What is the permissive style? Permissive style of family education. Liberal parenting style

Characteristics of leadership styles

The emergence of the concept of “Leadership Style” and its study can be associated with the name of the German psychologist K. Lewin. The name and number of leadership styles was varied, which is usually associated with the political processes that took place in the thirties and forties of the 20th century. Gradually it turned out that the division into three styles began to be considered classical. G. Andreeva presented a clear and concise description of these three leadership styles in 1988. Andreeva’s classification is a diagram of a two-dimensional description of each style, including its formal and substantive side.

Democratic (collegial) style.

Neutral (permissive) style.

These three tables can be summarized into one comparative table:

Options for interaction with subordinates	Leadership styles
Authoritarian	Democratic	Neutral
making decisions	decisions are made individually	decisions are made after group discussion.	decisions are made spontaneously (by someone in the group) or as directed by management
way to reach a decision	orders, directions, commands	suggestions, advice	requests
attitude of responsibility	either takes over completely or completely shifts it to subordinates	collective responsibility	declines all responsibility
attitude towards initiative	suppressed	encouraged	handed over to subordinates
attitude towards qualified personnel	seeks to crush	strives to use them as efficiently as possible	lets them go “free swimming”
attitude towards the shortcomings of one’s own knowledge	there are no shortcomings “and cannot be by definition”	constantly improves his skills	no “big meaning”
communication style	“keeps his distance”	maintains friendly communication	avoids communication
nature of relationships with subordinates	depending on your mood	treating everyone as equal colleagues	gentle demeanor
attitude towards discipline	strict formalized discipline	supporter of the discipline of “reasonable sufficiency”	formally permissive attitude
attitude towards moral influence on subordinates	inevitability of punishment - the main method of stimulation	it is necessary to use various methods of reward and punishment	indifferent

When applying the above division of leadership styles, it should be borne in mind that, as a rule, it is impossible to classify a specific style in a specific organization as a specific “academic” style. This is due to the fact that:

1. There are often cases when the form and content of a leader’s actions do not coincide with each other.

2. In its pure form, one or another leadership style may not reveal itself in each specific episode, which is associated with a number of social - psychological factors, which inevitably have to be taken into account by the manager:

* specificity this situation,

* the uniqueness of the problems being solved,

* qualifications, teamwork, personal characteristics of team members, etc.

4. Job satisfaction is mainly due to the democratic leadership style;

Permissive style

Tone - conventional

Things go smoothly in the group

Lack of praise, blame

The leader does not give instructions

No cooperation

Sections of work are composed of individual interests or come from a new leader

Leader position - discreetly away from the group

Definitions are also introduced ˸ ʼdirectiveʼʼ, ʼʼcollegialʼʼ and ʼʼpermissiveʼʼ (liberal) style, although it is obvious that the psychological pattern of the designated styles retains a certain stability. (Zhuravlev)

Is very similarAttitude towards subordinates or “leadership style”. Divided into authoritarian, liberal and democratic.

Authoritarian leadership-directive management of people, the leader concentrates all the main management functions, subordinates are kept under threat of the use of force, autocratic and command management, strict boundaries for subordinates, strict control and a system of punishment.

Liberal leadership– presupposes the manager’s detachment from management and freedom of action for subordinates.

Democratic Leadership– focuses on the principle of collegiality, involving people in the process joint activities in order to achieve common success, a tendency towards collective management, a certain independence among subordinates.

These types of leaders are named: leader-organizer, leader-initiator, leader-erudite, leader-generator of emotional mood, leader of emotional attraction, leader-skilled. Many of these characteristics can be successfully applied to a leader. However, the essence of the problem is that the differences in the position of a leader and a manager are not fully understood. Very often, techniques designed to determine leadership style are considered suitable for determining leadership style. In reality, these methods may not be relevant in all cases; given the separation of the functions of the leader and the manager and the nature of their activities, it is necessary to see in which specific functions the leader repeats the psychological pattern of the leader’s activity, and in which it is determined by other circumstances.

The leadership typology model, in our opinion, should be built on three different foundations related to the definition of a) content; b) style; c) the nature of the leader’s activities. In this case, we can talk about the following types leadership differentiation

Permissive style - concept and types. Classification and features of the category “Pacific style” 2015, 2017-2018.

Page
6

3. Multilateral information and communication relations. A wide network of vertical and horizontal information flows is designed to facilitate competent task performance, as well as the development of interpersonal relationships.

4. Conflict resolution through negotiations and compromises. In conflict situations, a democratic leader uses precisely these methods and refuses unilateral authoritarian decisions.

