The management style is very often not accepted by the leader consciously, it comes from his personal ideas about leadership, from his character, temperament, from the knowledge gained about the position of director. Many social factors also influence leadership style. Many times I came across directors, and especially with directors, who, after 3-5 years of management, become real petty tyrants and tyrannized the entire team. Unfortunately, the province simply abounds with such directors. And in the capitals they are not uncommon. In order to correct the style, it is necessary to find out what management styles are singled out in management practice in general, and how they affect the overall work of the enterprise.
Why study the director's work style at all - this question can only arise among amateurs who do not strive for development, who believe that their enterprise will never go anywhere in their life. This is a terrible mistake, a colossal delusion! Business can present serious surprises, internal revolutions have not been canceled. And the external influences of competitors, new legislative initiatives of the state are successfully transferred only when the team strongly stands behind its director and follows him without discussing the details. What kind of leadership style can achieve such an effect? This will be discussed in this article.
So, in management, the following management styles are distinguished: authoritarian, democratic, liberal-anarchist, inconsistent, situational.
The authoritarian style is also called dictatorial, directive. The leader in the team with this style behaves tough, he sets certain limits of work and very strictly controls their implementation. Decisions at such an enterprise are made by the director alone, there are no discussions with top management, each of the leaders works only in his own narrow niche, no one can understand the whole process. Moreover, an authoritarian leader deliberately takes on many functions so that no one else can manage and claim his place. In the case of an individual entrepreneur, none of the relatives or heirs of the business is allowed to manage.
All decisions made are not subject to discussion, strict control over their implementation is established, if something is not fulfilled, then strict administrative measures are taken. The personality of a person, an employee, goes by the wayside. The effectiveness of the method is high only if the director receives for management an enterprise in which there is no order, discipline, no profit and the proper volume of sales. At first, when the company reaches good performance, it is this style that will put things in order. In any other case, an authoritarian style harms the company more than it benefits.
This management style suppresses the initiative, creativity of employees, innovations are introduced very slowly and inefficiently. With an authoritarian style, erroneous one-sided decisions are often made that are understandable only to one person. Employees become passive, dissatisfaction with the place of work, the company, their position, position, colleagues, the whole business and the overall system grows. More and more in such a team, fawning, intrigues, gossip begin to flourish, people experience constant stress. As a result, people either leave this place, or begin to get sick often, or simply turn into opportunists and are only engaged in deriving personal gain at work. The director needs to master this leadership style only when all sorts of cataclysms and emergencies happen.
Democratic management style
With this style, the leader must be a highly professional manager, psychologist, teacher, production worker. He, of course, makes a decision on his own, but arranges general discussions. Moreover, he himself considers the final version of the decision both before and after the general discussions. The decisions made are clear to all employees, even in the course of their implementation, initiative proposals are made, adjustments are made. Control of implementation is carried out not only by the head, but also by employees. From the director, subordinates see understanding, goodwill, a desire to develop their personalities together with the company. With a democratic style of management, the leader watches the inclinations and talents of employees, tries to train, direct, up to changing the type of activity and position.
This style is quite effective, promotes healthy growth and development of the company's areas of activity. Labor productivity, sales volumes increase, employees become proactive, active, they turn into a real team. There is one danger in this style of management - if control is weakened, it can turn into anarchy. The leader must closely monitor that discipline is not violated, that there is an organizational order in the team. The leader in this management system must be very professional, hard-working, a model in everything for his subordinates.
Liberal anarchist style
This is the most neutral management style, one might even say conniving. It is in him that democracy develops, for which no one observes and builds its framework. In this atmosphere, everyone expresses their opinion, defends their point of view, and does not hear others. And even if a certain policy is adopted to a common decision, everyone continues to act at his own discretion. The head of the liberal-democratic style does not have the necessary professional and psychological knowledge and skills, does not hide this, and is not respected.
And besides, such a leader does not care much that they treat him like that, he does his own thing, does not particularly touch anyone, and everyone is comfortable with this. It turns out that tasks are set, fulfilled, there is a result, but all this is in full swing, and often the movement does not quite go where it was planned, and even not at all. The psychological climate in such a team is not conducive to work, it is unfavorable for creativity, for establishing order. In such companies, motivation is very rarely involved, there is no sense of elbow of other team members. There is no benefit from this style in any situation, only harm to work.
