Types of leaders are authoritarian. What are the types of leaders

In accordance with the most common characteristic in management science, the following leadership styles are distinguished: authoritarian (autocratic, directive), democratic (collegiate), liberal (liberal-anarchist, conniving, neutral, permissive).

The authoritarian leadership style is characterized by centralization and concentration of power in the hands of one leader. He single-handedly decides all issues, determines the activities of subordinates, not giving them the opportunity to take the initiative. Subordinates do only what is ordered; while the information they need is kept to a minimum. The activities of subordinates are strictly controlled. An autocratic leader uses either coercive or traditional power.

From a psychological point of view, the authoritarian style of management is unfavorable. The leader-autocrat has no interest in the employee as a person. Employees due to the suppression of their initiative and creative manifestations are passive. As a rule, they are mostly dissatisfied with their work and position in the team. With this style of leadership, there are additional reasons, influencing the emergence of an unfavorable psychological climate: “toadies”, “scapegoats” appear, intrigues are created. All this is the cause of increased psychological stress, which is harmful to the mental and physical health of people.

The authoritarian style of leadership is expedient and justified: 1) in situations requiring maximum and rapid mobilization of resources (under conditions emergencies, accidents, hostilities, production during the war, etc.); 2) at the first stages of creating a new team; 3) in teams with low level the consciousness of the members of this collective; 4) in the army.

The democratic leadership style is characterized by the decentralization of power. The Democratic leader consults with subordinates and consults with specialists involved in decision-making. Subordinates receive sufficient information to have an idea about the prospects for their work. Employee initiative is encouraged. The leader delegates part of his power to subordinates. When exercising control, he introduces elements of collective self-government. The Democratic leader uses predominantly reward-based power and reference power (example power).

From a psychological point of view, the democratic style of management is the most favorable. The democrat leader shows interest and kind attention to employees, takes into account their interests, needs, and characteristics. This has a positive effect on the results of work, initiative, activity of employees, their satisfaction with their work and position in the team. A favorable psychological climate and team cohesion have a positive effect on the mental and physical health of employees. However, despite all the positive democratic style management, its implementation is possible only with a high level of intellectual, organizational, psychological and communicative abilities.

It is advisable to use the democratic leadership style in production teams, regardless of industry affiliation and the type of products (services) produced. This leadership style is most effective in established teams with microgroups and informal leaders.

The liberal style of leadership is characterized by minimal interference of the leader in the activities of the group. The leader-liberal does not take an active part in the production activities of his subordinates. He sets tasks for them, indicates the main areas of work, provides necessary resources and gives employees the autonomy to achieve end results. His role is reduced to the functions of a consultant, coordinator, organizer, supplier, controller. The liberal leader tries to use power based on remuneration, expert or reference power.

From a psychological point of view, the liberal style of leadership can be viewed from two sides, depending on which team is headed by a liberal leader. This style gives positive results if the team consists of highly qualified specialists with great abilities for creative independent work, disciplined and responsible. It can also be applied in the form of an individual approach to the employee.

The most successful leader-liberal manages the team in which there are energetic and knowledgeable assistants (deputies) who can take on the functions of the leader. In this case, deputies practically manage and make decisions, they also resolve conflict situations.

With a liberal style of leadership, a strong informal leader can also take over. In this case, the leader-liberal must identify the "platform" of the leader and skillfully influence him in order to prevent anarchy, weakening of discipline and the emergence of an unfavorable socio-psychological climate. The most effective liberal management style is in scientific, creative teams, consisting of recognized authorities, talented, gifted people in specific areas of science, technology, culture and art.

If the collective has not “grown up” to the liberal style of management, but is still headed by a liberal leader, then such a style turns into a liberal-anarchist (permissive). At the same time, "maximum democracy" and "minimum control" lead to the fact that: 1) some employees do not consider it necessary to carry out decisions made; 2) the lack of control on the part of the management lets the work of subordinates “run its course”; 3) the results of the work are reduced due to the lack of control and its systematic evaluation; 4) people are not satisfied with their work and the leader. As a result, all this negatively affects the state of the psychological climate in the team.

In some collectives, the leader-liberal is commanded by his subordinates, and he is reputed to be “ a good man". However, this continues until a conflict situation arises. In this case, dissatisfied subordinates get out of obedience: the liberal style turns into an indulgent one, which leads to conflicts, disorganization and deterioration of labor discipline.