5.People orientation. The manager's primary attention to the team allows employees to influence work processes, which increases job satisfaction and stay in the team.

6. Trust as the basis of cooperation. An atmosphere of mutual trust between members of the organization is an indispensable condition for the democratic style.

7. Satisfying the needs of employees and managers. This trait has the peculiarity that a democratic leader pays Special attention to realize the personal and professional interests of employees, which are not directly dependent on the economic efficiency of the enterprise.

8. Focus on goals and results. Contradictions between the individual goals of employees and the goal of the organization are resolved on the basis of their integration with the active participation of all stakeholders.

9. Focus on personnel development. The continuous process of training and advanced training of personnel is based on the needs of the organization and the interests of employees and is aimed at strengthening their work motivation.

The effectiveness of using a democratic style depends on three factors: the qualities of the leader, the characteristics of subordinates and the characteristics of the tasks being solved.

The manager provides broad information not only about what is necessary to complete tasks, but also about the general situation in the enterprise. Information serves as a means of guidance. In a democratic style, the leader does not resort to formal power; he enjoys the business authority associated with his performance of the functions of an expert.

The use of a democratic style places the following requirements on a leader:

· Openness;

· Trust in employees;

· Waiver of personal privileges;

· Non-interference in the performance of tasks;

· Control based on results.

In a democratic style, employees are viewed as partners who can solve current problems independently. They are typically characterized by a high level vocational training, knowledge and experience, desire for creativity and personal growth, interest in work, high importance of colleagues’ opinions about them.

Applying a democratic style requires employees to:

· Desire to take responsibility;

· Willingness and ability to take responsibility for one’s actions;

· Self-control.

The advantages of the democratic style consist primarily of qualified decisions, high motivation of employees and relief of the manager. Employee participation in decision making increases their motivation, which leads to improved work achievements. This style promotes employee development, but its use can slow down the decision-making process.

Permissive (neutral) style

The permissive style is characterized by: the manager’s desire to avoid making decisions or shift this task to others, as well as his indifferent attitude towards the affairs of the team. A leader who has chosen this style usually gives complete freedom of action to his subordinates, letting their work take its course. He is friendly in his interactions with employees, but plays a passive role and does not show initiative. He provides the necessary information to employees only upon their request. The team lacks any structuring of work, a clear division of tasks, rights and responsibilities. The manager avoids both positive and negative assessments of work and regulation of relationships. In extreme terms, the laissez-faire style means a lack of leadership, as the leader completely evades his managerial role.

With a permissive style, the level of productivity is the lowest; this style is often accompanied by an increase in employee frustration and aggressiveness. Usually there is low labor discipline, informal leaders often emerge with a negative attitude towards the goals of the organization, new or weaker employees are often harassed by stronger ones. Because of this and a number of other similar points, the permissive style was recognized as unacceptable.

Characteristics of leadership styles are given in Appendix Table 1.

Liberal style

A leader with a liberal leadership style practically does not interfere in the activities of the team; employees are given complete independence and the opportunity for individual and collective creativity. Such a leader is usually polite with his subordinates and is ready to cancel a decision he previously made. Liberals are characterized by lack of initiative and thoughtless implementation of directives from higher authorities.

Of the available means of influencing the collective, the main place for a liberal is occupied by persuasion and requests. By doing management functions he is passive. A liberal manager is afraid of conflicts and generally agrees with the opinions of his subordinates. His gentleness in dealing with people prevents him from gaining real authority, since some employees demand concessions from him, which he does, for fear of ruining relationships with them. The consequence of this may be familiarity, and the “distance” of such a manager with his subordinates at work is extremely insignificant. The leader of the liberal style does not show any pronounced organizational abilities, weakly controls and regulates the actions of his subordinates and, as a consequence, his management activities not effective

Chapter 3. Measures to improve personnel management systems in the division of the Yunost Hotel

Evaluation of the effectiveness of personnel management at the Yunost Hotel

Effective personnel management should be aimed at increasing the quality and quantity of work performed by a manager or specialist, which will ultimately ensure the hotel's competitiveness in the labor market. Competitiveness in this case is presented as a set of conditions provided to staff that positively distinguish the hotel from similar enterprises.