Inconsistent style
Leaders who "suffer" from this style tend to jump from one style to another. They then begin to strictly control the work, then let go of control so much that subordinates begin to arrange complete self-government and anarchy. But sometimes in such a collective comes a healthy democracy. Such rolls, first in one direction, then in the other, give the company instability in the market, ensure the inconsistent implementation of all planned actions, and non-compliance with the company's policies.
The effectiveness of management is low, and most often this is managed by unprepared impulsive people who once studied management, but did not finish their studies. In a team with such management, there are always many conflicts, service or personal problems.
Situation Management
The most effective management style is situational. The manager applies in the company those methods and methods of management that are necessary for a given employee or group of employees, but it is best if the entire team is at the same level of development. Therefore, when recruiting employees for the first time or re-recruiting, one should try to select specialists in such a way that they are all at approximately the same stage of production development.
If the team is at a low level of development, that is, they do not want to work and do not know how to do it, then it is best to apply the following actions: give clear and tough instructions, tell them in detail what to do, constantly monitor every step. If something goes wrong, then point out mistakes and even punish for deliberate failure to follow instructions. If something works out well, then praise the employees, encourage them.
The second level of development of the team, that is, the middle one, is characteristic of the state when the desire to work has already appeared, but so far there is not enough experience for the qualitative performance of all duties, but there is a desire and diligence, conscientiousness. In this case, the leader should be a mentor, an adviser who gives recommendations so that employees can show initiative, independence and creativity. Control over the execution of tasks should be constant. There should be mutual respect and goodwill in the team, psychological aspects acquire an important role in the activities of the leader. But with such democratic manifestations, it is necessary to clearly give orders and demand tough and strict implementation.
A good level of team development implies the presence of work experience, a fairly good organization of work, and the cohesion of all team members. In such a team, consultations, advice and hearings are constantly held, the initiative is encouraged, comments and clarifications from subordinates are taken into work and awarded. A large share of responsibility is assigned to employees, they are given the opportunity to make advisory independent decisions.
And the last, fourth level of team development is characterized by a great desire to work and a creative approach to working in a team of professionals. In such a team, the powers of the leader at any time can easily be assigned to employees, they are confronted with a problem, goals are clarified, then opinions on solutions are accepted. The leader in such a team is best to give the right to solve problems to top managers, controlling only the key points. You can not interfere in business, you just need to support employees and help them.
E.Shchugoreva
Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn
Authoritarianism in the classical definition means the sole and undeniable power of one, arbitrarily appointed, person and his immediate environment, or a limited group of people. This type of social culture, until the 20th century, almost without alternative, dominated the mass consciousness of people.
Authoritarianism does not exclude diktat and can act as part of it, but these are fundamentally different concepts. Unlike diktat, authoritarianism does not impose significant restrictions on the freedom of people in society, when choosing everything that is not related 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 led by a leader with unquestioned authority. The main characteristic of the authoritarian style is unconditional submission to self-proclaimed authority, regardless of the form, scale and direction of the social structure.
At the same time, the support of an authoritarian leader by the majority of members of society does not play a decisive role. Power can be obtained through traditional, financial and/or forceful leverage. It is enough for an authoritarian leader to win the favor of the people who really hold power, and through them he will be able to extend it to the rest of the society.
Authoritarian democratic style
Authoritarianism played an important role in the social consciousness of people. The most striking examples of everyday authoritarian power are patriarchy and gerontocracy. Such authoritarianism is often referred to as traditional. The personality of the leader is not of decisive importance, since his power is accepted by those around him 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 one's own opinion on any issue that does not affect the interests of the ruling elite.
Authoritarian liberal style
The desire for power is an integral part of an ambitious personality. The authoritarian liberal style of activity generates 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 interfering with personal life.
An authoritarian person independently proclaims himself a leader. However, without recognition of this right by a decisive part of the 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 parenting, historically expressed in gerontocracy, can be called the most productive and even natural. The authority of parents, teachers and educators is necessary for the child to feel safe.
