The best marketing moves. Time for yourself. Heroes need to be known

Management plays an important function in all spheres of human activity. This is especially important in a market economy. Competent management of subordinates unobtrusively brings them to the achievement of the goal set by the leader. For each type of activity and type employees suitable for different styles of behavior of the employer.

What are management styles

The normal functioning of the enterprise is ensured by the presence of one or another style of management, as well as the use of combined techniques. The applied management scheme is the main characteristic of activity efficiency. The success of the company and the dynamics of its development depend on it. It forms the presence in the work of the motivation of employees, which determines their attitude to their duties, or demotivates them. The leadership scheme also affects the relationships in the team.

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

Concept definition

Types of styles, their advantages and disadvantages

The duties of the head of the company include supervision of all structural divisions. This type of responsibility implies the need to monitor employees and control their activities determined by job description and provisions employment contract. The implementation of all activities is carried out in the perspective of management, implemented by the leader independently without the help of subordinates. His habitual measure of behavior contributes to the formation of working relationships, motivating employees to work and achieve certain results, and also affects the performance of the company.

In practice, there are three main schemes for the relationship between the employer and subordinates:

• democratic;
• liberal;
• authoritarian.

The personality of the leader and the styles of personnel management applied by him have an impact on the results of the company. This relationship explains the prosperity of one organization, even in a crisis, and the closure of enterprises in favorable periods. The ideal entrepreneurial result can be achieved by combining several methods of leadership.

The style of behavior of the director in relation to his subordinates has a direct impact on the effectiveness of their management. He needs to constantly monitor his strengths and weak sides to correct managerial behavior. It depends on the administrative and personal qualities of the director, and is his original and recognizable handwriting.

Democratic leadership scheme

The democratic style of government implies that in making management decisions subordinates are involved.

They also share responsibility for their consequences with the head of the company. The name "democratic" means "rule of the people" in Latin. With regard to the subject of entrepreneurship, it interprets the equal rights of the director and managers structural divisions. Statistical Research show that this style of leadership is many times more effective in influencing the formation of a positive atmosphere in the team and the effectiveness of entrepreneurial activity.

Democratic governance

When a leader behaves democratically with subordinates, he relies on their initiative. All members of the team in this perspective are equal and have the right to actively participate in the process of discussing problematic issues and in decision-making. The relationship between the leader and subordinates is based on trust. It is worth noting that the desire of the director to listen to the opinion of the company's specialists is not due to the fact that he does not own the issue, but to the fact that he understands that during the discussion of the problem, new ideas may arise, the implementation of which will increase the effectiveness of the work and bring the achievement of the goal closer.

With a democracy in production, management never imposes its opinion and will on subordinate employees. The main principle of its management are the methods of stimulation and persuasion. Punishment and sanctions are used extremely rarely in situations where other ways of influencing the mind of an employee have already been exhausted. The boss shows a sincere interest in his employees and takes into account their needs, which contributes to their initiative and activity in achieving joint goals.

Read also: Net present value: calculation example

In this perspective of labor relations, a specialist receives satisfaction from his work, since he has the opportunity for self-realization. A favorable psychological environment contributes to the cohesion of employees.

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

deliberative style

With a deliberative management style, most problems are solved in the process of discussing them.

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

Participating style

A participatory democratic leader seeks to involve employees not only in making certain decisions, but also in monitoring their implementation. Relationships in this perspective require complete trust. The director behaves like one of the members of the team and does not take a predominant position. Any employee has the right to express his own opinion and not be afraid of the consequences of his openness. Responsibility for negative performance is shared between the manager and subordinates. A mixed management style allows you to create effective labor motivation, since every employee in the team is respected.

liberal style

The liberal style of management in the organization is based on the tolerance and indulgence of management towards subordinates.

Employees in such an enterprise have complete freedom in their decisions, in which the director practically does not participate. He withdraws from his obligations of control and supervision over the activities of subordinates. The principle of its functioning is the signing of administrative documentation drawn up by specialists in whose competence it is located.

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

Liberal style management

The decision of all important issues at an enterprise with a liberal director, it is carried out without his participation. To preserve the image of the leader and build his own authority, he has to provide employees with various benefits and pay undeserved bonuses.

Liberal management is relevant in companies where high level discipline and self-responsibility. It can be applied in partnership of creative individuals. In all other situations, such leadership is regarded in two ways. If the team has disciplined, responsible and qualified employees, then the liberality of the director will have a positive effect on the functioning of the enterprise.

Teams in which employees command management can lead to negative results of activities with this perspective of management. Their director is best friend, however, when conflict situation, employees cease to obey him, which leads to a decrease in discipline, quarrels and non-compliance with the norms of internal documentation governing labor order. All these phenomena lead to a decrease in labor productivity.

