characteristics of the problem itself, five management styles can be distinguished. These five styles represent a continuum, starting with an autocratic decision-making style (A and B), then a consultative style (C and D), and ending with full participation (E).
A - The manager himself makes decisions based on available information.
B - The manager tells his subordinates the essence of the problem, listens to their opinions and makes a decision.
B - The manager presents the problem to his subordinates, summarizes the opinions they expressed and, taking them into account, makes his own decision.
D - The manager, together with his subordinates, discusses the problem and as a result a common opinion is developed.
D - The leader constantly works together with the group, which either develops a collective decision or makes the best one, regardless of who its author is.
When choosing a style, managers use the following main criteria:
availability of sufficient information and experience among subordinates;
level of requirements for the solution;
clarity and structure of the problem;
the degree of involvement in the affairs of the organization and the need to coordinate decisions with them; the likelihood that the manager’s sole decision will receive the support of the performers;
the interest of performers in achieving goals;
the degree of likelihood of conflicts arising between subordinates as a result of decision-making.
This model differs from other situational models in that its basis is decision making, but it is similar to other approaches in that it once again shows the manager that there is no optimal method of influencing subordinates. Optimal style depends on changing variables in decision-making situations
Thus, in this section we examined the management styles that exist within the traditional approach to the classification of leadership styles. They belong to the classic models. The increasing complexity of a manager’s activities and increasing his responsibility for the quality of decisions made and the choice of leadership style has given a new impetus to conducting more detailed and extensive research in this area. Many academics and well-known management researchers regularly conduct surveys of managers and their direct subordinates in order to identify the characteristic methods and techniques used by managers at various levels.
Now we can move on to consider modern models leadership style classifications
|
Leadership style |
Style characteristics |
|
Leaders motivate people with the threat of punishment, the use of rewards, and make decisions themselves. |
|
|
Managers are confident in themselves and trust their subordinates, apply the basics of motivation and encouragement. Use ideas from subordinates. |
|
|
Consultative-democratic |
Managers provide a certain amount of trust to subordinates, use their ideas and points of view, and consult with subordinates in the process of making management decisions. |
|
Participatory |
Managers show complete trust in subordinates, listen to their opinions, involve them in all types of activities, and treat subordinates as equals. |
Model of R. Tannenbaum and U. Schmidt
Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt's research concluded that managers have difficulty solving problems within different management styles. Before deciding whether actions should be democratic or autocratic in different situations, a leader needs to consider three series of questions.
1. Personal questions.
A leader must evaluate his own views, inclinations, the level of confidence in himself on the part of his subordinates, and the degree of his determination.
2. Questions concerning subordinates.
The manager must assess the inclination of his team members to independence, responsibility, the interests of subordinates, the level of knowledge, and the desire to be involved in the decision-making process.
3. Questions relating to the specifics of a specific situation.
Most important feature, which must be taken into account when choosing a behavior style, is the cause of the problem. It is necessary to pay attention to the competence of the group on this issue, the time frame allocated for making a decision, the type and history of the organization's development.
Researchers have combined these questions to create a continuum of leadership styles. It helps the manager consider all possible behavioral choices, from completely authoritarian to completely democratic.
An authoritarian regime is when the manager: has complete power and no obstacles to its use; reserves the right to any emergency powers; has a certain set of unique knowledge and skills; leads formally, is not a real leader, does not have support and understanding.
Subordinates: dependent on their leader; do not have the opportunity to express their opinions; have low qualifications; may be subject to the use of emergency powers; do not have independence; become followers of an authoritarian regime.
Situation in the workplace: Strict discipline reigns through strict control. The profit level is not high. There is strict control over the volume of production costs. There is a constant risk of injury. The work does not require high professional skills; re-equipment and replacement are often carried out production process. Possible consequences of using this style: communication becomes poorer, workers’ adaptation to drastic changes decreases; the activity is routine in nature; creative growth is excluded.
A democratic regime is when the manager: has limited power, can himself set the framework for its application or accepts the conditions; the group can remove him from his position and replace him with members of the team; is dependent on time frames in its activities; may apply a limited number of sanctions to subordinates.
Subordinates: exercise control over management methods; most often have professions such as scientists, engineers, managers, etc.; have high professional skills; they like strict order, but not authoritarian; have high social needs.
The situation in the workplace: the goals of activities are accessible and understandable to everyone. Responsibility and control are divided between managers at different levels. There are always time limits for completing a task. The transformations are ongoing and progressive. The actual health risk is low. Collective labor is used. Possible consequences of using this style: a person adapts to dependence on the team, loses the ability to think independently. In extreme situations, problems may arise when making decisions.
