What is the difference between an authoritarian management style? About management styles in management in simple words

Management plays an important function in all areas of human activity. It is especially important in a market economy. Competent management of subordinates unobtrusively leads them to achieve the goal set by the leader. For each type of activity and type of employee, different styles of employer behavior are suitable.

What are the different management styles?

The normal functioning of an enterprise is ensured by the presence of one or another management style, as well as the use of combined techniques. The applied management scheme is the main characteristic of the effectiveness of the activity. The success of the company and the dynamics of its development depend on it. It creates the presence of employee motivation at work, which determines their attitude towards their responsibilities, or demotivates them. The leadership scheme also influences relationships within the team.

What management styles are relevant in management? What makes them special? In what situations is their use effective, and in what situations can they only cause harm?

Definition of the concept

Types of styles, their advantages and disadvantages

The responsibilities 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 from the perspective of management, implemented by the manager independently without the help of subordinates. His habitual behavior contributes to the formation of working relationships, motivates employees to work and achieve certain results, and also affects the performance of the company.

In practice, there are three main patterns of relationships between employers and subordinates:

• democratic;
• liberal;
• authoritarian.

The personality of the manager and the HR management styles he uses influence the company's performance. This relationship explains the prosperity of one organization even in times of crisis, and the closure of enterprises during favorable periods. The ideal entrepreneurial outcome can be achieved by combining several modes of leadership.

The director's style of behavior towards his subordinates has a direct impact on the effectiveness of their management. He needs to constantly monitor his strengths and weaknesses in order to adjust his management behavior. It depends on the administrative and personal qualities of the director, and is his unique and recognizable handwriting.

Democratic leadership scheme

A democratic management style implies that subordinates participate in management decisions.

They also share responsibility for their consequences with the head of the company. The name “democratic” comes from Latin and means “power of the people.” In relation to a business entity, 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 creating a positive atmosphere in the team and on the effectiveness of entrepreneurial activity.

Democratic governance

When a leader behaves democratically with his subordinates, he relies on their initiative. All members of the team from this perspective have equal rights and have the right to actively participate in the processes of discussing problematic issues and in decision-making. The relationship between a manager and subordinates is based on trust. It is worth noting that the director’s desire to listen to the opinion of the company’s specialists is not due to the fact that he does not know 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.

In industrial democracy, management never imposes its opinion and will on subordinate employees. The main principles of its management are methods of stimulation and persuasion. Punishment and sanctions are used extremely rarely in situations where other methods of influencing the employee’s consciousness have already been exhausted. The boss shows a sincere interest in his employees and takes into account their needs, which helps them show initiative and activity in achieving jointly set 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 promotes cohesion among employees.

Democratic management is only possible if management has the authority of the employees. To do this, the director must be literate, professionally competent and intellectual, as well as possess organizational and psychological-communication skills. In the absence of such qualities, democratic leadership will be ineffective. In practice, there is a distinction between deliberative and participatory styles of democratic governance.

Deliberative style

With a deliberative management style, most problems are resolved through discussion.

The director, before making any decision, consults with his subordinates, who are responsible for the issue. When negotiating, he does not demonstrate his superiority and does not completely shift responsibility to the specialist for the consequences that may result from jointly made decisions. The consultative type of leadership provides two-way communication with subordinates. Important decisions are made by the director, but the opinion of specialists is taken into account, who are also given the authority to independently solve problems within their competence.

Participating style

A participative democratic leader seeks to involve employees not only in making certain decisions, but also in monitoring their implementation. Relationships from this perspective presuppose complete trust. The director behaves like one of the team members and does not occupy a preferential 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 results is shared between the manager and subordinates. A mixed management style allows you to create effective work motivation, since every employee in the team is respected.

Liberal style

The liberal management style in an organization is based on tolerance and condescension of management towards subordinates.

Employees at such an enterprise have complete freedom in their decisions, in which the director has virtually no participation. He withdraws himself from his obligations of control and supervision over the activities of his subordinates. The principle of its functioning is the signing of administrative documentation drawn up by specialists within whose competence it is.

A liberal attitude in a team is formed in a situation where the manager is not confident in his official position due to professional or organizational incompetence. His independent decisions are possible only after appropriate instructions from superiors. With this management style, unsatisfactory work results are common, from which the director seeks to evade responsibility.

Liberal style management

All important issues at an enterprise with a liberal director are resolved without his participation. To preserve the leader’s image 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 used in partnerships between creative individuals. In all other situations, such leadership is assessed 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.

Negative performance results from this management perspective can result from teams in which employees command management. The director is their best friend, but when a conflict situation arises, employees stop obeying him, which leads to a decrease in discipline, quarrels and non-compliance with internal documentation regulating labor procedures. All these phenomena lead to a decrease in labor productivity.

“Every broom sweeps differently” - hidden in this popular saying is the idea of ​​the diversity of personality types of leaders and their management styles. By carefully observing the work of several managers in a team, you can notice the difference in the formation of working relationships. management directly influences the company's performance. This fact may explain why some companies close down, while others survive and thrive even in times of crisis.

The personality of the leader, management styles and company results - these things are closely related. By combining several methods of guidance, you can get closer to the ideal result. After all, the style of a leader and the effectiveness of management are inseparable things. If you are a boss, then it is important for you to understand what kind of person you really are. This way you will understand your strengths and weaknesses, and you will be able to achieve better results.

Brief description of leadership styles

Management style is a complex of relationships between management and subordinates and methods of influencing these two groups on each other. The performance of subordinates, the atmosphere in the team and its ability to achieve its goals and objectives depend on the quality of these relationships. Manager styles in team management can be of five types.

The famous American-German psychologist and writer in the 30s of the last century published and identified three leadership styles, which later became classics. A little later, inconsistent and situational were added to them. After studying the table with a brief description of the manager, you can find yourself and immediately move on to reading the desired section. It’s better to read all the material - in life you will have to deal with different people, and it’s better to be prepared. What are the different leadership styles?

Authoritarian

(from Lat. auctoritas - power, influence) - imperious, does not like to discuss, to be objected to, much less resisted. If the boss is this type of person, then the manager’s management style is authoritarian. This type belongs to one of the three classic ones.