Moreover, the authoritarian style of the teacher allows you to quickly perceive basic information. The relationship between a teacher and students is always built on the principle of authority, because otherwise the knowledge gained 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. The authoritarian style of upbringing is characterized by the inadmissibility in the learning process of controlling aspects of life that do not directly affect the quality of perception of the training program. An internal protest against an unreasonable demand can shake trust in authority, worsening the relationship between the explainer and the listener.
Authoritarian style of leadership or management
An authoritarian management style is effective when working with small groups. The most productive use of the authoritarian style is managed by lower-level managers. To maintain authority requires regular direct contact and direct communication with subordinates.
At the same time, the authoritarian decision-making style, expressed through the personal responsibility of the leader, is a good example for employees. Such an authoritarian leader style increases trust in him, strengthens power and allows for effective management. Conversely, a charismatic but irresponsible manager will not be able to force subordinates to follow his instructions.
Authoritarian style in behavior, communication and relationships
The authoritarian decision-making style, 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 also is responsible for them, it is 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, who claims to be an authoritarian leader, must have significant influence, charisma, high leadership qualities and impressive rhetoric.
Pros and cons of the authoritarian style
The authoritarian style remains most effective in the initial stages of learning and for primary motivation, especially for labile individuals. The unconditional authority of the leader suppresses critical perception and appeal to one's own experience. This approach is productive while the student does not yet have enough information for independent analysis.
Management plays an important function in all spheres of human activity. This is especially important in a market economy. Competent management of subordinates unobtrusively brings them to the achievement of the goal set by the leader. For each type of activity and type of employees, different styles of behavior of the employer are suitable.
What are management styles
The normal functioning of the enterprise is ensured by the presence of one or another style of management, as well as the use of combined techniques. The applied management scheme is the main characteristic of activity efficiency. The success of the company and the dynamics of its development depend on it. It forms the presence in the work of the motivation of employees, which determines their attitude to their duties, or demotivates them. The leadership scheme also affects the relationships in the team.
What management styles are relevant in management? What is their feature? In what situations is their use effective, and in what situations can they only harm?
Concept definition
Types of styles, their advantages and disadvantages
The duties of the head of the company include supervision of all structural divisions. This type of responsibility implies the need to monitor employees and control their activities as determined by the job description and the provisions of the employment contract. The implementation of all activities is carried out in the perspective of management, implemented by the leader independently without the help of subordinates. His usual measure of behavior contributes to the formation of working relationships, motivating employees to work and achieve certain results, and also affects the performance of the company.
In practice, there are three main schemes for the relationship between the employer and subordinates:
- democratic;
- liberal;
- authoritarian.
The personality of the leader and the styles of personnel management applied by him have an impact on the results of the company. This relationship explains the prosperity of one organization, even in a crisis, and the closure of enterprises in favorable periods. The ideal entrepreneurial result can be achieved by combining several methods of leadership.
The style of behavior of the director in relation to his subordinates has a direct impact on the effectiveness of their management. He needs to constantly monitor his strengths and weaknesses in order to correct managerial behavior. It depends on the administrative and personal qualities of the director, and is his original and recognizable handwriting.
Democratic leadership scheme
The democratic style of management implies that subordinates participate in making managerial decisions.
They also share responsibility for their consequences with the head of the company. The name "democratic" means "rule of the people" in Latin. With regard to the subject of entrepreneurship, it interprets the equal rights of the director and heads of structural divisions. Statistical studies show that this leadership style is many times more effective in influencing the formation of a positive atmosphere in the team and the effectiveness of entrepreneurial activity.
Democratic governance
When a leader behaves democratically with subordinates, he relies on their initiative. All members of the team in this perspective are equal and have the right to actively participate in the process of discussing problematic issues and in decision-making. The relationship between the leader and subordinates is based on trust. It is worth noting that the desire of the director to listen to the opinion of the company's specialists is not due to the fact that he does not own the issue, but to the fact that he understands that during the discussion of the problem, new ideas may arise, the implementation of which will increase the effectiveness of the work and bring the achievement of the goal closer.
