Management styles in management.

Management style is the way in which a leader manages subordinates and the pattern of behavior of a leader. With the help of the adopted management style, job satisfaction of subordinates is achieved and labor productivity is encouraged.

The following management styles are distinguished: autocratic, democratic and liberal (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Types of management styles

The choice of management style is made based on the specific situation and a set of factors. Subjective factors include the temperament of the leader and subordinates, a person’s abilities, and manner of communication. Objective factors include the content of the work performed, the complexity of the task being solved, the complexity of the working conditions of the organization or unit, the hierarchy of management, and the socio-political situation.

Characteristics of organizational management styles

The authoritarian (directive) management style is characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of one leader; subordinates do not participate in the organization of activities. Signs of using an authoritarian style are:

the manager, by virtue of his power, controls employees and expects them to carry out orders,
there is no justification for decisions made to subordinates,
Manager's decisions are orders that are binding,
in case of failure to comply with the orders of the leader, subordinates will face sanctions,
significant distance between the leader and subordinates.

At the same time, the following requirements must be presented to the manager: consciousness, self-control, the ability to make decisions and take responsibility for them. The advantage of using this management style is the speed of decision-making, especially in emergency situations. The disadvantages are the low level of independence and initiative of performers, the excessive demands of the manager on his subordinates, which leads to high staff turnover.

The democratic management style is based on the interaction between a manager and a subordinate, in which powers and responsibility for their implementation are transferred to the company's employees. At the same time, the burden is removed from the manager, employee initiative is encouraged, and their work motivation and willingness to bear responsibility are enhanced.

Factors for the successful application of a democratic management style are: delegation of authority and responsibility to subordinates, establishment of a procedure for regulating relationships in a team, coordination of decisions made by the manager, the use of reasonable discipline and a differentiated approach to people.

The advantages of using this style of management include relieving the workload of the manager and the emergence of work motivation among members of the work team. Disadvantages include a strong focus on tasks rather than on team members.

The liberal management style is characterized by minor intervention by the manager in the functioning of the organization. Most often, the manager’s tasks come down to mediation and providing performers with the necessary information.

A feature of this style is that an informal leader or deputy liberal leader is identified from the team, who assumes authority and responsibility in making management decisions.

In cases of managing creative teams, this style is more effective than others, in other cases its effectiveness is low.

How do you communicate with employees? Do you powerfully control every step, let everything take its course, practice an individual approach? So how does it work? Today we will talk about leadership styles. Make yourself comfortable, let's begin!

Or maybe you haven’t thought about leadership style at all? Business is going well, the online store is developing, why complicate things? Let's Let's look at the main management styles, as well as the pros and cons of each. This will help you understand the strengths and weaknesses of your leadership and determine what style to pursue in the future.

Authoritarian style, or “As I said, so it will be”

Gennady Pavlovich P. has been leading the team for many years. Just as he became a manager back in Soviet times, he still manages. It is clear that after so many years his style has already been formed and is not subject to change. But it should be: Gennady Pavlovich is one of those bosses who firmly believes in the instructions from the joke: “Point 1. The boss is always right. Point 2. If the boss is wrong, see point 1.” Yes, yes, there are still such things. No wonder that there is turnover in his team: young people come, brought up in a new society, who are not afraid to offer their ideas and are very surprised when they come across the principles of their boss. They are surprised and leave - to more loyal leaders. Only the main core remains in the team - people who have been working for decades and have long been accustomed to Gennady Pavlovich’s quirks. And everything would be fine, only this backbone is almost entirely pensioners. they are alien - the company has no development, everything is going on the old fashioned way. The company is not doing well.

Do you know such Gennadiev Pavlovichs? They are also found among the younger generation of entrepreneurs. Usually, very authoritarian, harsh in judgment, recognize only their own opinion. They do not allow the slightest deviation from instructions, regulations, charters and the established order of the company. They carefully observe subordination - they do not take liberties with the common people, this is not a lordly matter. Here's the paradox: they don't trust their own employees, but at the same time they want work tasks to be completed flawlessly.