Manager characteristics

This management style of a leader - authoritarian - is justified in stressful situations: wars, crises, epidemics, and so on, because such a person acts quickly and takes responsibility. In conversations he is tough and irreconcilable. Authoritarian leaders rise to the highest levels of power and successfully maintain their position. This leadership style is more common in Russia than others. This may be quite justified in large companies, factories, creative teams and the army. Negotiations on purchases or approvals are carried out in a tough mode, in an atmosphere that is heated to the limit.

An authoritarian leader collects all power in his hands and does not allow anyone to even encroach on part of it. Subordinates are under strict control and constantly undergo various checks. But the authoritarian style is divided into two more models: exploitative and benevolent.

“Exploitor” fully lives up to its name, it’s just “Pablo Escobar” in the company. Such a manager squeezes all the juice out of his subordinates, does not consider people’s interests, and is not interested in anyone’s opinion at all. It can stimulate workers with threats, blackmail, fines and other persecution.

Never allows even the slightest independence in making decisions or performing tasks. Everything must be done exactly as the “exploiter” said. Any authoritarian leader constantly issues orders, decrees and other regulations. Everything is certified with seals, paintings and dates. When it comes to completing tasks, he is extremely demanding and impatient, although he is capable of making concessions if he is not under emotion. If the leader is not in a good mood, then he can say and do anything, and then there is no need to expect an apology. At the same time, this behavior should not be confused with manipulative techniques, when all emotions are just “theater” - authoritarian leaders love to use this. Subordinates are deprived of the opportunity to take initiative.

A leader’s “benevolent” management style creates a more welcoming atmosphere, if you can call it that. Such a leader is already interested in the opinions of his subordinates, but can act in his own way, even if the opinion was expressed correctly. In general, such a boss communicates with his subordinates condescendingly, “in a fatherly way”, he may sympathize, but dryly and literally for a second, and then he will immediately remind him that the subordinate is now at work, and no one is interested in his experiences. You should not think that the second model is very different from the first - for all its benevolence, this is still an authoritarian leader: tough, domineering and demanding.

Any of these types love letters, signs, seals, paintings, abbreviations and abbreviations. All this should be big, sweeping, imperial. Such leaders become people with a paranoid personality pattern - power-hungry, distrustful and unprincipled. As a rule, they are workaholics who do not know how to rest, who are loving and capable of imposing their opinions and will on others.

Relations with subordinates

If in relations with subordinates a “benevolent” leader builds a distance that no one should cross, then for an “exploiter” this distance becomes intergalactic. The conversation is conducted in a commanding, rude manner. Employees are depressed and unmotivated, and there is a high risk of conflicts developing in the company. Criticism, even constructive criticism, is absent as a concept.

Not everyone has the courage to ask such a leader about personal matters, and this is justified - “Pablo Escobar” does not want to know anything about his subordinates, much less think about the difficulties of his employees. The possibility of getting something even for an enterprise is almost zero, if the autocrat himself did not talk about it. And if he spoke earlier, then he himself will decide when, who and what to receive. It is useless to argue with such a type - he has excellent training in tough negotiations, and his subordinate cannot talk him down. If the subordinate continues to insist, he will quickly receive a fine or reprimand, and will still have to follow the instructions. It is useless to show emotions in front of such a leader - he will look at the person as if he were a carpet. Zero empathy.

A “benevolent” type can listen to a subordinate, but he will have to immediately get to the point and not drag his feet, otherwise, “your time is up,” and you can only get to him with your question in the next life. It happens that the manager can even give advice. A “benevolent” person can provide vacation, departure on urgent business, or receiving more than what is due - but for this you need to “defend” your plan to him, how to sell him the idea of ​​why he should do this for you. But even if everything is done brilliantly, there is a big risk that the manager will do it his own way, and it is impossible to find out the reasons for the decision.

Problem solving

For the “exploiter” and the “benevolent”, everything is simple - everyone must work without rest or interruption and lay down their lives for the benefit of the enterprise. Those who disagree with this are declared “enemies of the people” and must leave the company.

Subordinates are obliged to carry out decrees without question. The faster and better the duties are performed, the more successful the enterprise achieves. And the more new tasks the autocrat will place on the shoulders of his subordinates. In solving problems, authoritarian leaders have no principles - the end justifies the means. This should be remembered, because the greater the level of influence of the autocrat, the tougher he will act.

Method of communication

There is no point in fussing and showing duplicity with such managers - they will figure it out in no time. Maybe not today, but tomorrow, and then it won’t be good. The autocrat knows how to weave intrigues better than anyone, so there is no point in competing in this direction either. By the way, about competition - this is the strong point of an authoritarian (and paranoid too) person, it is better not to get in his way. Why? Because there are no principles, and to achieve the goal, the autocrat justifies any means. Attempts at suggestion will fail - autocrats have zero suggestion. The best approach is collaboration. This way, everyday work will be easier, and the opportunity for career growth will appear on the horizon. Examples of leaders: Donald Trump, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler.

Democratic

The work and management style of a democratic leader is completely different from an authoritarian one. This style of work implies an equal distribution of duties and responsibilities among company employees. A democratic leader gathers around himself a team of subordinates who can be relied upon. Such a team that solves problems and launches even complex projects, and for this there is no need to coerce or intimidate employees. At the same time, there will still be responsibility, because a democrat is not a liberal-permissive person, but a leader aimed at a specific result.

Democratic managers also achieve great heights in business and politics, just like authoritarian ones. Only they create a more benevolent atmosphere than autocrats.

Manager characteristics

People with strong expressions, but at the same time not putting their Ego first, gravitate towards the democratic style. A democratic leader is a peaceful warrior: he is not the first to start a war, but if he is attacked, he will have to answer to the fullest extent of the law. This management style of the manager creates a friendly atmosphere in the team and helps to motivate the staff to solve problems with a certain amount of creativity. Such a manager can, without any complaints, consider taking time off, helping, or purchasing new equipment for the company. If you provide your ideas or requests with an evidence base, then the manager can be persuaded to make a positive decision on your issue.