The above description of leadership styles does not exhaust the whole variety of forms of interaction between managers and subordinates.

In this rapidly changing world, a situational management style is applied, flexibly taking into account the level psychological development team of subordinates.

In addition to the situational management style, the innovative analytical style is popular and effective (especially in successful Japanese firms), which can ensure organizational survival in an acute market competition. It has:
generating a large number ideas;
the ability to logically analyze the realism and perspective of these ideas;
energy, innovation, sensitivity to new ideas and information;
tolerance for failure;
ability to work with people.

According to the majority of foreign experts in the field of management effective style management is a participatory (participatory) management style, which is characterized by the following features:
regular meetings of the head with subordinates;
openness in relations between the leader and subordinates;
involvement of subordinates in the development and adoption of organizational decisions;
delegation (transfer) by the head of a number of powers and rights to subordinates;
participation of ordinary workers both in planning and in the implementation of organizational changes;
Creation special groups empowered with the right to make independent decisions (for example, "quality control groups");
providing the employee with the opportunity to autonomously (separately from other members of the organization) develop problems, new ideas.

The participatory style of leadership is most effectively applied in scientific organizations, innovative firms, in knowledge-intensive industries under the conditions if:
1) the leader has a high educational and creative level, knows how to appreciate and use the creative proposals of subordinates; self-assured;
2) subordinates have a high level of knowledge and skills, the need for creativity, independence and personal growth, interest in work;
3) the goals and objectives facing the employees of the organization involve a plurality of solutions, require theoretical analysis and high professional performance, strenuous efforts and creativity.

Thus, considering leadership styles in the aggregate, we can conclude that they act as opposites: autocratic-democratic, participatory; innovative analytical - liberal.

Effective, choosing a management style, should keep in mind the following circumstances:
- know yourself;
- understand the situation;
- evaluate the chosen management style adequately to the situation and the level of subordinates;
- take into account the needs of the group;
- take into account the needs of the situation;
- take into account the needs of subordinates.

"Each broom sweeps in its own way" - in this folk saying hidden idea about the variety of personality types of leaders and their management styles. By carefully observing the work of several managers in a team, you can notice the difference in the formation of working relationships. manager directly affects the performance of the company. This fact can explain why some companies close, while others live and prosper even in times of crisis.

The personality of the manager, management styles and company results - these things are closely related. Combining several methods of guidance, you can get closer to the ideal result. After all, the style of the leader and the effectiveness of management are inseparable things. If you are a boss, then it is important for you to understand what kind of person you really are. So you will understand your strengths and weak sides and get better results.

Brief description of leadership styles

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

The famous American-German psychologist and writer in the 1930s published and identified three leadership styles that later became classics. A little later, they were added more inconsistent and situational. Having studied the table with a brief description of the manager, you can find yourself and immediately proceed to reading the desired section. And it’s better to read the whole material - in life you will have to deal with different people and better be prepared. What are the management styles of a leader?

Authoritarian

(from Latin auctoritas - power, influence) - domineering, not loving to discuss, to be objected to, and even more so resisted. If the boss belongs to this type of people, then the manager's management style is authoritarian. This type belongs to one of the three classic ones.

Characteristics of a manager

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

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

"Exploiter" fully justifies its name, it's directly "Pablo Escobar" in the company. Such a manager squeezes all the juice out of his subordinates, does not consider the interests of people, the opinion of someone does not interest him at all. It can stimulate employees with threats, blackmail, fines and other persecution.

Never allows even the slightest independence in making decisions or performing tasks. Everything must be done exactly as the “exploiter” said. Any authoritarian leader constantly issues orders, decrees and other decisions. Everything is certified with seals, paintings and dates. In the matter of completing tasks, he is extremely demanding and impatient, although he is able to make concessions if he is not under emotions. If the leader is not in the spirit, then he can say and do anything, and then you can not wait for an apology. At the same time, this behavior should not be confused with manipulative techniques, when all emotions are just a “theatre” - authoritarian leaders love to use this. Subordinates are deprived of the opportunity to take the initiative.