The regime of weak, uninitiated leadership is when the manager: does not have real power; not limited by time frame; we do not change positions, since everyone is happy with this situation; cannot apply any sanctions; does not have knowledge of the specifics of production.
Subordinates: have more power than the leader; do not accept order; they easily start a rebellion or a strike; poorly organized; These are usually scientists or other workers with rare knowledge who are aware of their need.
Workplace situation: There are no clearly defined organizational goals. There is no structure in the organization. There is only a system of self-control. There is no time limit for completing tasks. There are practically no transformations or changes in the labor system. The atmosphere in the workplace is soft and favorable. Performing professional functions requires high skills and special knowledge. Possible consequences of using this style: fragmentation of the team, isolation of the individual, misunderstanding, chaos. Lack of mutual understanding, mutual assistance, unified leadership. This may result in efforts to professional activity will be aimed at useless struggle and defending their interests and views.
Mitchell and House's "path-to-goal" hike.
The leadership model is in many ways similar to Fiedler's model. Their approach points out to managers the need to adopt a leadership style that is most appropriate to the situation. Techniques by which a leader can influence the ways or means of achieving goals:
1. Clarification of what is expected of the subordinate.
2. Providing support, mentoring and removing blockages.
4. Creating in subordinates such needs that are within the competence of the manager, which he can satisfy.
5. Satisfying the needs of subordinates when the goal is achieved. M.P. Pereverzev, N.A. Shaydenko, L.E. Basovsky. "Management" M: Infva - M 2006 P.235
The Vroom-Yetton model of executive decision making.
The model focuses on the decision-making process and is similar to previous models in that it emphasizes the lack of a universal optimal method of influencing subordinates. The optimal style depends on the changing variables of the decision-making situation.
Further study of the process of effective leadership led to the creation of a systems model. She largely absorbed the ideas discussed above and significantly expanded her view of leadership. At the end of 1995, in the United States, based on research and extensive surveys of practitioners and scientists, a leadership model was developed.
The “Fundamentals of Effective Leadership” model was developed within the framework of a single state program for five years by a special commission under the leadership of Vice-President Horn. The program had the following objectives:
creating a flexible and reliable recruitment system;
transformation of the qualification system;
improvement of the decision execution system;
improving the system of training and development of employees;
ensuring equal opportunities for all employees;
reduction of paper flows;
forming partnerships between employees and managers.
Currently, the concept of an attributional approach to choosing a leadership style is becoming increasingly widespread. This concept is based on the manager’s reaction not to the behavior of subordinates itself, but to the reasons that caused it. In this case, the manager is based on three types of information: about the extent to which the subordinate’s behavior is determined by the characteristics of the task; about how stable it is and how unique it is. If the behavior of a subordinate is caused by serious internal reasons, the manager takes the necessary measures of influence in relation to him and subsequently corrects them in accordance with the response of the subordinate. If the reasons are caused by external conditions, the manager directs efforts to change them.
Thus, moving from one model to another, one can notice their complication, the inclusion into consideration of an increasing number of factors influencing the leadership style that a manager will adhere to in a specific situation and in a specific team. This means that a leader must be able to behave differently in different situations.
Any organization, and any team within it, needs a leader. This person directs all staff actions in the right direction, helps to cope with labor problems, and makes important decisions. And in general, it determines how effective the staff will be. With the help of management style, a manager can get what is required from his employees to achieve a certain company goal.
There are several basic management and leadership styles in management. Today we’ll talk about their basic characteristics.
HR styles
Traditionally, there are three styles (or types, if you like) of leadership in management: authoritarian, democratic and liberal. Let us say right away that in practice these styles are rarely found in their pure form. Each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages, so smart leaders combine individual principles of all three styles, starting from their own beliefs.
Authoritarian style
This management style is the oldest and toughest. In some cases, it can even be called “totalitarian” rather than “authoritarian.” A manager who adheres to this method of management puts a clear boundary between himself and the staff: “you are my subordinates, and I am your boss.” And everyone must adhere to this hierarchy. Employees are not given any freedom of action; they must only strictly follow all orders from the manager. An authoritarian manager most often has a rather dry, even somewhat insensitive character, and treats his subordinates harshly and harshly. Does not consider it necessary to delve into the problems of employees.
Of course, there can be no talk of any kind of trusting relationship between management and staff. In an authoritarian regime, the team often begins to “make friends” against the boss. The company often has a system of administrative penalties for employees - for example, a monetary fine for being late. A large and thorough control system is also about an authoritarian style.
But in this whole bleak picture there are also advantages. Everyone can learn from an authoritarian leader how he can clearly give orders and set tasks for the team. And in most cases, the staff carries out these orders as quickly and correctly as possible, because they know that their superiors are not to be trifled with. As a result, the company quickly achieves its goals.