Relations with subordinates

Friendly and business relationships develop that can turn into friendships, although this is rare. Whatever the management style of a leader, do not forget that he is a leader, and there is no need to cross boundaries. A democratic leader uses a humane approach to his subordinates, understands their position to a certain extent, and easily organizes motivational competitions or gifts for exceeding plans.

People with this management style feel best in mid-level positions, for example, head of a department or head of a city district. Even in companies with an authoritarian management style, departments with a democratic leader develop their own “atmosphere” - and the authority of the department head is higher than that of the head of the organization.

Among the disadvantages, the following can be noted: a democrat can play “friend”, and then disputes and conflict situations will arise more and more often, instead of work. Shifting the focus from achieving goals to increased attention to employees does not bring the team closer to achieving goals. In this case, a democratic leader loses his authority and level of influence on the team, but he will still have a bonus up his sleeve in the form of a fine or an order, although such bosses rarely use it.

Problem solving

Solving problems comes down to first developing a plan of action through collective efforts. After this, performers are selected taking into account their skills and abilities. Without any resistance, such a leader invites an outside expert to the team and listens to his opinion. By the way, none of the subordinates is prohibited from expressing their opinion, because the manager is concerned about achieving results and is aware that he risks missing out on something important.

When planning deadlines, a reserve of time is included in the plan, because it takes into account the likelihood of errors by staff, and time is still needed to correct them. If difficulties arise during the course of work or an opportunity arises to do everything differently, then the manager quite easily adapts to the situation, although he does not really welcome this.

Method of communication

A democratic leader chooses a generally accepted style of communication. You can go into his office and “steal” some time. Listens to the opinions of staff, especially if the words are supported by facts and figures - this is worth using. You should not put pressure on such a leader - although he is soft, he bends like bamboo, and if you press hard, he will answer seriously. Whatever the leader, he will have very different management styles and methods. The best way to communicate is cooperation. You need to act within the framework of the assigned task, without missing deadlines. If you can improve or redo the work, you should immediately contact your boss and keep him informed. Examples of personalities: Vladimir Putin, Evgeny Chichvarkin, Lavrenty Beria.

Liberal-anarchist

This management style is similar to the democratic one, but there are differences. It is typical that the manager, having set the task clearly and precisely, setting the deadlines and speed of implementation, fades into the background. Thus, he allows subordinates to act independently, with almost no restrictions on the means and methods of performing tasks.

The liberal style is suitable for management. It is not necessary that this will be a song and dance group; the editorial office of a magazine, a design bureau, and other similar groups will be suitable.

Manager characteristics

The liberal style can be divided into two directions: anarchist and expert. In the first case, the leader is a person of weak character, non-conflict, conformist. He postpones solving important issues until the last moment or tries to completely abdicate responsibility by shifting it onto the shoulders of his deputies or subordinates. Such a manager can sit in his office for days and not go out to his employees - let them work.

The second type is more suitable for the role of an expert or an invited manager for temporary tasks - he gives instructions on how and what to do, in what way and in what time frame. Otherwise, he doesn’t interfere with his work, he doesn’t bother his subordinates, only if the situation is out of control. Authority rests on the level of his expertise, knowledge and skills in the current work.

Relations with subordinates

The liberal expert develops friendly, informal and strong relationships. In such teams, leaders grow up, who then either take power from the liberal or leave for new teams - as practice shows, these are authoritarian leaders.

The liberal leader almost does not interfere with the work of his subordinates, providing the maximum possible freedom of action. Provides subordinates with information, tools, trains and mentors, and reserves the right to make the final decision.

Problem solving

You shouldn’t think that a liberal leader will sit in his “shell” and not show his nose. This happens, but this does not characterize all liberal leaders. On the contrary, in the current situation, the popularity of this method of leading people is growing. This is especially noticeable in scientific, creative or other teams where the level of knowledge, competence and experience is high - a highly qualified specialist does not tolerate a slavish attitude towards himself, as well as excessive guardianship.

In the relationship between leader and organization, liberal management styles are well known. Soft management, trust, collaboration and collaboration are the foundations of a liberal company management style. There is no bad way to manage people, only the wrong way to use the tools in your hands. Determining the management style of a manager should begin as early as possible - this will make it easier to adapt to the situation or quickly find a new place of work.

Method of communication

A liberal manager does not attach much importance to the chosen method of communication, because the influence of this on the result of work is minimal. It is worth communicating with the manager himself, based on the goals of communication and what type of personality the manager has. Management styles can be different - either an anarchist or an expert. Don’t worry too much if you suddenly call your boss on a first name basis - he will correct you, but will not punish you with a fine, like an authoritarian. Examples: Roman Abramovich, Robert Kiyosaki.

Inconsistent

The name speaks for itself - there is no consistency or logic in actions. Such a boss moves from one management style to another, but does this out of inexperience, and this is the difference from the situational style.

Manager characteristics

Today such a manager is an authoritarian leader, and tomorrow he is an anarchist with a developed permissive nature of work. The results of the work of such a team are extremely low, and there is every chance of ruining the work of the enterprise or even destroying it. If a manager has experience in such a position, but adheres to an inconsistent work style, then he can be called a suggestible, weak-willed manager who cannot achieve goals.

Relations with subordinates

The team of an inconsistent leader is dissatisfied with their manager, does not know what to expect from the boss, and, moreover, everyone has little idea of ​​the ultimate goal and their opportunities for growth. Relationships are very tense, all this causes an increase in the negative atmosphere in the team. There is a high probability of omissions, intrigues and scandals.

Problem solving

It is impossible to achieve goals with such a leader, since he has a vague idea of ​​how the team should work. Problem solving is delegated to deputies and subordinates, and then taken upon themselves. Then some tasks are canceled, replaced with new ones, and so on. This management style of a leader creates confusion and anarchy.

Method of communication

It is also ambiguous and depends on the state of affairs in the company and the mood of the boss himself. Today he can tell stories about how he spent the weekend, and tomorrow he can play the role of the authoritarian “Pablo Escobar”. A subordinate with developed leadership and manipulative skills is able to unsettle such a leader for a long time. And then from my own chair. Examples: such people rarely achieve serious heights, but there is still a striking example - Mikhail Gorbachev.