Disadvantages of an authoritarian style

You can throw out the baby with the bathwater: those who are accustomed to not listening to opinions risk not hearing valuable ideas that will bring profit to the company. Anyone who does not allow informal relationships with subordinates may not notice the love of his life or the one who could become his best friend. Human relationships sometimes go beyond the chain of command.
Stubbornness is not yet persistence. Fanatical adherence to instructions a step to the left - a step to the right equals execution - a disastrous position for the company. Read the biographies of great entrepreneurs: they all admit that you need to deviate from the rules, think more broadly, and allow creativity.
Not everyone agrees to work with a dictator- in companies where an authoritarian management style reigns, the percentage of layoffs is higher. And, as a rule, the most talented ones leave. The ones who survive in such a team are opportunists or conservatives who don’t care.
Employees in such companies do not develop, do not offer ideas, and do not learn new things. Maybe they would be happy - but why should they, because it will still be as the local god ordered. And since initiative is punishable, why show it at all?

Pros of an authoritarian style

Iron discipline. You can't indulge a dictator: either you fulfill all his demands, or the door to the street is open. As a rule, in such a team fines for the slightest violation bloom in full bloom. Total submission makes employees obedient and agreeable to any demand from management.
Clarity and transparency of all business processes. The dictator boss knows exactly how and what is happening in the company at every stage, what tasks are being solved and who is performing them.
The employees will not be confused, but they will strictly follow the orders of their superiors - they are no strangers to this. With a democratic or liberal leadership style, this is more difficult to achieve: in the event of force majeure, both management and employees can be stormy like a ship in bad weather. And this is fraught with hasty and erroneous decisions.

Democratic style, or “Let's think together”

Alexey K., a young manager, left Gennady Pavlovich’s company and founded his own business. He decided to learn from the mistakes of others and realized that he would not allow such a dictatorship as reigned at his previous place of work. Alexey recruited young employees who were more like-minded than his subordinates. From the first days, he began to adhere to a democratic leadership style: he discussed the company’s development strategy with employees, listened to their ideas and opinions, and trusted them to work on projects independently. For the workers, he was not a strict boss, but his friend Lekha. One day this almost ruined the company: the employees relaxed and stopped taking Alexey seriously. Some people began to be late, miss deadlines for completing tasks, and to the bewilderment of the boss he said: “Whatever, I’ll do it, don’t worry!” When deals with profitable clients began to fall through and the company lost profits, the young businessman realized that it was time to change something.

The democratic management style is a deceptive thing. To the young and modern, it seems to be the only acceptable one and in keeping with the spirit of the times (well, don’t work the old fashioned way!), but if you loosen the reins a little, it will turn out like in the example above. To prevent democracy from turning into anarchy and permissiveness, the leader must have management experience.

In general, the democratic style is truly a priority in young modern companies. The manager does not make decisions alone - he consults with the team, organizes brainstorming sessions, and tries to ensure that each employee reveals his or her potential. He himself works as an equal or assigns himself the role of a consultant or mentor. If a democratic boss makes a mistake, he does not blame the staff for everything, but draws conclusions. At the same time, he remains the leader - he does not remove himself from the main role, does not emphasize that “we are all equal here, guys.” That is, a team is a team, but the hierarchy must be clearly built.

Disadvantages of the democratic style

The possibility of anarchy, belittling the role of the leader, and the emergence of opposition in the team. In general, everything that was described using the example of Alexey K.
Decisions can take a long time to make. The more people participate in the discussion, the longer the process can drag on. Clear deadlines for setting tasks will also save the day. For example, 3 days are given for discussion and introduction of improvement proposals - and not a second longer. This disciplines employees and speeds up business processes.

Pros of a democratic style

If you avoid mistakes, a democratic style can become the basis for creating.

Strengthens team spirit makes employees true like-minded people united by one goal. It’s good if the company has worked out its mission and values, main tasks for the coming years, and a common Big Idea.
Reduces the number of errors in work. The more people involved in solving a problem, the greater the chance that the optimal option will be found. Just remember that the discussion should not drag on.
Minimal staff turnover. Why leave the team if you share its values and objectives, and feel involved in one common goal? That's right, there's no need. Employees rarely leave companies with a democratic management style (if, of course, they join the team and share common values).