The main disadvantage is the lack of motivation of employees to efficient work. Authoritarian bosses rarely work on building a motivation system. And the staff works well for only one reason: they are afraid of the manager’s indignation and dismissal. Workers do not have the opportunity to express their creative potential in the process of work. The manager, with his authoritarian style, simply suppresses any creative impulses in the staff. Talented employees who are ready to experiment do not stay long at such an enterprise - after all, such a boss is not suitable for them, and they are not suitable for such a boss.
Democratic style
The democratic style, like the authoritarian one, assumes that all important decisions are made only by the boss, and he also gives out instructions. However, some freedom of action opens up for staff. Employees in democratic companies are perceived not as purely robotic order-followers, but as an important component effective activities the entire organization. Employees' opinions are listened to. A motivation system is also present and built in such a way that employees truly value their work and feel like an integral part of the work process.
Many experienced managers recognize the democratic management style the best way forming an effective team. When making a decision, the manager consults with his subordinates, takes into account their opinions and views on the current issue, but the final decision still remains with the manager.
The disadvantage is that successful implementation This management style requires a lot of effort and time from the manager. It takes months and years to build an effective motivation system. It is necessary to attend thematic trainings and seminars to always be aware of the latest developments in management science. A democratic leadership style also requires a fairly careful selection of employees. The principles of selection are based not only on professional qualities applicant, but also on whether he can harmoniously join the team.
Liberal style
This is the complete opposite of the authoritarian style. If in an authoritarian style subordinates are not allowed to do anything, then in a liberal style they are allowed to do everything. No restrictions on freedom of action, no strict orders and no careful control. The liberal manager practically does not participate in the working life of the team, but behaves rather distantly. Often the liberal management style is not chosen by the leader consciously, but occurs because he is simply unable to behave differently. If a manager is naturally timid, shy, or weak-willed, then most likely his management principles will be liberal. But any team needs a leader, and if the formal boss is not such a leader, then one of the employees becomes one. Informal leadership is one of the typical features of the liberal style. And employees, of course, respect and listen to their leader much more than to a formal boss.
A clear advantage of this method of leadership is the unlimited opportunity for staff to show initiative and their creativity. But increase overall efficiency Liberalism does not contribute to the work of staff, because there is practically no control over the actions of employees.
Follow site updates. In the following articles, we will tell you in more detail how to understand which style is best for you, and how to properly build a personnel management system.
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 implementation, does not require large financial costs. Promotes team unity “against the authorities.”
Flaws. Lack of motivation for employees, no work to create a 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 management style is characterized by a timid manager without obvious leadership traits. 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 of a 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.
Management style is the way in which a leader manages subordinates and the pattern of behavior of a leader. With the help of the adopted management style, job satisfaction of subordinates is achieved and labor productivity is encouraged.
The following management styles are distinguished: autocratic, democratic and liberal (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Types of management styles
The choice of management style is made based on the 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 being performed, the complexity of the task being solved, the complexity of the working conditions of the organization or unit, the hierarchy of management, and the socio-political situation.
Characteristics of organizational management styles
The authoritarian (directive) management style 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 manager, by virtue of his power, controls employees and expects them to carry out orders,
- no justification decisions taken in front of subordinates,
- Manager's decisions are orders that are binding,
- in case of failure to comply with the orders of the leader, subordinates will face sanctions,
- significant distance between the manager and subordinates.
At the same time, the following requirements must be presented to the manager: consciousness, self-control, the ability to make decisions and take responsibility for them. The advantage of using this management style is the speed of decision-making, especially in emergency situations. The disadvantages are the low level of independence and initiative of performers, the excessive demands of the manager on his subordinates, which leads to high staff turnover.
The democratic management style is based on the interaction between a manager and a subordinate, in which powers and responsibility for their implementation are transferred to the company's employees. At the same time, the burden is removed from the manager, employee initiative is encouraged, and their work motivation and willingness to bear 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 relationships in a team, coordination of decisions made by the manager, the use of reasonable discipline and a differentiated approach to people.
The advantages of using this style of management include relieving the workload of the manager, the emergence of work motivation among members labor collective. Disadvantages include a strong focus on tasks rather than on team members.
The liberal management style is characterized by minor intervention by the manager in the functioning of the organization. Most often, the manager’s tasks come down to mediation and providing performers with the necessary information.
A feature of this style is that an informal leader or deputy liberal leader is identified from the team, who assumes authority and responsibility in making management decisions.
In cases of management creative teams this style is more effective than others, in other cases its effectiveness is low.
Loading...