Situational

The management style, in which the policy of relations is adjusted to the current state, is called situational. This is the optimal way to manage people and enterprises - in times of crisis it helps to get together, and during market rises to strengthen competitive advantages.

Do not confuse the situational approach and the duplicity of the leader. In the first case, the boss chooses a communication style based on the behavior of a specific person or group of people, in order to get the job done as efficiently as possible. In the second case, the boss takes different positions based on his own benefit.

Manager characteristics

These are experienced managers with many years of experience who have worked in different areas. In some people, management skills are inherent in nature - these are the so-called managers from God. But talent is replaced by diligence and constant learning. Knowing how to influence a person now comes with experience. This is one of the most acceptable ways to lead a team. With inept attempts to copy a style, there is a danger that the leader will turn into an opportunist who says what is beneficial at the moment.

Relations with subordinates

They develop trustingly, openly and easily - the team always has the feeling that their work is literally burning in their hands, and the manager always knows what needs to be done, how to punish and encourage the team. Due to their extensive practical experience, such leaders really seem to see through their subordinates and have the gift of foresight. Such bosses enjoy authority in the team.

A situational manager knows how best to communicate with a given group of subordinates or a single employee. In some cases, you can remain silent or even connive in something, but it only seems to an inexperienced eye that the leader has given slack.

Problem solving

Disputes, problems and tasks are resolved quickly and professionally. An experienced manager is able to quickly debug most of the work processes, and if force majeure occurs, then people are assigned to correct the situation based on the abilities and experience of the employees, and not personal preferences.

In general, the manager himself is more like a shadow - he hides his personal things and only deals with work. He doesn’t have any favorites, and if he does, one can wonder for a long time who was awarded such a role. It does not show obvious negativity; on the contrary, such a manager tries to find a common language with each problematic employee. Thanks to experience, this is often possible. It seems that such a person does not think about himself at all: where are all the “wants” and other complexes? To this question, the situational manager will only smile and shrug his shoulders.

It is rare that such a manager is not a workaholic.

Method of communication

Like the liberal expert, the situational manager chooses a simple communication style. Despite their high rank, such people are simple and open, and often optimistic and endowed with a sense of humor. They often enter into the position of an employee and can help by going beyond the work relationship. With age, managers become too kind and easy-going, and sometimes they can lose their grip, which unscrupulous workers take advantage of. But the team usually stands behind the leader, and if they see meanness towards their patron, they immediately take action.

Examples: most of the military, directors and managers of factories during the war and post-war times, such as Konstantin Rokossovsky, Ivan Romazan, Abraham Zavenyagin and others.

What style of leader are you?

No matter how a manager behaves, it is worth remembering that a manager’s individual management style is made up of the characteristics of a person’s upbringing and character, so there is no point in labeling them.

Management as the implementation of a leader’s individual style is a complex and multifaceted process, accompanied by a high level of stress, psychological and physical stress. Becoming a leader takes a long time, takes a lot of time and effort, and is associated with high risk. Therefore, support from higher-level managers and ongoing training are necessary.

What to do if you find yourself on this list? Take your strengths and focus on strengthening and developing them. Weaknesses should be given considerable attention - problems are points of growth. The faster you reconsider your attitude towards your negative traits, the faster and better you will develop as a leader.

What to do if you find your manager on the list? Now you know how best to build a relationship with him, and what moments you should avoid.

The authoritarian style of managing an organization is characterized by excessive centralization of the manager’s power and autocratic resolution of all issues. This style is characteristic of powerful and strong-willed people who are tough towards others. This article will examine its advantages and disadvantages in detail.

You will learn:

• What is the authoritarian management style?
• In what forms can it be presented?
• What are the features of mixed forms of authoritarian management style.

Authoritarian management style - This is, first of all, strictly defined regulations of the organization, under which employees conscientiously perform their duties, meekly recognizing the authority of the manager.

Provisions found among the main characteristics of the authoritarian management style of an organization:

• any issue is resolved by the manager;
• team members are completely or partially deprived of the opportunity to contribute to organizational work;
• the solution of important tasks is not entrusted to employees;
• The manager himself determines the conditions and methods of work.

• documents and accounting are always in order;
• the quality of manufactured products is under control;
• the number of conflicts on work issues in the team is minimal, because the tasks are set from above and are strictly regulated;
• management is carried out centrally, which allows you to avoid disputes and objectively see the big picture.

• a huge waste of energy and time for a leader who makes decisions alone;
• there is a high probability of errors in decision making, because management is carried out by only one person;
• pressure from management, suppression of initiative, constant control over workers;
• helplessness of the work team in the absence of the boss;
• tense environment, since many may be oppressed by the dictatorship of the leader.

Test: Are you more tough or soft as a leader?

A tough manager increases competition between sales employees. A calm and friendly boss supports the teamwork of the sales team. The editors of the Commercial Director magazine have compiled a test for you so that you can find out which management style will bring you more profit and how to maintain a balance in your management style.

Methods of authoritarian style of managing an organization

Management methods- these are techniques that a leader can use to effectively influence subordinates. Among the methods of authoritarian management style, the following can be distinguished:

• organizational and administrative;
• economic;
• socio-psychological;
• public or collective.

Organizational and administrative methods management is control over the activities of personnel with the help of orders, instructions, instructions, directives, resolutions, regulations, etc. In other words, the essence of the method is the use of administrative documentation. The advantage is that subordinates do not have the right to ignore official orders.

Economic methods management is control over the activities of personnel using a system of bonuses and fines. In this way, you can stimulate the employee and develop his interest in work. The advantage of this method is that subordinates voluntarily perform the tasks assigned to them. The disadvantage is the additional financial costs. In addition, the introduction of fines is not legal.

Social-psychological methods management - motivating employees using psychological techniques and simple “human” communication. Effectiveness depends on the abilities, experience and charisma of the leader. It requires a competent approach, without which you can only aggravate the situation, becoming “one of our own” for everyone, which will lead to a loss of authority.

Social or collective methods influence. Theoretically, they can serve as a means of authoritarian management, since the boss always has the opportunity to exercise leadership, using boards and councils as intermediaries. However, formally this conflicts with the very definition of authoritarianism. However, indirect management deserves mention as one of the methods available to the manager.