Management style is a set of techniques, a manner of behavior of a manager in relation to subordinates, which makes it possible to force them to do what is needed at that moment in order to achieve a certain result. For the vast majority of subordinates, when receiving an order from the boss, it is of great importance how the order was given in what tone, how the boss behaved with all this, whether he took into account his subordinate’s worldview, his professional potential, abilities. This is where the management style comes into play.

The manager manages a group of people (organization) in accordance with his own management style.

The concept of "management style" appeared right after the allocation of managerial work in the activities of the organization. But unlike management, management style does not have independent steps. own development and direct dependence on the development of science and management practice. The main difference is that management discards outdated methods (methods, models, provisions), enriching itself with new forms and methods. Style reflects not only best practices. The concept of "management style" denotes any form in which managers produce management tasks.

There is a connection between the concept of "management style" and different categories of management.

Style is at the junction of the following relationships:

Laws - principles - methods - style;
laws - principles - style - methods;
goal - tasks - methods - style;
tasks - functions - manager properties - style.

Style combines four interrelated areas into one: style - quality of managerial work - managerial decision - personnel activities - result.

The relationship of style with the main categories of management is such that style is a consequence, on the one hand, of the methods, tasks and goals of management, on the other hand, style affects the use of one or another method of management, therefore the style of the manager (management) should be considered as a management style.

Style is also subject to the laws in force in social system and management principles. Impartial factors (criteria) of style formation are tasks and management functions.

The unity of tasks, functions, methods of management, properties of the manager and positions of managerial positions is built into the unity of the development of the organizational structure and management style. This unity finds its expression in the corresponding mechanism of control, either business activity organizations.

Management style is a system of established and constantly used principles, behaviors, rules, procedures, reactions to emerging situations, methods specific to a particular country, organization and individual.

Depending on what principles govern the government, organization or individual in their own life, certain management styles are formed.

In the main, there are three management styles: autocratic management style (authoritarian, imperative), democratic management style and liberal management style (passive). They are basic, all other types of management are ultimately reduced to their combination. But another systematization of styles and types of managers is also possible.

Management style trait

Management style - individually-typical properties of a stable system of methods, methods, techniques for influencing the manager on the team in order to fulfill organizational tasks and managerial functions. This is the usual manner of behavior of the manager in relation to subordinates, in order to influence them and encourage them to achieve the goals of the organization. The degree to which the manager delegates his abilities, the types of authority he exercises, and his concern, first with human relations or, first with the task, all reflect the management style that characterizes this favorite.

For over half a century now social psychology and management, the paradox of management styles is being researched. The issues of typology of management styles have been dealt with by psychologists at various times, from the 1930s to the present day. One of the earliest research work management styles was put forward by Kurt Lewin. His typology of personal management styles, developed back in the 30s, together with his employees, he conducted experiments, and determined three management styles that have become traditional: authoritarian, democratic, neutral (anarchist). Later, trials of terminological changes were made, and the same management styles are referred to as directive, collegial and permissive (liberal).

In 1964, the book of Dr. Massachusetts was placed Institute of Technology Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of the Enterprise. D. MacGregor considers management to be the art of building human affairs. His writings on practical management contain claims that subordinates behave in such a way that their leaders force them to behave. A subordinate of any rank can try to meet the requirements own management and do the tasks assigned to him. MacGregor's research demonstrates that the initial driver of the goal is, first, the desires of the manager. If the manager believes that his employees will cope with the task, he subconsciously manages them in such a way as to improve their performance. But if the actions of management are characterized by uncertainty, this leads to reinsurance, and, as it should, slows down development.

McGregor's work helps managers avoid uncertainty and strive to achieve the greatest success. He outlines the management system from 2 reverse positions, each of which can be taken by the manager in relation to his subordinates. One of the last positions is called "Theory X" and the other "Theory Y".

The main provisions of the "theory X":

"Theory X" describes such a type of manager who stands in the position of directive, authoritarian methods of management, because he treats his subordinates with distrust. More often they express their attitude in the following way.

1. People at first do not like to work and, with any ability, they avoid work.
2. People do not have ambition, they are afraid of responsibility and prefer to be ruled.
3. Most people want security.
4. In order to force people to work towards a common goal, you need to use different methods of coercion, and also remember the ability of punishment.

"Theory X" was formed in the 60s and sufficiently corresponded to the views of managers of that period. Managers who adhere to a similar position in relation to their subordinates usually limit the degree of their freedom, autonomy in the organization, try not to allow employees to play a role in the management of the company. They strive to simplify goals, break them down into smaller ones, assign a separate task to each subordinate, which makes it easy to keep its implementation under control. The hierarchy in such organizations is usually very strict, the channels for collecting information work correctly and efficiently. This type of manager satisfies the simple needs of subordinates and uses authoritarian style management.