Personality-oriented style, or “Don’t be afraid, I’m with you”

Olga B. worked with both Gennady Pavlovich and Alexey. The woman realized that both authoritarian and democratic styles have their pros and cons, and decided to act differently. Actually, she didn’t come up with anything new - she used a completely individual approach. Olga realized that You need to work with each employee in your own way, and what is suitable for one is categorically unacceptable for another. For example, a quiet person may be shy at general planning meetings and brainstorming sessions, but during a personal conversation he will begin to burst out with creative ideas. It is difficult for an owl man to come to the office at 9 am - his head is not clear, things are not getting done, but in the evening the most fruitful time comes. Olga organized a free schedule for several of her comrades and allowed introverts not to speak at the planning meeting in front of everyone. The employees appreciated the good attitude and began calling the boss “our mommy.” But there’s nowhere without a fly in the ointment: a group of people quickly emerged who considered a good attitude a weakness and began to openly neglect their work. Olga was worried, had soul-saving conversations, and only when the team submitted a collective request for the dismissal of those who had done wrong, she decided to take a bold step.

Practicing an individual approach is the right thing to do. Typically, bosses of this type (usually women) like to conduct psychological testing, organize corporate parties and get-togethers in order to get to know their employees better. However, you shouldn’t overprotect your employees: you are not a mother hen, and they are not helpless chickens. Trust, but verify, be not a mommy, but a boss - this is the moral of this fable.

Disadvantages of a person-centered approach

As a rule, bosses of this type are soft, sensitive people. Good relationships are more important to them than the company’s profit and its development. Therefore, sad as it may be, a soft boss can be quickly “eaten” his more resourceful colleagues or someone from among his subordinates.
Absence . Instead of clearly issuing instructions and monitoring the process of completing tasks, such managers either do everything themselves or forgive endless delays. Wake up guys, this is a business! Here you need to make tough decisions and take big risks, otherwise you risk going broke.

Advantages of an individual approach

Good relationships in the team. Human relations are perhaps the most important thing for half of the employees. If you are lucky enough to find an understanding boss, many will hold on to this position with their hands and teeth, even despite the low salary and small career prospects.
In a crisis situation employees will stand behind the boss and won’t let the company fall apart. “One for all, and all for one” - this slogan still works.

So how should it be done?

We found our own flaws in each of the three styles. So what management style should you choose and how to behave with subordinates? Much, of course, depends on your personality and character type. A dictator by nature will never “deliver snot” and care about the personality of each employee. But a quiet, intelligent woman is simply not capable of slamming her fist on the table and forcing her subordinates to work.

What to do? Combine management styles depending on the situation. This is called situational management. For example, if force majeure occurs, you need to turn on the dictator mode and give clear instructions that can save the situation. If you see that an employee is not coping with his job, use an individual approach, communicate with the person personally, find out what worries him. If you need to solve a new problem, adhere to a democratic style, find out the opinions of all employees and solve the problem together. Moreover, even in interaction with the same person, it is possible to use different management styles - again, depending on the situation. Somewhere to be a tough leader, somewhere to be a wise mentor, sometimes to provide the necessary fatherly support. Here's a chart to help you skillfully navigate between multiple management styles.

Of course, to do this you need to be an experienced leader and a fairly flexible person. All this comes with time. Good luck to you, may everything work out!

The management style is very often not consciously adopted by the manager; it comes from his personal ideas about leadership, from his character, temperament, from the knowledge he has acquired about the position of director. Many social factors also influence leadership style. Many times I have encountered directors, and especially with directors, who after 3-5 years of management become real tyrants and tyrannize the entire team. Unfortunately, the province is simply replete with such directors. And they are not uncommon in capitals. In order to correct the style, it is necessary to find out what management styles are generally identified in management practice, and how they affect the overall work of the enterprise.

Why study the director’s work style at all? This question can only arise among amateurs who do not strive for development, who believe that their enterprise will never go anywhere in life. This is a terrible mistake, a colossal delusion! Business can present serious surprises; internal revolutions have not been canceled. And the external influences of competitors and new legislative initiatives of the state are successfully tolerated only when the team stands behind its director and follows him without discussing details. What leadership style can achieve this effect? This is what this article will discuss.

So, in management the following management styles are distinguished: authoritarian, democratic, liberal-anarchist, inconsistent, situational.