It should be noted that there are two types of forms of authoritarian management style: benevolent and exploitative. Depending on which of them the company works with, management methods are chosen. The benevolent form of the authoritarian style is represented by relaxed management methods and a significant reduction in the number of punishments.

1. "Exploitation" authoritarian style.

It consists in the fact that the boss takes responsibility for the entire work process and gives orders to his subordinates, without considering anyone’s opinions, even if they are reasoned. Punishment is used as the main form of motivation.

All orders are carried out by employees blindly, from the position of “our business is small.” The manager's mistakes cause schadenfreude among his subordinates.

Great responsibility can weigh heavily on a manager, because he alone pays for all the mistakes and is not always able to identify their cause. Employees, even if they are able to help, often prefer to remain silent, believing that they will not be listened to. This situation is regularly repeated and leads to the formation of a tense psychological situation in the team: some feel unfulfilled, others feel overworked.

Thus, mistakes in an exploitative-authoritarian style have a double price:

• psychological trauma due to constant stress;
• economic losses.
• "Benevolent" authoritarian style.

This type of authoritarian leadership style implies a parental attitude towards subordinates. The boss is interested in the staff’s point of view, but can ignore even a reasonable opinion and do it his own way. The manager provides some freedom of action, but strictly controls the work process and monitors compliance with the company’s charter and the requirements of the work algorithm. Various methods of punishment and reward are used.

• Managing a women's team: psychological characteristics

A few words about the authoritarian-democratic management style

Unlike the usual mixed authoritarian style, it supports innovations and initiatives of staff; employees are part of the common cause and are aware of their responsibility for the result. Workers will be able to cope with the task even in the absence of the boss.

For example, the following situation is possible: the main power is concentrated in the hands of the boss, but at the same time the rights and responsibilities are distributed between him and his deputies or subordinates. The team is constantly aware of all important issues.

However, with an authoritarian-democratic style, if the need arises, the leader will easily ignore the opinions of his subordinates and make a decision alone. It is also possible to use reprimands, comments and orders as management methods.

However, the authoritarian-democratic leadership style helps to achieve success only if the leader is a knowledgeable and experienced person, capable of maintaining harmony in the team and making the right decisions. It is also possible that a “side effect” of the democratic management style may occur, when the boss reduces control too much and subordinates relax.

Authoritarian management style: modern modifications

In modern management theory and practice, there are many leadership styles and their modifications, but the most common are the following:

1. Bureaucratic leadership style

The relationship between the manager and subordinates is formal and anonymous, the personal power of the boss is minimal. Bureaucratic style represents an extreme degree of structuring and regulating the actions of company employees. This is achieved through a careful division of responsibilities, the creation of job rules and regulations, which detail who should do what and how. Information comes to employees through formal sources. Control is carried out by checking written reports and through messages.

The bureaucratic style can be called a weakened version of the authoritarian style, since the boss can give orders through documents, but he delegates the main powers to the drafters and controllers of regulations. In Russia today, the bureaucratic style is characteristic of public administration, where it is used, as a rule, selectively.

1. Autocratic leadership style

It is rare and more typical for large companies. The manager has a management apparatus that acts on the basis of his orders, which violates the official chain of command, since the manager indirectly performs the function of a subordinate structure.

A distinctive feature of this management style is underdeveloped personal communication between the boss and subordinates. The autocratic style was often found during the command-administrative system in the Soviet Union, as well as in other states. In our time, it has been preserved in large companies and state corporations.

1. Patriarchal leadership style

An organization with this leadership style exists on the principle of a large family, where the head is the leader. He looks after his subordinates, cares and demands respect, gratitude and diligence from them. Within this style, employees are stimulated by creating personal dependence and devotion in them.

The positive side of the patriarchal style is that it can be effective in a low-competent team, where the professionalism and responsibility of the staff is poorly expressed.

The negative side of this management style is that guardianship can serve as an obstacle to the development of initiative.

1. Charismatic leadership style

Similar to the patriarchal style, but in this case the authority of the boss is higher and more personal. The style is based on the belief of subordinates that their boss is special and unique. A charismatic leader does not entrust the main issues to management structures and tries to connect the success of the company with his own qualities, fueling the impression of himself as an outstanding person. There are no clearly defined statutes and rules. The management apparatus is a kind of headquarters, where the boss and his associates have approximately equal responsibilities. Such leaders are especially in demand in critical times of crisis.

In our country, the charismatic style is common in enterprises created on the initiative of the leader himself. As the company grows, there is a need to tighten and regulate the organization of the work process, since the capabilities of charismatic leadership weaken.

Expert opinion

Russian leaders are negatively affected by stereotypes

Galina Rogozina,

Head of Leadership Development Practice at the consulting company RosExpert, Moscow

The CEO, due to the specifics of his activities, often appears as a public figure. And then the typical Russian stereotypes of a leader are applied to him: authoritarian, domineering, demanding, tough. Russian managers are credited with the role of a “strong hand”, a “strict but fair” boss. Therefore, trying to conform to prevailing opinions, the Russian leader in public relies only on his own views, turning a blind eye to the point of view of others and not involving them in resolving issues. He is accustomed to assigning responsibilities and depriving him of powers, and in disputes to defend his opinion to the end. If it is possible to do without controversy, the general director shows patience, gives the opportunity to all participants in the meeting to speak, and in the end makes a decision independently and unconditionally.

• Organizational management system in modern business conditions

How to Know if an Authoritarian Management Style Is Suitable for You

The ability to adapt to a specific situation by choosing an appropriate management style is not inherent in the leader from the very beginning. In order to learn this, you need to work for a long time and gain experience.

The following factors need to be considered:

1. Nature of activity

The type of activity of the company's employees has a significant influence on the choice of management style. For example, a liberal management style is perfect for a creative team, but at times it needs to be given a shake-up by a democratic or even authoritarian style. Lack of boundaries for creativity is necessary, but everything is good in moderation. If it turns out that for every mistake of employees the company suffers losses (not necessarily financially), then it would be more appropriate to use an authoritarian style. However, no team can survive on punishments alone, so don’t forget about rewards.