The main provisions of "Theory Y":

It describes an impeccable situation, in which relations in the team develop, how partnerships and the formation of the team takes place in an impeccable environment.

This theory is an optimistic view of the work of the organization and contains the following provisions:

1. Labor is a natural process, it is not something special for people. If the conditions are right, then people will tend to take responsibility for the work.
2. If people understand the goals, then they will use self-management and self-control and do everything possible to achieve the goals.
3. The merit for the work will strictly correspond to how the tasks facing the team are completed.
4. The ability to creatively solve problems is not uncommon, and the mental potential of the average person is only partially used.

The manager is democratic, allowing subordinates to participate in decision-making, supporting the delegation of opportunities and responsibilities, aimed at the provisions of "theory Y".

Significant successes in work are achieved by leaders who adhere to both Theory X and Theory Y. But each manager must first assess whether, in the conditions in which the organization is located, the application of "Theory Y", and what consequences the application of "Theory X" may cause. Model K. Levin.

The studies carried out by K. Levin and his collaborators were carried out before McGregor divided the actions and behavior of managers into two theories. Let's look at the main management styles that K. Levin singled out in his own research works: authoritarian, democratic, liberal.

Authoritarian management style

Authoritarian management style - a set of management techniques, using which the manager is guided by his own knowledge, interests, goals. An authoritarian manager does not consult with employees or subordinates, takes tough positions and uses administrative methods of influencing people, imposing his will on them by coercion or reward.

This style is more needed in the period of formation, in other words, at the initial stage of the formation of the organization, its labor collective when employees do not have the ability to see goals and ways to achieve them. The negative qualities of the authoritarian style include the fact that it helps to reduce the creative initiative of subordinates, aggravates the socio-psychological climate, and leads to staff turnover.

The autocratic style of management is typical for owners and managers, who usually solve most of the issues related to the activities of the team without the help of others, regardless of the views of others. Such leaders usually do not tolerate objections and comments from subordinates. They predominate the role of administrative methods of management - instructions, orders, directives, instructions and orders. With an autocratic style of management, the passivity of the performers, their fawning, secrecy, servility, and self-isolation are inevitable. The exchange of information between people is limited, they hide shortcomings in their work and their knowledge, distort the actual state of affairs, which leads to a decrease in the quality of their work. Subordinates develop the habit of constantly turning to the manager, endlessly seeking advice and instructions. People try to get rid of responsibility, preferring to be ruled. Most of all they want security.

The “exploitative” authoritarian style boils down to the fact that the manager, not trusting his subordinates and not asking for their ideas and advice, single-handedly resolves all issues and takes responsibility for everything, giving the performers only instructions on what, how and when to do, but as The main form of stimulation uses punishment.

If the manager perceives the decision alone, and later simply brings it to the subordinates, then they perceive this decision as obvious from the outside and critically discuss it, even when it is really successful. Such a decision is made with slips of the tongue and indifferently. Employees usually rejoice at any mistake of the manager, finding in it proof of their own bad view of him. As a result, subordinates get used to being executors of someone else's will, reinforcing in their own 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. Subordinates, although almost everyone knows and notices, but keep quiet, either receiving moral satisfaction from this, or believing that he still cannot be re-educated. The manager is aware of the situation, but is powerless to blame others for the mistakes made, because the subordinates did not participate in the development of the decision. This is how a typical vicious circle is formed, which at some point leads to the development of an unfavorable moral and psychological climate in an organization or unit and the creation of land for the development of industrial conflicts.

With a softer “benevolent” variety of the authoritarian style, the manager treats his subordinates condescendingly, in a paternal way, and is interested in their views when making decisions. But even if the stated idea is justified, he can act in his own way, often doing it defiantly, which significantly aggravates the moral and psychological climate in the team. When making decisions, he can take into account individual ideas of employees and gives a certain independence, but under serious control, if at the same time the general policy of the company is necessarily observed and all the requirements of the annotation are strictly followed.

The dangers of punishment, though present, do not predominate.

The claims of an authoritarian manager for competence in all matters generate chaos and, ultimately, affect the efficiency of work. Such a boss immobilizes the work of his own apparatus. He not only loses the best workers, but also creates an aggressive atmosphere around him, which threatens himself. Subordinates depend on him, and, as you know, he is dependent on them in almost everything. Disgruntled subordinates can let him down or misinform him.

Special studies have shown that although in the criteria of an authoritarian style of management it is possible to perform quantitatively more the amount of work than in the criteria of democratic, but the quality of work, originality, novelty, the presence of parts of creativity will be on such, but the order is lower. The authoritarian style is better for managing ordinary activities aimed at quantitative results.