With a democracy in production, management never imposes its opinion and will on subordinate employees. The main principle of its management are the methods of stimulation and persuasion. Punishment and sanctions are used extremely rarely in situations where other ways of influencing the mind of an employee have already been exhausted. The boss shows a sincere interest in his employees and takes into account their needs, which contributes to their initiative and activity in achieving joint goals.
Read also: Advance payment: what is it
In this perspective of labor relations, a specialist receives satisfaction from his work, since he has the opportunity for self-realization. A favorable psychological environment contributes to the cohesion of employees.
Management in a democratic style is possible only if the management enjoys authority among employees. To do this, the director must be literate, professionally competent and intellectual, as well as possess organizational and psychological and communication skills. In the absence of such qualities, democratic leadership will be ineffective. In practice, there is a distinction between deliberative and participatory style of democratic governance.
deliberative style
With a deliberative management style, most problems are solved in the process of discussing them.
The director, before making any decision, consults with his subordinates, whose competence is the issue. When negotiating, he does not demonstrate his superiority and does not shift full responsibility to the specialist for the consequences that may result from joint decisions. The deliberative type of leadership provides two-way communication with subordinates. Important decisions are made by the director, however, the opinion of specialists is taken into account, who are also given the authority to independently solve problems that are within their competence.
Participating Style
A participatory democratic leader seeks to involve employees not only in making certain decisions, but also in monitoring their implementation. Relationships in this perspective require complete trust. The director behaves like one of the members of the team and does not take a predominant position. Any employee has the right to express his own opinion and not be afraid of the consequences of his openness. Responsibility for negative performance is shared between the manager and subordinates. A mixed management style allows you to create effective labor motivation, since every employee in the team is respected.
liberal style
The liberal style of management in the organization is based on the tolerance and indulgence of management towards subordinates.
Employees in such an enterprise have complete freedom in their decisions, in which the director practically does not participate. He withdraws from his obligations of control and supervision over the activities of subordinates. The principle of its functioning is the signing of administrative documentation drawn up by specialists in whose competence it is located.
A liberal attitude in the team is formed in a situation where the leader is not sure of his official position due to professional or organizational incompetence. His independent decisions are possible only after appropriate instructions from higher authorities. With this style of management, unsatisfactory results of work are not uncommon, from which the director seeks to evade responsibility.
Liberal style management
The solution of all important issues at the enterprise with a liberal director is carried out without his participation. To preserve the image of the leader and build his own authority, he has to provide employees with various benefits and pay undeserved bonuses.
Liberal management is relevant in companies that have a high level of discipline and understanding of their own responsibility. It can be applied in partnership of creative individuals. In all other situations, such leadership is regarded in two ways. If the team has disciplined, responsible and qualified employees, then the liberality of the director will have a positive effect on the functioning of the enterprise.
Teams in which employees command management can lead to negative results of activities with this perspective of management. The director is their best friend, however, in the event of a conflict situation, the employees cease to obey him, which leads to a decrease in discipline, quarrels and non-compliance with the norms of internal documentation governing labor procedures. All these phenomena lead to a decrease in labor productivity.
Management style is a stable system of ways, methods, techniques for influencing the leader on the team, organizing joint activities to achieve significant goals. The correct choice of management style largely determines the success of management, and hence the efficiency of the enterprise.
Undoubtedly, the style of management is influenced by the personality of the leader, who, even by his character or temperament, can determine one or another style. Not the last place is occupied by the moral and business qualities of the leader in the formation of the management style. In any case, management style is a rather complex phenomenon that is studied by management psychology and other sciences that study the relationship of people in the field of production, management, and economics.
American psychologists are quite resolute about the potential possibilities of shaping management style. Their position is unequivocal - the management style should be formed. This should be done by the leader himself by restructuring both his personality and by making appropriate decisions to change the structure of the working group, the daily routine and other factors that affect production.
Characteristics of the main management styles
American scientists in the field of management psychology R. Blake and D. Mouton have developed a table of management styles, with which you can choose the most effective management style, depending on the individual qualities of the manager and the needs of production.