1. Difficulty of the task

As a rule, the most difficult problems have many possible solutions. It becomes difficult to choose the most effective one. If it is difficult to say which is better, a democratic management style will do. Solving a problem alone is dangerous; it is much more effective to think about the issue together, considering different points of view.

And if the issue is simple, then the manager is able to solve it on his own, or by entrusting it to employees, but in this case their competence is important.

1. Team specifics

It is a big plus for a manager if he personally knows all his subordinates. Then it will be easy for him to choose an approach for everyone and reveal their potential. Some work more productively when they are given clear tasks, while others are stronger at improvisation. A prudent boss should keep in mind such characteristics of each employee. Naturally, this is easier to do in a small team.

When a team consists of newcomers who have little understanding of the business, it is better to manage in an authoritarian style. If the majority of the team are professionals, working with a democratic management style will be more effective.

1. Force majeure situations

Unfortunately, force majeure situations happen to everyone; as a rule, not a single thing can be done without it. The main thing is to be able to find a way out correctly. In emergency conditions, time to make a decision is limited, there is no time to gather a council, and it is better for the manager to make the decision personally. This is inherent in the authoritarian style.

• Problems of business management: how mentality affects work

Expert opinion

You need to be able to apply different management styles depending on the situation.

Galina Agureeva,

President of the South Russian Club of HR Managers, Rostov-on-Don

The structure of business in Russia is improving, and in connection with this, the leadership abilities of top managers are developing. Our companies won in terms of margin, price, and assortment. Now our staff is competitive. The degree of professionalism of the work team and their boss has become our main advantage. At the same time, an effective manager must be able to use all management styles. For example, most of today's authoritarian leaders come to the conclusion that it is impossible to keep a tight rein on subordinates all the time - it is necessary to be lenient with them from time to time.

The crisis has become an additional reason to reconsider the leadership style. Many CEOs have faced the need to fire people, cut compensation packages, freeze projects, and deal with employee depression. The heads of companies were simply forced to “go out to the people”, explain what was happening, and use non-material means of motivation. However, to succeed along this path, a leader must clearly understand what results he wants to achieve. Only then will it be clear to him what management and communication technologies need to be applied. At the same time, you cannot speak once and lock yourself in your office again. You need to constantly appear in public. Such activity requires a lot of effort and time and often distracts the head of the company from performing his immediate duties.

The transition to a different leadership style should be smooth. A person needs time to change. You cannot be a despot today and tomorrow pat your subordinates on the shoulder and ask their opinion on every issue. Moreover, it is also easier for employees when changes occur gradually. For example, when managers learning to manage in a coaching style begin to be interested in the point of view of employees, instead of giving instructions, this sometimes causes confusion among subordinates - they are not ready for such a relationship. In such situations, if the head of the company understands that he is authoritarian and non-public, you can first place a more flexible and communicative person next to him, for example an HR director. Otherwise, anyone can take on the role of “idea mastermind” and the situation will get out of control.

As for me, the head of a public professional organization simply cannot be a cabinet leader. He must manage a community of professionals, many of whom enjoy enormous authority in the business environment. Directive communication and a commanding tone are impossible with such people. It must also be remembered that the leader of a public organization does not have a large budget, and therefore, in order to stimulate people to perform complex organizational and intellectual work, it is necessary to skillfully use intangible means. It is necessary to capture the needs of community members, formulate common goals, inspire, guide and organize people, and then constantly keep them active.

• How can a leader gain authority in a team?

12 tips on what an authoritarian management style should look like

1. Don't contradict your principles.

A leader who has achieved love and respect should not neglect his principles. Write a list of things that are completely unacceptable for you when communicating with your team. If, for example, you are determined not to be late for work, communicate this to your team. Punishments for such offenses are another matter. The main thing is not to give in to your principles under any circumstances. Once you turn a blind eye to an employee being late and leave him without sanctions, your rule will immediately lose its meaning for the entire team. It is better not to overdo it with such principles, five are enough, otherwise you can create the image of a despot, and this is of no use to you.

1. Set clear time frames.

Spend a clearly defined amount of time in any meeting, for example, 30 minutes. It is possible that some issues will require more careful consideration and will take longer, but such cases will be the exception. If employees keep in mind that they have only 30 minutes to resolve the issue, they are almost 100% likely to complete the task within this time frame. Give them an hour to discuss and they will think the whole time. Give a task without limiting the time for solving it, it will not be ready the next day.

1. Don't be afraid of conflicts in your team.

You should not be afraid of conflicts arising in the team. After all, they can sometimes be beneficial. Even a conflict within a team can create healthy competition, which will significantly increase labor efficiency if supported.

1. Reward everyone for their achievements.

If a solution proposed by an employee turns out to be successful, you should not attribute its success to the entire team or to yourself personally. This can completely discourage you from taking initiative and will reduce your efforts at work.

1. Treat every employee equally.

Avoid familiarity from subordinates. Absolutely everyone should be at an equal distance from you in communication; you should not make exceptions for anyone. If one of your employees is close to you in real life, try to agree with him that at work you are a boss and a subordinate, and outside of work you are close people.

1. Everyone should get what they deserve.

Everyone should receive what they deserve. If your subordinates have made a mistake, you don’t need to console them like children. Employees must realize that they are responsible for their misconduct and all consequences fall on their shoulders. But successes should be dealt with according to the same principle: the efforts and achievements of employees should be encouraged. Morally or financially - it's up to you. If a subordinate has achieved success, you should not pretend that this is how it should be. Every team needs emotional reinforcement to be effective.

1. Don't change yourself.

A person who is good-natured by nature is unlikely to make a strict authoritarian boss. If he tries to become like this, it will look unnatural. The same as if a tough and powerful person, who is listened to outside the work team, tries to look after his subordinates like a father who is lenient towards all mistakes. Choose a management tactic that you feel comfortable with. And remember the main thing: the best management style is a balanced mixture of all styles.

1. Take even more interest in your work.

You should know more than anyone about the responsibilities of your subordinates. Your point of view on a particular work issue should be the highest priority.

1. Be clear about your instructions.

You need to express yourself very clearly - there is no time for empty talk.

1. Learn to make decisions.

It is your responsibility to solve problems, you are responsible for them. For this reason, you should communicate your wishes to employees through verbal and non-verbal means.