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

On the one hand, the authoritarian management style is manifested in the order, the urgency of the task and the ability to predict the outcome in terms of the maximum concentration of all types of resources. On the other hand, tendencies are being formed to curb personal initiative and one-sided movement of information flows from top to bottom, there is no necessary reverse connection.

But it has its drawbacks, which can lead to turnover:

A sharp decrease in the initiative of subordinates;
The risk of wrong decisions increases;
Constant tension and a bad mental climate;
Dissatisfaction of subordinates with their position.

Democratic management style

Democratic management style - a set of management techniques, a manager's manner of behavior based on a combination of the principle of one-man command with active involvement in decision-making, management, organization and control of subordinates. A democratic manager prefers to influence people with the help of convictions, a reasonable belief in the diligence and skill of his subordinates.

Democratic style - more suitable for the formation of team relations, as it forms the benevolence and openness of relations both between managers and subordinates, and between the subordinates themselves. This style to the greatest extent combines the methods of persuasion and coercion within itself, helps each employee to correctly design his personal goals, establish effective communication between managers and subordinates. The negative consequences of using the democratic style include additional time spent on discussing difficulties, which, under extreme conditions, can drastically reduce management efficiency.

Democratic management style - the adoption of principle management decisions, laws, policy documents, taking into account public presentation, with the consent of the majority of persons who are subject to the adopted rules and regulations. The opposite of an autocratic leadership style.

The democratic style is characterized by granting independence to subordinates within the boundaries of their functions and their qualifications. This is a collegial style that gives great freedom to the activities of subordinates under the control of the manager.

The Democratic leader prefers mechanisms of influence that appeal to the needs of a higher level: roles, affiliations, self-expression. He prefers to work in a team rather than pull the strings of power.

The Democrat's view of his own employees boils down to the following:

1) labor is a natural process. If the conditions are right, then people will not only take responsibility, they will strive for it;
2) if people are attached to organizational decisions, they will use self-control and self-management;
3) involvement is a function of the reward associated with the achievement of the goal;
4) the ability to creatively solve problems is not uncommon, and the mental potential of the average person is used only in part.

A real democrat avoids imposing his will on his subordinates. He shares power with them and controls the results of their activities.

Enterprises dominated by a democratic style are characterized by the highest decentralization of opportunities. Subordinates take an active role in the preparation of decisions, enjoy freedom in carrying out tasks. The necessary prerequisites for the performance of the work are made, a fair assessment of their efforts is carried out, a respectful attitude towards subordinates and their needs is observed.

The manager puts a lot of effort into creating an atmosphere of openness and trust so that if subordinates need help, they can turn to the manager without embarrassment.

In his own activities, the leader-democrat relies on the entire team. He tries to train subordinates to understand the problems of the unit, give them effective information and demonstrate how to find and evaluate other solutions.

Personally, the manager deals only with more complex and necessary issues, leaving subordinates to decide everything else.

He is not subject to stereotypes and varies his behavior in accordance with changes in the situation, the structure of the team, etc.

Instructions are issued not in the form of prescriptions, but in the form of proposals, taking into account the views of subordinates. This is explained not by the lack of one's own idea or the desire to share responsibility, but by the conviction that in a skillfully organized discussion process one can always find best solutions.

Such a manager is well versed in the pros and cons of subordinates. It focuses on the abilities of the subordinate, on his natural zeal for self-expression through his own mental and professional potential. He achieves the desired results by convincing the performers of the necessity and significance of the obligations imposed on him.

The democrat leader constantly and seriously informs his subordinates about the state of affairs and the prospects for the development of the team. This makes it easier to mobilize subordinates for the implementation of the intended goals, to educate them in a sense of true owners.

Being well informed about the current state of affairs in the unit he leads and about the moods of his own subordinates, he is always tactful in relations, conscious of their interests and needs. He accepts conflicts as a natural phenomenon, tries to benefit from them for the future, delving into their root cause and essence. With such a system of communication, the activities of the manager are mixed with his work to educate his subordinates, and a sense of trust and respect is strengthened between them.

Democratic style encourages the creative activity of subordinates (in almost all ways by delegating opportunities), helps to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.

People fully understand their importance and responsibility in solving the problems facing the team. Discipline is transformed into self-discipline.

The democratic style does not in any way impede unity of command, does not weaken the power of the manager. Rather, on the contrary, his authority and real power are growing, as he manages people without brute pressure, emphasizing their capabilities and considering their dignity.

The democratic style of management is characterized by the highest degree of decentralization of opportunities, the active role of employees in decision-making, the creation of such criteria under which the performance of official obligations is attractive, and the achievement of success serves as a reward for them.