The authoritarian style is also called dictatorial or directive. A leader in a team with this style behaves harshly; he sets certain boundaries for work and very strictly controls their implementation. Decisions at such an enterprise are made by the director alone, there are no discussions with top management, each of the managers works only in his own narrow niche, no one can understand the entire process. Moreover, an authoritarian leader deliberately takes on many functions so that no one else can manage and claim his place. In the case of an individual entrepreneur, none of the relatives or heirs of the business are allowed to manage the business.

All decisions made are not subject to discussion; strict control over their implementation is established; if something is not implemented, then strict administrative measures are taken. The personality of the person, the employee, fades into the background. The effectiveness of the method is high only if the director receives to manage an enterprise in which there is no order, discipline, no profit and no proper sales volume. At first, when the company achieves good results, it is this style that will help restore order. In any other case, an authoritarian style does more harm to the company than it benefits.

This management style suppresses the initiative and creativity of employees; innovations are introduced very slowly and ineffectively. With an authoritarian style, erroneous, one-sided decisions are often made that are understandable to only one person. Employees become passive, dissatisfaction with the place of work, the company, their position, position, colleagues, the whole business and the general system grows. In such a team, sycophancy, intrigue, gossip begin to flourish more and more, and people experience constant stress. As a result, people either leave this place, or begin to get sick often, or simply turn into opportunists and are only concerned with extracting personal benefits at work. A director needs to master this style of leadership only when all sorts of cataclysms and emergency situations occur.

Democratic management style

In this style, the leader must be a highly professional manager, psychologist, teacher, and production worker. He, of course, makes decisions on his own, but arranges general discussions. Moreover, he himself considers the final version of the decision both before and after general discussions. The decisions made are clear to all employees; even during their implementation, proactive proposals are accepted and adjustments are made. Monitoring of implementation is carried out not only by the manager, but also by the employees. From the director, subordinates see understanding, goodwill, and a desire to develop their personalities together with the company. A manager with a democratic management style observes the inclinations and talents of employees, tries to train, guide, even changing the type of activity and position.

This style is quite effective and promotes healthy growth and development of the company's areas of activity. Labor productivity and sales volumes increase, employees become proactive, active, they turn into a real team. There is one danger in this style of management - if control is weakened, it can turn into anarchy. The manager must closely monitor that discipline is not violated and that there is organizational order in the team. A leader in this management system must be very professional, efficient, and an example in everything for his subordinates.

Liberal-anarchist style

This is the most neutral management style, one might even say conniving. This is what democracy grows into, for which no one watches and builds its framework. In this atmosphere, everyone expresses their opinion, defends their point of view, and does not hear others. And even if a certain policy is adopted to a common decision, everyone continues to act at their own discretion. The leader of the liberal-democratic style does not have the necessary professional and psychological knowledge and skills, does not hide this, and does not enjoy respect.

And besides, such a leader doesn’t care much that they treat him like that, he does his own thing, doesn’t really bother anyone, and everyone feels comfortable about it. It turns out that tasks are set, completed, there is a result, but all this is done at full speed, and often the movement does not lead exactly to where it was planned, and even to the wrong place at all. The psychological climate in such a team is not conducive to work; it is unfavorable for creativity and for establishing order. In such companies, motivation is very rarely done; there is no sense of encouragement from other team members. There is no benefit from this style in any situation, only harm to work.

Inconsistent style

Leaders who suffer from this style tend to jump from one style to another. They then begin to strictly control the work, then they let go of control so much that their subordinates begin to organize complete self-government and anarchy. But sometimes healthy democracy emerges in such a team. Such tilts in one direction or the other give the company instability in the market, ensure inconsistent implementation of all planned actions, and non-compliance with company policies.

The effectiveness of management is low, and most often it is managed in this way by unprepared, impulsive people who once studied management, but did not finish their studies. In a team with such management there are always a lot of conflicts, work or personal problems.

Management according to the situation

The most effective management style is situational. The manager applies in the company those methods and methods of management that are necessary for a given employee or group of employees, but it is best if the entire team is at the same level of development. Therefore, when recruiting employees for the first time or re-recruiting, you must try to select specialists according to their level of development so that they are all at approximately the same stage of production development.