1. Monitor the work of your subordinates.

Always be aware of what is happening. Put procedures in place to ensure you always have access to the information you need to evaluate each employee's diligence and performance.

1. Draw the attention of your subordinates to any cases of non-compliance with the rules.

Let them know what behavior is not acceptable. Insist on strict adherence to the organization's rules.

• How to Easily Increase Your Authority: The Secrets of Benjamin Franklin

Authoritarian management style using examples of global companies

Corporation "Chrysler»

In 1978, Lee Iacocca took over as head of the Chrysler Corporation. At that time, the organization faced significant difficulties: its position in the American market was rapidly declining and the situation threatened to lead to bankruptcy.

Lee Iacocca consulted with various experts and came to the conclusion that the main problem of the corporation was the liberal management style. The new leader changed this approach, focusing on a combination of democratic and authoritarian principles. This led to the fact that the Chrysler Corporation was able to quickly regain its lost positions and become one of the leaders in the automotive industry.

Henry Ford

Henry Ford's approach to organizing his company is curious in many ways. The introduction of conveyor production, the mechanization of transport operations, meticulousness in the selection of personnel, even the study of their living conditions - all this led to the emergence of a powerful, efficient and thought-out structure.

No less remarkable is Ford's dictatorial management style. Any links of managers and department heads had very narrow powers in the company and rather performed the nominal role of intermediaries between the manager and workers than any management functions. Ford persistently rejected almost all intermediate management elements in the company and sought to ensure that the workforce consisted almost entirely of workers.

The success of Ford Motor was ensured by the stability of production, but by the end of the 20s, the social and market environment of America had changed. The lack of flexibility in the company's policy caused difficulties in its adaptation to new circumstances, and its leading position was lost.

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs was a unique figure among leaders. He was not only the media face of the company, but also its ideologist, as well as a tough leader who rejected a democratic management style. However, his authoritarianism did not lie in the absence of intermediate superiors with significant powers. It was in this regard that Jobs gave them sufficient power and freedom. Much more significant is the fact that the leader was the face of Apple, irreplaceable due to his personal charisma and strength of character. In addition to his leadership qualities, he also had significant commercial competence to effectively manage the company.

Bill Gatesand companyMicrosoft

Bill Gates stands out from other leaders because of his democratic approach. But this democracy is selective: the creator of the Microsoft company introduces concessions for representatives of the position he likes most - programmers. It gives them significant freedom, both in terms of their work schedule and in their approach to completing assigned tasks.

However, one should not assume that this approach is based solely on the preferences of Bill Gates. The head of Microsoft is well aware that a programmer, unlike many other employees, does not have to be at his workplace all day. If his tasks come down to achieving a certain result by a given time, then it is permissible for a person to build his own schedule and create the most comfortable atmosphere around himself.

Thus, Gates' reward system may at first glance be perceived as an authoritarian management style, where the manager is selective towards employees and forms a certain elite among them, neglecting the interests of others. However, all these actions, on the contrary, are signs of a democratic approach with a maximum degree of freedom based on logic and common sense.

Company information

TOconsultingand IcompanyIRosExpert, Moscow. Area of ​​activity: selection of top managers, development of the leadership potential of managers, attraction of independent members of boards of directors and consultants. Territory: Moscow, Kyiv. Number of personnel: 50. Number of implemented projects: 120 (in 2009).

TorganizationalIsetb"Thing!", MoscowA. Field of activity: sale of clothing and accessories for adults and children in the lower middle price segment. Form of organization: LLC. Territory: the head office is located in Moscow, stores are located in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladimir, Volgograd, Voronezh, Voskresensk, Yekaterinburg, Kazan, Klin, Kostroma, Krasnodar, Krasnoyarsk, Mytishchi, Nizhny Novgorod, Novosibirsk, Rostov-on-Don, Tambov, Ufa, Chelyabinsk, Yaroslavl. Number of stores in the chain: 46. Number of staff: 1033 people.

South Russian club of HR managers. Scope of activity: creating an effectively functioning professional community of HR specialists in the region. Form of organization: regional public organization. Territory: head office – in Rostov-on-Don; representative offices in Volgograd and Taganrog (Rostov region). Number of staff: 114. Implemented projects: 18 events, 6 educational and 1 social project (in 2009).

INTRODUCTION

The effective development of market relations in Russia is largely determined by the formation of modern management relations and increased controllability of the economy. It is management that ensures coherence and integration of economic processes in an organization.

Management is the most important concept in a market economy. It is studied by economists, entrepreneurs, financiers, bankers and everyone related to business.

“To manage means to lead an enterprise towards its goal, extracting the maximum from available resources.” Modern specialists need deep knowledge of management, and for this they need to clearly understand the essence and concept of management.

Personnel management at an enterprise is a type of activity that allows you to implement and generalize a wide range of issues of adaptation of an individual to external conditions, taking into account the personal factor in building an enterprise personnel management system.

THE CONCEPT OF MANAGEMENT STYLE

In the literature, there are many definitions of the concept of “management style”, similar to each other in their main features. It can be considered as a set of decision-making methods systematically used by a leader, influencing subordinates and communicating with them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The variability of the situation, primarily within the organization itself. Management styles are effective only under certain conditions, but these conditions do not remain unchanged. Over time, both the manager and employees can change their expectations and attitudes towards each other, which can make the style ineffective and the assessment of its use unreliable.

Despite these and some other difficulties, management styles are an important guideline in solving problems of increasing management effectiveness.

You can determine your management style in 2 ways:

By identifying the characteristics of the individual management style that the boss uses in relation to his subordinates.

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic style (collegial);

Liberal style (anarchic).

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

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

Authoritarian (directive) style management is characterized by highly centralized leadership and the dominance of unity of command. The manager demands that all matters be reported to him, and makes decisions alone or cancels them. He does not listen to the opinion of the team; he decides everything for the team himself. The predominant management methods are orders, punishments, remarks, reprimands, and deprivation of various benefits. Control is very strict, detailed, depriving subordinates of initiative.