There are two types of democratic style: advisory and participatory.

In terms of advisory, the manager to a large extent trusts subordinates, consults with them, seeks to use all the best that they offer. Among incentive measures, encouragement prevails, and punishment is used only in exceptional cases. Employees are generally satisfied with such a management system, despite the fact that most of the decisions are practically prompted from above, and usually try to provide their own boss with all possible assistance and moral support in necessary cases.

The participatory variety of democratic management style implies that leaders absolutely trust their subordinates in all matters, always listen to them and use all constructive proposals, organize a wide exchange of comprehensive information, involve subordinates in setting goals and controlling their achievement. With all this, responsibility for the consequences of the decisions made is not shifted to subordinates.

Usually, the democratic style of management is used in this case, when the performers are excellent, sometimes even better than the manager, understand the intricacies of the work and can bring novelty and creativity to it. A democrat leader, if necessary, can compromise or even abandon the decision taken if the logic of the subordinate is convincing. Where an autocrat would act by order and pressure, a democrat tries to convince, justify the need to solve the problem and the benefits that employees can receive. With all this, the inner satisfaction received by the subordinate from the ability to realize their creative potential acquires the main importance. Subordinates can independently make decisions and find ways to implement them within the given opportunities. When exercising control, the manager appreciates the final result, not paying special attention to trifles. The conditions and forms of using the democratic style of management are given in Table. one.

Table 1. Conditions and forms of using democratic style

Control function	Conditions and forms
Decision-making	Collegiate (consensus), detailed consideration of all proposed alternatives other than conventional and routine solutions
Definition and formulation of goals	Involvement of all team members in the discussion of goals with the task of achieving their understanding and awareness
Dispersal of obligations	The manager, together with the employees, determines their roles in common work sets personal goals
Working time	The manager agrees on additional work volumes, overtime employment, time and amount of vacations
Stimulation and motivation	The manager uses all forms of material and moral rewards, supports and encourages employees; provides a fair assessment of personal and collective work; seeks to find the personal needs and motivational preferences of subordinates for their adjustment; recognizes the need for professional development

If you want to form a reliable and cohesive team, the democratic style is the best choice. It will help to instill openness, honesty and a sense of teamwork in subordinates. The boss, on the other hand, must combine coercion and persuasion methods well, which will help each employee to construct his own goals.

But this style also has disadvantages:

Huge time costs for discussion and decision making;
Lowering the level of management efficiency in critical situations;
The dissoluteness of the team with the wrong approach.

Liberal management style

Liberal management style - a set of management techniques, the behavior of the manager, based on the transfer of tasks to subordinates, who take on part of the responsibility for their implementation. A manager who prefers a delegating style gives subordinates virtually complete freedom.

The liberal style is designed for managers who are well versed in the situation and can recognize the levels of maturity of employees, transferring to them only those responsibilities that they can handle. Delegation can only be discussed if these are highly effective teams and if those who are given the right to independently solve the problem are specialists of the highest class.

Its essence lies in the fact that the manager poses a problem for the performers, makes the necessary organizational conditions for their work, sets the boundaries of the solution, and itself fades into the background. For himself, he retains the functions of a consultant, judge, professional, evaluating the acquired results.

With all this, encouragement and punishment recede into the background in comparison with the internal satisfaction that subordinates receive from the realization of their own potential and creativity. Subordinates are spared from constant control and “independently” make decisions and try to find a way to implement them within the framework of the opportunities provided. They do not realize that the manager has already thought about everything in advance and made the necessary conditions for this process, which predetermine the final result.

Such work brings them satisfaction and creates a suitable moral and psychological climate in the team.

The use of this style is becoming more widespread due to the increasing scale of scientific and technical activity and development work, which are carried out by cool specialists who do not want to be under pressure and patronage. Its effectiveness depends on the real zeal of subordinates for this, exact wording managing tasks and the criterion of their activities, its fairness in relation to the evaluation of results and remuneration.

But such a style can turn into a bureaucratic one, when the manager is completely removed from business. He transfers all management into the hands of independent managers, who manage the team on his behalf, using harsh authoritarian methods of management. He himself pretends that the power is in his hands, but in fact becomes more dependent on his own assistants.

Becoming a leader-liberal can be explained by many reasons. To their liking, such leaders are indecisive, benevolent people, afraid of quarrels and conflicts. They underestimate the importance of the activities of the team and the fact that the team needs them. But it may turn out that this is a highly creative person, captured by a certain sphere of his own interests, but devoid of organizational talent. For this reason, the duties of the manager are overwhelming for this manager.