The following indicators can be used to assess the position of a hotel in the labor market:

Level of employee satisfaction with their hotel:

Kt=Kv/R*100,

Where Kt is the staff turnover rate; Kv - number of employees who quit during the reporting period; P is the number of employees. Using this indicator, you can roughly determine how satisfied the employee’s demand for the hotel is, that is, how competitive the hotel is in the labor market in terms of meeting the needs of the staff;

Leadership style is a stable set of traits of a leader, manifested in his relationships with subordinates. In other words, it is the way in which a boss manages his subordinates and in which a pattern of his behavior independent of specific situations is expressed. The basis for identifying leadership styles is the different distribution of decision-making powers between the manager and subordinates. Leadership style does not characterize the leader’s behavior in general, but rather what is stable, invariant, and constantly manifests itself in various situations. The search and use of optimal leadership styles are designed to contribute to increased work achievements and employee satisfaction. The concept of leadership styles received intensive development after the Second World War. However, its developments still face a number of unsolved problems. Let's name the main ones:

Difficulties in determining the effectiveness of a leadership style. The results to be achieved by a particular style include 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 leadership style and the effectiveness of its use. Typically, leadership style is considered as the reason for achieving a certain consequence - employee productivity.

However, such a seemingly superficial cause-and-effect relationship does not always correspond to reality. Often it is the nature of the employees' achievements (minor or high achievements) that prompts the manager to use a certain style;

3) variability of the situation, primarily within the organization itself. Leadership styles are effective only when certain conditions, but these conditions do not remain unchanged. Over time, both employees and managers 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, leadership styles are an important guide in solving the problems of improving leadership effectiveness.

The leadership style can be determined in two ways: 1) by identifying the characteristics of the individual leadership style that the boss uses in relation to his subordinates; 2) through 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 organization110.

The scientific analysis of the concept of “leadership style” and related issues is associated with the name of the German psychologist K. Lewin, who worked in the USA.

In the 30s, he and his colleagues conducted a series of experiments with ten- to eleven-year-old children at the University of Job and, as a result of analyzing and comprehending the data obtained during these experiments, he identified three “classical” leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic and permissive (neutral). The most important common basis for identifying these styles was the nature of adoption management decisions and the attitude of the leader towards subordinates. The authoritarian style is characterized by the sole adoption of all decisions by the manager, as well as weak interest in the employee as an individual. The manager controls his subordinates by virtue of his legitimate power arising from the hierarchical organization of the enterprise. He expects appropriate obedience from his subordinates.

The manager himself, without justification to his subordinates, defines goals, distributes tasks and strictly controls their implementation. He is convinced that he better understands the organization’s goals and ways to achieve them, and is more competent than his subordinates, although in reality this is often not the case. The decisions of the boss are in the nature of orders that must be followed unquestioningly by subordinates, otherwise they should expect sanctions. Status symbols support the leader's position of power. He rewards and punishes employees at his own discretion, without any firmly established and publicly known evaluation criteria. Employees are provided with only the necessary minimum information about the general state of affairs.

In contrast to the authoritarian style of behavior, the democratic style is characterized by the leader’s desire to develop collective decisions and interest in informal human relations. The manager, together with the employees, agrees on the goals of the organization and the individual wishes of the group members, and distributes the work. When evaluating employees, he is guided by objective criteria known to all and provides his subordinates with the necessary assistance, trying to increase their ability to independently solve production problems. Such a leader is distinguished by self-criticism, sociability, self-control and smooth relationships with subordinates.

The permissive style is characterized by: the manager’s desire to avoid making decisions or shift this task to others, as well as his absolutely indifferent attitude to the affairs of the team. A leader who has chosen this style usually gives complete freedom of action to his subordinates, letting their work take its course. He is friendly in communicating with employees but plays a passive role and does not show initiative. He provides the necessary information to employees only upon their request. The group lacks any structuring of work, or any clear distribution of tasks, rights and responsibilities. The manager avoids both positive and negative assessments of employees regulating group relations. In extreme terms, the laissez-faire style means a lack of leadership, as the manager withdraws completely from his managerial role.

Participants in Levin's research by R. K. Wiethe and R. Lippett11 reflected in the form of a table the most important distinctive features of the three classical leadership styles (see table).

Each of the three classic leadership styles has characteristic forms of external manifestation. An authoritarian leader is often characterized by a stern facial expression, a sharp, unfriendly, commanding tone, and separation of himself from the group. A democratic leader is more characterized by sociability, external goodwill, orders in the form of a request or recommendation, and the predominance of “we” over “I” in speech. The most important evidence of a permissive style is often an indifferent appearance the manager, his desire to be invisible, his ingratiating tone when dealing with employees.