If the team is at a low level of development, that is, they do not want to work and do not know how to do it, then it is best to apply the following actions: issue clear and strict instructions, tell them in detail what to do, constantly monitor every step. If something goes wrong, point out mistakes and even punish for deliberate failure to follow instructions. If something works out well, then praise and encourage employees.

The second level of team development, that is, average, is characteristic of a state when the desire to work has already appeared, but there is not yet sufficient experience to perform all duties efficiently, but there is desire and diligence, conscientiousness. In this case, the manager must be a mentor, an adviser who gives recommendations so that employees can show initiative, independence and creativity. Monitoring the completion of tasks must be constant. There must be mutual respect and goodwill in the team; psychological aspects play an important role in the activities of the leader. But with such democratic manifestations, it is necessary to clearly give orders and demand strict and strict implementation.

A good level of team development requires work experience, fairly good work organization, and cohesion of all team members. In such a team, consultations, advice and hearings are constantly held, initiative is encouraged, comments and clarifications from subordinates are taken into account and recognized with awards. Employees are given a greater share of responsibility and are given the opportunity to make consultative, independent decisions.

And the last, fourth level of team development is characterized by a great desire to work and a creative approach to working in a team of professionals. In such a team, the powers of the leader can easily be assigned to employees at any time, a problem is presented to them, goals are clarified, and then opinions are made on solutions. It is best for a leader in such a team to give the rights to solve problems to top managers, controlling only the key points. You don’t have to interfere in business, you just need to support employees and help them.

E. Shchugoreva

Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn

Akhmerov Marcel Khamitovich, master, associate professor, teacher
Bashkir State Agrarian University

COACHING
CONTROL
MANAGER
MANAGEMENT STYLE
MANAGEMENT MODELS

The article discusses the different management styles that a manager can use. 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.

Management style as the main characteristic of a manager
Interregional connections and mechanisms of interaction in tourism development

Any person, when he gets a leadership position, sooner or later leans toward one or another management style.

Management style is the individual-typical characteristics of a sustainable system of methods, methods, and techniques for the manager to influence the team in order to perform organizational tasks and management functions. It is the habitual behavior of a leader towards subordinates in order to influence them and motivate them to achieve the goals of the organization.

In management today, there are several types of behavior, each of which is effective in its own way. Management methods and styles used by the same person may change, depending on what tasks the manager sets for himself and the team. Therefore, it is not possible to name one, the most effective management style. The concept of “management style” refers to any form in which managers perform management tasks. Style is at the junction of the following relationships: laws, principles, methods, style; laws, principles, style, methods; purpose, objectives, methods, style; tasks, functions, qualities of a leader, style. The style combines four interrelated areas into one: style, quality of managerial work, management decision, personnel activities, result.

Today, the following main management styles are distinguished:

Liberal line of personnel management. A manager who practices this style of work acts as an intermediary between employees and higher management. Liberal behavior of management is practiced in teams where employees know their job well, their day is scheduled minute by minute, and there is simply no need for one person to make additional decisions.
Authoritarian management style in management. In this case, all work decisions are made “by one person.” High demands, constant pressure and control over the progress of activities. The authoritarian style is good in cases where extreme situations arise and decisions need to be made urgently.
Democratic management style. Managers who adhere to this style can involve specialists at all levels in solving management problems. As motivators for work, the boss chooses the opportunity for each employee to fulfill his needs in terms of self-expression, creativity, and belonging to a team.
A combination of several management styles in management. In practice, it is very difficult for a manager to develop one single leadership style and adhere only to it. After all, the team consists of living people, and they are all very different. The tendency towards one of the behavioral lines in management consists of the boss’s own capabilities: his level of education, work experience, mental qualities, as well as the traditions of the company and the tasks that are being solved at the moment.

Let's consider 3 main management models:

Western management style– this is individual responsibility, decisions are made not only at the top, but also at the middle level of employees, business relationships do not mix with personal ones.

American management style– this is strict adherence to standards and regulations, practicality, and personnel development.

Japanese management style- this is a constant improvement of personnel qualifications, an understanding of the joint contribution to the development of the company, a high level of trust from management in relation to subordinates.

In addition to these basic models, there is a new management style called Coaching. Coaching is a kind of business psychoanalysis. This type of business process management appeared relatively recently in the West, and came to Russia only a few years ago. The essence of a coach is that he does not delve deeply into the problems of the counselee and does not give valuable instructions. The coach’s task is to ensure that the specialist himself formulates his problem and finds ways to overcome it. Today, coaching is considered a very promising area in the science of leading people.