The liberal management style is distinguished by lack of initiative and constant expectation of instructions from above, unwillingness to take responsibility for decisions and their consequences, if they are unfavorable. The manager of the liberal style does not interfere enough in the affairs of subordinates, is inactive, very cautious, inconsistent in actions, simply succumbs to the influence of others, tends to give in to incidents and put up with them, and can cancel a previously made decision without serious grounds.

In relations with subordinates, the liberal leader is courteous and benevolent, treats them with respect, tries to help in resolving their problems. Ready to listen to criticism and judgments, but for the most part it turns out to be untenable to embody the sensible thoughts prompted to him. Insufficiently demanding of subordinates. Not wanting to spoil things with them, he often avoids drastic measures, it happens that he persuades them to do this or that work.

In an effort to acquire and strengthen authority, he is able to pay undeserved bonuses, allow business trips unjustified by official needs, and is inclined to endlessly postpone the dismissal of a worthless employee. Occasionally uses his right to say "no", just gives out impossible promises.

When senior management require him to do something that is inconsistent with the existing regulations or rules of conduct, the idea does not occur to him that he has the right to refuse to satisfy such a request. If a subordinate does not show a desire to fulfill his instructions, then he will quickly do the required work himself if he forces an undisciplined worker to do so.

A similar manager prefers such a company to activities when everything is on the shelves, and comparatively occasionally there is a need to make unique decisions and interfere in the affairs of subordinates.

The manager of the liberal style does not show any pronounced organizational capabilities, irregularly and weakly keeps the actions of his subordinates under control.

Becoming a leader-liberal can be explained by many reasons. Among them, the type of character and disposition are more necessary: ​​for the most part, such leaders are by nature indecisive and benevolent people, they are afraid of quarrels and conflicts like fire. Another reason may lie in the underestimation of the public significance of the activities of the collective and one's own debt to it. In the end, he may turn out to be a highly creative person, completely captured by a certain sphere of his own interests, but devoid of organizational talent, as a result of which the duties of an administrator turn out to be unbearable for him.

The liberal style of management is characterized by the smallest role of the manager in management, the staff has complete freedom to make independent decisions on the main fronts production activities organizations (coordinating them, of course, with the manager). Such a style is justified if the staff does creative or personal work and is staffed by highly qualified specialists with justifiably high ambitions. This management style is based on higher consciousness, devotion common cause and the creative initiative of all the staff, although managing such a team is not an easy task.

A liberal manager must professionally possess the principle of delegation of opportunities, support good deeds with informal favorites, be able to correctly set tasks and determine the main areas of activity, and coordinate the interaction of employees to achieve common goals.

Managers with a liberal management style usually lack authority, their instructions are not followed or poorly executed. Their behavior is characterized by inconsistency and excessive softness. Such managers often do not impose certain requirements on subordinates, their activities are sometimes unplanned and subject to accidents. There is no severe struggle against problems and violations of discipline, no one pays attention to the lack of qualifications. They simply agree with any proposals and try to make life easier for themselves by providing subordinates with all the information and resources. For themselves, they assign the role of an intermediary in relations with the external environment.

Effectiveness of management style

The most effective management style is considered to be one in which the manager is focused on high-performance work, coupled with trust and respect for people. This ensures both the highest morale and the highest efficiency. The success of the organization is perceived as the success of the entire team and each employee individually. Yet, studies have not revealed an obvious relationship between management styles and production efficiency.

The success of a management style can be judged by its impact on profits and costs. When evaluating, you should also use aspects related to tasks:

For product development,
- organizations,
- personnel management (duration of absence, job satisfaction, willingness to change jobs, self-esteem, pluses, creative qualities, initiative, readiness to study).

In the end, the application of management styles has certain limitations (legal, ethical, entrepreneurial values).

The effectiveness of management styles cannot be assessed outside of specific situations. With all this, you should take into account:

Personal properties (representations of values, self-awareness, main position, attitude to risk, the role of personal motives, authority, production and creative potential, level of education);
- dependence on future tasks (whether they contain creative or innovative elements, degree of formulation, experience in solving them, whether they are solved according to plan or as arising at one moment, whether they should be carried out individually or in a group, time pressure);
- organizational conditions (the degree of rigidity of the organizational structure, centralized and decentralized problem solving, the number of decision-making instances, the clarity of information and communication paths, the degree of control);
- environmental conditions (degree of stability, conditions of material support, social security, dominant public values ​​and structures).

Probabilistic model of managerial efficiency

This concept comes from the following very fundamental premises:

The style of management is always correlated with the effectiveness of the functioning of the team headed by the manager;
The connection between the style (type) of management and efficiency is justified by a number of characteristics (features of the team and its members, the specificity of the tasks being solved, etc.), giving it a probabilistic nature.