They took as a basis two qualities of a leader, which he manifests in the process of managing an enterprise. This is concern for people and concern for production efficiency. Depending on this, scientists have identified five main management styles. However, there are many intermediate options between them, because those properties that Blake and Munton took as starting points are rarely found in their pure form.
The meaning of their classification is that the manager is constantly faced with a choice: either to increase the volume of production by increasing the efforts of employees, or to choose a policy that meets people, but the interests of the manufacturer will certainly suffer.
Another important factor in the Blake-Mouton system is the collective management factor. It is decisive in the case when the manager is faced with the task of significantly increasing production volumes and at the same time causing less harm to people.
When choosing a management style, a manager should know that he needs more time for this time: improving relations with workers or completing production tasks. Thus, the Blake-Moonton system is quite flexible and allows the leader to constantly change his tactics and management style.
Authoritarian management style
The authoritarian style of management is characterized by excessive centralization of power: the leader concentrates all power in his hands, takes over all, even partial, management functions and tries to eliminate all the necessary self-regulatory mechanisms of this process.
The autocrat autocratically decides most of the issues of the life of the team, does not consult with anyone, does not strive for collegiality in work. In working with subordinates, the leader tends to exaggerate administrative methods of influence. Stimulating the labor activity of subordinates, he uses mainly negative incentives: remark, warning, reproaches, threats, reprimands, punishments, deprivation of benefits, prohibitions that cause subordinates to feel anxiety, anxiety, fear, oppression.
The authoritarian style is characterized by a very high intensity of control over the work of subordinates by the leader. He seeks to personally control everything and everyone. He does not trust anyone, he constantly keeps in sight all aspects of the life of the team. In this way, he achieves the exact and obligatory fulfillment of his requirements, but at the same time increases the dependence of his subordinates on himself.
Democratic management style
A study of the performance of each style proved that the most effective is the democratic style of management, which creates conditions for efficient production and a favorable moral and psychological climate in the team.
Typical for a democratic style of management is the use of positive incentives to work: encouragement, prospects for tomorrow's joy, relying on a person's natural attraction to pleasant things, satisfies his needs more fully. The democrat expresses his demands most often in a soft, consultative form: wishes, advice, recommendations. Democratic style means that the leader is striving to take into account the opinions of other specialists, to check his thoughts, ideas, and decisions collegially. At the same time, compromises are required.
In a democratic style of government, there is a tendency to spread publicity: the decision-making process should be open to all. Constant meetings with purposeful information improve relations between people, coherence in actions, group orientation, develop a sense of shared responsibility among employees, which positively affects labor productivity.
A democrat constantly cares about the cohesion of the labor collective, strives to maintain the unity of workers, and prevents complications in human relations. Good relationships help them cooperate. A democrat works with the team as a whole, does not particularly separate anyone, does not violate official subordination, does not oppose his deputies to their subordinates, and is not stereotyped in assessments and behavior.
He is well oriented in people, knows how to abstract from personal qualities, subjectivity in assessments and adequately understand other people. The democrat takes into account the individual personality traits of subordinates in his work: he studies their needs, interests, causes of social activity and seeks to harmonize them with the interests of the case. When organizing production activities, he takes into account the psychology of the personality of the subordinate, selects assignments and tasks for him, determines the means of influence, the content of the requirements.
Liberal management style
The liberal style is often called permissive, anarchist. Its main difference is the insignificant activity of the leader in management. He is little interested in the process of daily work, he does not often visit production units, and weakly exercises control functions.
Such a leader spends most of his working time on meetings, desk work. As a result - poor awareness of the state of affairs in the enterprise. A liberal is an undemanding person. Often such a leader, at his own discretion or indirect initiative of an informal leader, delegates, delegates his powers to him. At the same time, the degree of personal participation of the manager in management does not reach the optimal level.
Often it comes to the point that he is forced to persuade his subordinates to do this or that work, and even he himself undertakes to carry out assignments that have not been completed by subordinates.
Thus, knowledge of the psychology of people and oneself personally helps the leader to choose the right management style, on which the effectiveness of structures subject to him largely depends. Psychology makes it possible to select a management style on a scientific basis, taking into account factors that are already defined and developed in scientific theories and concepts.