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

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

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

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

1) in extreme conditions (crisis, emergencies, etc.), when quick and decisive actions are required, when lack of time does not allow meetings and discussions;

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

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

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

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

For the manager, all this also does not pass without losses, since he finds himself in the position of the culprit, responsible for all the mistakes, not seeing and not knowing where and how they were made. His subordinates, although they know and notice a lot, remain silent, either because they receive moral satisfaction from this, or because they believe that he cannot be re-educated anyway. The manager understands the current situation, but is powerless to blame others for the mistakes made, since his subordinates did not participate in the development of the decision. This creates a kind of vicious circle, which sooner or later leads to the development of an unfavorable moral and psychological climate in an organization or department and creates the ground for conflicts.

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

Threats of punishment, although present, do not prevail.

The claims of an authoritarian leader to competence in all matters create chaos and, ultimately, affect work efficiency. Such a boss paralyzes the work of his apparatus. He not only loses his best employees, but also creates a hostile atmosphere around himself that threatens himself. His subordinates depend on him, but he also depends on them in many ways. Dissatisfied subordinates may let him down or misinform him.

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

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT STYLE (COLLEGIAL)

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

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

DEMOCRATIC: CONSULTATIVE AND PARTICIPATIVE

Organizations in which the principle of democratic leadership dominates are characterized by a high degree of decentralization of powers, active participation of employees in decision-making, and the creation of conditions under which the performance of official duties is attractive to them, and success is a reward.

A true democratic leader tries to make the responsibilities of subordinates more attractive, avoids imposing his will on them, involves them in decision making, and provides freedom to formulate their own goals based on the ideas of the organization.

Within "advisory" the manager is interested in the opinions of his subordinates, consults with them, and strives to use the best that they offer. Among incentive measures, encouragement predominates; punishment is used only in exceptional cases. Employees are generally satisfied with this management system, despite the fact that most decisions are actually prompted to them from above, and usually try to provide their boss with all possible assistance and moral support in necessary cases.

"Participative" a form of democratic management presupposes that the manager fully trusts his subordinates in all matters (and then they respond in kind), always listens to them and uses all constructive suggestions, involves employees in setting goals and monitoring their implementation. At the same time, responsibility for the consequences of decisions made is not shifted to subordinates. All this brings the team together.

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

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

As a rule, the environment created by a democratic leader is also educational in nature and allows one to achieve goals at low cost. There is a positive resonance of power: the authority of the position is reinforced by personal authority. Management occurs without harsh pressure, relying on the abilities of employees, respecting their dignity, experience and skills. This creates a favorable moral and psychological climate in the team.

Research has shown that in an authoritarian style, you can get about twice as much work done as in a democratic style. But its quality, originality, novelty, and the presence of creative elements will be the same order of magnitude lower. From this we can conclude that the authoritarian style is preferable for simpler types of activities focused on quantitative results, and the democratic style is preferable for complex ones, where quality comes first.

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

The style in which the manager is focused on solving the task assigned to him (distributes tasks among subordinates, plans, draws up work schedules, develops approaches to their implementation, provides everything necessary, etc.) is called task-oriented (instrumental). A style when the leader creates a favorable moral and psychological climate, organizes teamwork, emphasizes mutual assistance, allows performers to participate as much as possible in decision-making, encourages professional growth, etc. got the name focused on subordinates (human relations).

A subordinate-oriented leadership style that is close to a democratic one helps to increase productivity because it gives room to people’s creativity and increases their satisfaction. Its use reduces absenteeism, creates higher morale, improves team relationships and the attitude of subordinates towards management.

The potential benefits of a task-oriented leadership style are much the same as an authoritarian leadership style. They consist in speed of decision-making and actions, strict control over the work of subordinates. However, it puts performers in a position of dependence, generates their passivity, which ultimately leads to a decrease in work efficiency.

The manager here mainly informs subordinates about their responsibilities and tasks, determines how they need to be solved, distributes responsibilities, approves plans, sets standards, and controls.

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

LIBERAL MANAGEMENT STYLE (BUREAUCRATIC)

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

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

LIBERAL, INCLUDING BUREAUCRATIC

Where we are talking about the need to stimulate the creative approach of performers to their work, the most preferable liberal management style. Its essence is that the manager sets a task for his subordinates, creates the necessary organizational conditions for work, defines its rules and sets the boundaries of the solution, while he himself fades into the background, reserving the functions of a consultant, arbiter, expert who evaluates the results obtained and in case of doubts and disagreements between performers, makes the final decision. It also provides employees with information, encouragement, and training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is clear that the relationship between leadership style, satisfaction and performance can only be determined through long-term and extensive empirical research.

There are no “bad” or “good” management styles. The specific situation, type of activity, personal characteristics of subordinates and other factors determine the optimal balance of each style and the prevailing leadership style. A study of the practice of leading organizations shows that each of the three leadership styles is present to varying degrees in the work of an effective leader.

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

THEORY OF MANAGEMENT STYLES

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

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

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

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

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

extreme situations requiring immediate solutions;

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

Management science is based on a system of basic provisions, elements, models, leadership styles that are unique to it, and at the same time related to management. The behavior of one of the main and most complex subjects of management - a person - is also based on certain activities, internal beliefs that determine his attitude to reality.

Close attention is paid to the development and practical application of the main basic provisions of management activities, correlated with the characteristics of social interactions of individuals. At the same time, importance is attached to ensuring the effectiveness of management activities: preparing and making decisions, their scientific validity, their practical implementation, control over their implementation.

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

Not only the authority of the leader and the effectiveness of his work, but also the atmosphere in the team and the relationship between subordinates and the leader depend on the choice of leadership style. When the entire organization works quite efficiently and smoothly, the manager discovers that in addition to the set goals, much more has been achieved, including simple human happiness, mutual understanding and job satisfaction.

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

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

Civil services

Commercial organizations

Non-profit organizations.

The convergence of the organizational and managerial foundations of the 3 sectors of business activity requires knowledge in the field of managing employees of commercial and non-profit organizations.

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 the goals of 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.

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 leadership depends primarily on flexibility in using the positive aspects of 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 advisability of using elements of the 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 an organization is endowed not only with power, but also with certain resources, which he must direct in the right direction, and most initiatives are “from below” “It’s precisely these directions that they point to. 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.