The essence of the probabilistic model of managerial efficiency, developed by the well-known South American specialist in the field of social and managerial psychology F. Fiedler, is as follows:

The effectiveness of management (regardless of style or type) is mediated by the degree of control the manager has over the situation in which he acts.

No matter what situation can be represented as a combination of 3 main characteristics:

The degree of favorable relations between the manager and subordinates;
- the magnitude of the power (influence) of the manager in the group (his ability to control the actions of subordinates and use different types stimulation);
- the structure of the group problem (which includes the clarity of the goal, ways and methods of its solution, etc.)

The cumulative quantitative assessment of all these characteristics makes it possible to judge the magnitude of the degree of situational control of the manager over the situation. How do management styles and the "probabilistic model" relate to each other?

A number of experimental studies have confirmed that an authoritarian-type manager is more effective in situations with high and low situational control, and a democratic leader is more effective in situations with average situational control. So by itself, situational control, even if it is very high, cannot be an indicator of effectiveness. Management can be effective both with high and low situational control. On the other hand, even with the highest situational control, management can be ineffective. And this means that the effectiveness of management is not determined by situational control. The degree of situational control cannot act as an aspect of effective management. This led researchers to the conclusion that aspects of management effectiveness lie in the field of psychology and can be expressed in the formula: effective management = effective manager.

So, what style should a leader choose? It seems that in order to do this, he must first evaluate the subordinate. If this is a beginner who, moreover, does not have the highest qualifications, then in this case an authoritarian style will be desirable, manifested in correctly set tasks with an indication of the sources of the necessary resources. To manage an experienced worker who is a specialist in his own business, it is certainly better to choose a democratic or delegating style.

If you need to solve complex problems and there is time to develop rational decision, and subordinates are not new, it is better to turn to the democratic style. In an extreme, emergency or urgent situation, even for the existing team, the authoritarian style will again be the best.

Every leader sooner or later tends to one or another style of management. In management today, several types of behavior are distinguished at once, each of which is effective in its own way. The methods and styles of management used by the same person can change, depending on what tasks the leader sets for himself and the team. Therefore, it is not possible to name one, the most effective style of management.

To date, the main styles of management are as follows:

1. Liberal personnel management line or the principle of non-interference of the leader in the activities of subordinates. A manager who practices this style of work acts as an intermediary between employees and higher authorities. The liberal behavior of the bosses is practiced in teams where employees know their job well, their day is scheduled by the minute, and there is simply no need for one person to make additional decisions.
2. Authoritarian management style in management. In this case, all working decisions are made "in one person". High demands, constant pressure and control over the course of activities. The authoritarian style is good in cases where extreme situations arise, and it is necessary to urgently make some decisions.
3. Democratic management style. Leaders who adhere to this style can involve specialists at all levels in solving managerial problems. As motivators for work, the boss chooses the opportunity for each employee to realize their needs in terms of self-expression, creativity, and belonging to a team.
4. Combination of several management styles in management. In practice, it is very difficult for a leader to develop one single leadership style and stick to it. After all, the team consists of living people, and they are all very different. The propensity for one of the behavioral lines in the 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.

Basic management models

Leadership, power, and management styles is a broad, controversial topic that regularly gives rise to new theories about effective and ineffective management styles. At the beginning of the 20th century, when the science of managing people was just beginning to develop, it was taken up by theorists and practitioners in different parts of the world. As a result, several management models have developed, which, on the basis of a territorial basis, have been called the Western, Japanese and American style. Each method is effective in its own way, and at the same time is fundamentally different from the other.

1. Western style of management. 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.
2. American style of management. Strict observance of norms and regulations, practicality, development of personnel.
3. Japanese style of management. Continuous staff development, understanding of the joint contribution to the development of the company, a high level of trust of the authorities in relation to the subordinate.

Coaching as a new style of management

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 coaching is that the coach (he is also a business coach) does not delve deeply into the problems of the person being consulted and does not give valuable guidance. The task of the coach is to make sure that the specialist himself formulates his problem and finds ways to overcome it. Today, coaching is considered a very promising direction in the science of managing people.

Methods and styles of management are a broad and open topic for research. A competent leader is one who knows how not to limit himself to only one option, to choose one or another method of personnel management, based on the goals and objectives that are currently facing him.

The choice of management style is a very important stage in the development of any manager. Style and character have a huge impact on your team. Most importantly, knowing your style and character, you can accept people who fit your style, thereby reducing the number of managerial mistakes. Despite the importance of management style, novice managers tend to simply copy the behavior of their boss. Such imitation sometimes turns out well. But more often it does not look natural, it does not allow to establish relations with subordinates, and most importantly, such a manager will not be able to reveal his talents.