Table Characteristics of classical leadership styles

	Democratic	P opustelsky
1. Setting goals	The leader sets the goals	Goals are the result of a group decision with the support of a leader	Complete freedom to make individual and group decisions, minimal involvement of the manager
2. Distribution of tasks	All tasks are given by the manager, and the employee does not know what task he will receive next time	A certain procedure for distributing work is established. Depending on the wishes of the employee, the manager can give advice and offer another task.	The manager provides necessary materials and, at the request of the employee, provides information
3. Performance evaluation	The manager personally rewards and punishes employees, but does not participate in the labor process.	The leader strives to use objective criteria of criticism and praise, tries to directly participate in the work of the group	The leader gives individual spontaneous comments; there is no regulation or evaluation of group work.
4. Work atmosphere	High tension and hostility	Free friendly atmosphere	Atmosphere of arbitrariness of individual employees
5. Group cohesion	Submissive unquestioning obedience	High group cohesion, low turnover	Low group cohesion
6. Interest in the tasks being performed			Minimum
7. Intensity (quality) of work	High intensity	High originality of results
8. Ready to work	In the absence of the manager, a break from work	In the absence of a manager, continuation of work	Breaks from work as desired
9. Work motivation	Minimum	High motivation of each employee and the group as a whole	Minimum

Of course, these characteristics are not absolutely firmly “fixed” to the corresponding styles. Outwardly, a leader can show affection towards people, show a keen interest in their proposals, hiding indifference and an authoritarian style behind polite manners and a constant smile. In Western countries, the external forms of the authoritarian style are less pronounced because managers there have a better command of communication techniques. In Russia, on the contrary, even democratic leaders often allow unceremoniousness and behavior uncharacteristic of this style. Hence, external shape manifestations of leadership style can be deceptive.

According to the observations of Lewin, his assistants and followers, productivity in authoritarian-led groups is slightly higher than in democratic groups. However, in the absence or change of leadership, it falls, and often the labor process itself is interrupted. In such groups, there is higher tension between team members, more frequent and acute conflicts, less interest in work and job satisfaction, and there is no true cohesion. All this reduces the labor achievements of authoritarian-led groups.

The democratic style has superiority in work motivation, job satisfaction, and quality of work. Employees feel a sense of pride in their work, value being in the group, and show ingenuity, resourcefulness and initiative. There is a trusting, friendly atmosphere in the team. Labor process has the property of self-regulation and is not violated in the absence of a leader.

The permissive style correlates with the lowest productivity and group identification, and is often accompanied by an increase in frustration and aggressiveness among team members, leading to its disintegration. In groups, there is usually low labor discipline; informal leaders often appear with a negative nature of activity in relation to the goals of the organization. New or weaker workers are often harassed by stronger ones. Because of this and a number of other similar points, the permissive style was considered unacceptable and was not the object of later research.

The conclusions made by Levin and his followers about the advantages of the democratic style in the field of group-wide labor achievements, satisfaction with work and being in a team, as well as group integration were critically analyzed by P.M. Stogdill112. Having studied the results of many studies carried out in line with Levin’s ideas, he came to the conclusion that these conclusions and their extension to any enterprise were illegal. Neither the democratic nor the authoritarian style has clear advantages in increasing labor productivity and cannot be recommended as the “only correct”, universal leadership style. The clear advantages of the democratic style are manifested only in employee satisfaction with work and being in the team. Of course, this is a lot, but it is clearly not enough for the overall success of the organization.

Modern interpretations of authoritarian and democratic leadership styles go back to their classical interpretation by Levin and have much in common with it, especially in characterizing the fundamental features of these styles. Nevertheless, current ideas about them and their applicability are more capacious in their content, are largely operationalized and are based on specific studies of their effectiveness.

The permissive style of team management is also known as liberal. This is one of those management styles in which leaders abstract themselves from management as such and allow group members to make decisions on their own. Researchers have found that this management style tends to lead to poor performance by individual team members.

Characteristics of a liberal management style

Typically, a permissive management style is characterized by:

• little or no instructions from the manager;
• for subordinates - complete freedom of action in decision-making;
• the tools and resources necessary to solve the team’s problems are provided by the manager;
• group members solve problems independently.

Advantages of a liberal leader

A permissive leadership style can be effective in situations where group members are highly skilled, motivated, and able to work independently. Despite the fact that the words “connivance” and “non-interference” imply an absolute lack of influence of the leader on the group, many leaders still remain open and accessible to team members - thus trying to provide consultations and receive feedback.

Disadvantages of the Permissive Style

The liberal leader is not the best the best option In situations where group members lack knowledge or experience, it is simply irresponsible to force subordinates to perform tasks and make difficult decisions. Some people are not able to independently set optimal deadlines for completing work, manage their own projects and solve problems that arise during the work. In cases where team members do not feel sufficiently confident in leadership or do not receive feedback from managers, projects may not proceed as planned and deadlines may be missed.