The most effective management style is considered to be one in which the manager is focused on highly effective work combined with trust and respect for people. This ensures both high morale and high efficiency.

The success of an organization is perceived as the success of the entire team and each individual employee. The success of a management style can be measured by its impact on profits and costs. When assessing, it is also necessary to use criteria related to tasks: product development, organization, personnel management (duration of absence, job satisfaction, readiness to change jobs, self-esteem, creative qualities, initiative, readiness to learn).

The effectiveness of management styles cannot be assessed outside of specific situations. In this case, one should take into account: personal qualities (ideas about values, self-awareness, basic position, attitude to risk, the role of personal motives, authority, production and creative potential, level of education); dependence on upcoming tasks; organizational conditions (degree of rigidity of the organizational structure, centralized and decentralized problem solving, number of decision-making authorities, clarity of information and communication paths, degree of control); environmental conditions (degree of stability, conditions of material support, social security, prevailing social values and structures).

Thus, the work of a manager is presented as the performance of management functions in a “person-to-person” system. This leaves its mark on the choice of management style of the company. It is impossible to predict management activities with a high degree of probability, since each person to whom management influence is directed is unique in his own way, and his behavior in space and time depends on both subjective and objective factors. Therefore, such a subtle management tool as management style should be used with great care and at a high professional level.

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.

Bibliography

Igebaeva F.A. On the issue of increasing the efficiency of management activities at agricultural enterprises // Socio-political sciences. International interuniversity scientific peer-reviewed journal. Moscow, Publishing House “Yur-VAK”, 2013, No. 3 – P.13 – 15.
Igebaeva F.A. Modern head of the agro-industrial complex: what he should be (using the example of the Republic of Bashkortostan) // Agrarian Bulletin of the Urals. All-Russian Scientific Agrarian Journal, 2014, No. 6 (124), P.105 – 108.
Igebaeva F.A. Management style is the main characteristic of a manager’s activity // Science today: theoretical aspects and practice of application: collection. articles. International scientific and practical conference in 9 parts. Part 8. – Tambov: Publishing house TROO “Business-Science-Society”, 2011. – 344 p.
Mausov N.I. Personnel management is a key link within the company // Problems of management theory and practice. M.: Aspect Press. - 2000.
Pugachev V.P. Management of the organization's personnel. – M.: Aspect Press. - 2000.
Semenov A.K., Maslova E.L. Psychology and ethics of management and business. – M. Aspect Press, 2010.
Igebaeva F.A. About the advantages and disadvantages of management styles. In the collection: RESONANCES SCIENCE Proceedings of articles the international scientific conference. Editors prof. V.I. Pishhik, N.G. Poteshkina, Ju.A. Medvedev. 2016. pp. 305-310.
Igebaeva F.A. On the question of the effectiveness of management styles.
website. 2016. T. 3. No. 41. P. 255-259.
Igebaeva F.A. The effectiveness of a manager is in the management style. In the collection: Modern scientific knowledge: theory, methodology, practice. Collection of scientific papers based on the materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference in 3 parts. Novalenso LLC. 2016. – pp. 55 – 57.
Galimova G.N., Igebaeva F.A. Leadership styles //Ural region of the Republic of Bashkortostan: people, nature, society: Materials of the regional scientific and practical conference. – Sibay: Publishing house of the State Unitary Enterprise of the Republic of Belarus “SGT”, 2010. – 268 p.
Igebaeva F.A. Some ethical and organizational aspects of personnel management In the collection Problems and prospects of the Russian economy. VII All-Russian scientific and practical conference March 26-27, 2008. Penza.2008. – P.43-45.
Igebaeva F.A. Ethical foundations of the activities of a modern business person. In the collection Modern World: Economics, History, Education, Culture. Collection of scientific papers. Ufa. 2009.- P.110-113.

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 include many components and are not easily reduced to a single value and compared with the results of other styles.

The difficulty of establishing cause-and-effect relationships between 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 (anarchist).

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.

An authoritarian leader's claims 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 a 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 the speed of making decisions 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 for 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 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.

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.