What a leader should know

I am often asked: what should a new leader know first of all? As a rule, everyone is very interested, especially and. You can also hear questions about. They like to ask these questions on. Much less often, young managers think about what style of personnel management they should choose. In most cases, a novice leader simply copies the behavior of his boss. He simply did not see another. The fact that people can be controlled in different ways is taught very rarely.

The training of operational management is the task of middle managers, the training of middle managers falls on top management. You should not hope that a person brought some practices from the university or found them somewhere on the street. Manager training should include several fundamental things.

Understanding the goals and objectives for the current position

An explanation of what tasks the manager solves and what tools he uses will help the manager understand how his new position differs from the previous one. At this stage, the manager needs to explain the difference between an operations manager and a subordinate, between a middle manager and a lower level manager. When moving from one position to another, the employee does not always understand how his duties have changed. Often an employee tries to continue doing what he can and what he can do. For example, the seller was promoted to , but he is still eager to sell in the fields.

Thoughtful team building depending on the temperament of the manager

First of all, you need to pay attention to the formation of the team, the definition of the management style, the definition of the portrait of a candidate for a new team. The main task of a manager is to manage resources, and people are the most difficult resource. A young leader often does not understand how important it is to him. The direct manager always talks more about daily operational goals, and team building is important, but not urgent, so it often falls out of sight. It is rare when a leader helps his subordinate to decide on his management style and draw up a portrait of an ordinary member of his team.

The style of management depends primarily on the temperament of the person. Temperament has a decisive influence on the selection of people. Now imagine that the temperamentally phlegmatic is trying to use an authoritarian management style. First of all, it will be hard for the employee, as a result, the young leader quickly. The consequences of such management for the team can be very deplorable.

There is an opinion that a good leader should be a choleric. In fact, there are many examples of successful managers of various temperaments. But the most important thing is that people with pronounced features of the same temperament are very rare. Rather, you can see a mixture of different temperaments from which the character is formed. Temperament is the innate features of the psyche, character is a set of human behavior, developed on the basis of his temperament and habitat. Character can be changed both consciously and unconsciously under the influence of external environment. Temperament will always be with a person, all you can do is learn to control it.

Leadership styles in management

Leadership styles (management styles, management style, leader styles) are a set of behavior and interaction methods between a leader and a subordinate. We have already talked about management styles in an article about.

In general, it is customary to distinguish three main managerial styles: democratic, liberal and authoritarian. These three styles balance between two important characteristics of the staff: and the initiative of the employees.

Good discipline forms high manageability, it is easy for the manager to implement any of his ideas. The working day of the staff is fully scheduled and everyone knows what to do. We discussed the importance of discipline in the article -. But discipline completely suppresses the initiative of the staff. What does it mean? Employees will not make suggestions for improving and optimizing work, they are passive and, as a rule, are not interested in the overall success.

Authoritarian management style

The authoritarian style of management implies full attention to the task being performed to the detriment of the interests of the personality of the performer. The attributes of the authoritarian style are: ignoring the opinions of the team, suppressing dissent, strictness and even bias in assessing the activities of subordinates. The consequence of such management is a non-initiative staff, incapable of independent action. In general, in the realities of the modern labor market, an authoritarian style of management is possible only with the recruitment of personnel ready to endure such an attitude. As a rule, these are melancholic, although it happens that completely different people are ready to endure a charismatic dictator.

The authoritarian leadership style is great for quick one-time tasks, also in situations where there is a very strong charismatic leader, and also when nothing more than executive discipline is required to achieve results.

Democratic management style

The word democracy is in every news release, in the 21st century, wars begin for the sake of democracy. The word itself has Greek roots and means - the power of the people. The leader of the democrat makes all his decisions jointly with the team and relies on its opinion and support. All decisions are supported by the team, the team makes suggestions for improving work processes and takes the initiative. It is worth noting that in fact, being a democrat is much more difficult than being a dictator. Since he is a democrat, he must still lead the people, that is. It is not so easy to achieve this, the team will initially reject all new leaders. That is why novice leaders often slip into an authoritarian style.

The democratic style is the most flexible, it is suitable for solving various problems. The most important thing is the good managerial competence of the manager who preaches this style. For a democratic style, it is very important that all team members are interested in the final result. The democratic style is applicable in sales, in the management of managers, in teams where non-trivial tasks are solved and creativity is required.

Liberal management style

The liberal style of government is often called free, sometimes even anarchist. The bottom line is that the subordinate is given maximum freedom of action. Sharp corners are smoothed out, management does not conflict with subordinates due to minor misconduct. In such a team, discipline as such does not exist. In general, this type of management is in demand when the subordinate is motivated to complete the task. As a rule, these are creative teams, as well as narrow-profile highly qualified employees, a kind of genius. For the work of such personnel, broad autonomy is needed, since driving them into a common framework reduces their creativity and creativity.