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

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

Relationships with subordinates

If in relations with subordinates the “benevolent” leader builds a distance that no one can cross, then for the “exploiter” this distance becomes intergalactic. The conversation is built in an orderly rude form. Employees are depressed and devoid of motivation, while the risk of developing conflicts in the company is high. Criticism, even constructive, is absent as a concept.

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

A “benevolent” type can listen to a subordinate, but he will have to immediately get to the point and not pull the rubber, otherwise everything is “your time is up”, and you can only get to him with your question in the next life. It happens that the leader can even give advice. A "benevolent" can provide a vacation, an urgent departure, or an overpayment - but for this you need to "defend" your plan in front of him, as if to sell him the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bwhy he should do this for you. But even if everything is done brilliantly, there is big risk what the manager will do in his own way, and it is impossible to know the reasons for the decision.

Problem solving

Everything is simple for the "exploiter" and the "benevolent" - everyone must work without rest and break and lay down their lives for the benefit of the enterprise. Those who disagree with this are declared "enemies of the people" and must leave the company.

Subordinates are required to follow orders implicitly. The faster and better the duties are performed, the more successful the enterprise achieves. And the more new tasks the autocrat will lay on the shoulders of his subordinates. In solving problems, authoritarian leaders have no principles - the end justifies the means. This should be remembered, because the greater the level of influence of the autocrat, the tougher he will act.

Way of communication

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

Democratic

The style of work and management of a democratic leader is a mirror image of an authoritarian one. This style of work implies an even distribution of duties and responsibilities among the employees of the company. The leader-democrat gathers a team of subordinates around him, on which he can rely. A team that solves problems and launches even complex projects, and for this you do not need to force or intimidate employees. At the same time, there will still be responsibility, because a democrat is not a liberally conniving person, but a leader focused on a specific result.

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

Characteristics of a manager

People with expressed but at the same time not putting their ego in the first place gravitate towards the democratic style. A democratic leader is a peaceful warrior: he does not start the war first, but if he is attacked, he will have to answer to the fullest extent of the law. This management style of the leader creates a friendly atmosphere in the team and helps to take care of the staff in solving problems with a certain degree of creativity. Such a leader can, without any special claims, consider the issue of time off, help or purchase new technology For the company. If you provide an evidence base for your ideas or requests, then the manager can be persuaded to make a positive decision on your issue.

Relationships with subordinates

Comradely, business relations are developing, which can flow into friendships, although this is rare. Whatever the manager's management styles, do not forget that this is the leader, and there is no need to overstep the bounds. A democrat leader uses a humane approach to his subordinates, enters into their position to a certain limit, easily arranges motivational contests or gifts for overfulfillment of plans.

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

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

Problem solving

Problem solving boils down to the fact that at first a plan of action is developed by collective efforts. After that, performers are selected based on skills and abilities. Without any resistance, such a leader invites an external expert to the team and listens to his opinion. By the way, none of the subordinates is forbidden to express their opinion, because the leader is concerned about achieving the result, and realizes that he risks missing something important.

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

Way of communication

Democratic leader chooses conventional style communication. You can go to his office and “steal” some time. He listens to the opinion of the staff, especially if the words are backed up by facts and figures - this is worth using. You should not put pressure on such a leader - although he is soft, he bends like bamboo, and if you press hard, he will seriously answer. Whatever the leader, styles and methods of management will be very different. The best way communication - cooperation. You need to act within the framework of the task, without breaking the deadlines. If you can improve or redo the work - you need to immediately contact the boss, keep him up to date. Examples of personalities: Vladimir Putin, Evgeny Chichvarkin, Lavrenty Beria.

liberal anarchist

This style of governance is similar to democratic, but there are differences. It is characteristic that the leader, having set the task clearly and clearly, setting the deadlines and speed of implementation, fades into the background. Thus, he allows subordinates to act independently, while almost not limiting the means and methods of performing tasks.

Liberal style is suitable for management At the same time, it is not necessary that it will be a song and dance group, the editorial office of a magazine, a design bureau, and other similar groups will do.

Characteristics of a manager

The liberal style can be divided into two areas: anarchist and expert. In the first case, the leader is a weak person, non-conflict, conformist. He puts off the solution of important issues until the last moment, or tries to completely relieve himself of responsibility by shifting it onto the shoulders of deputies or subordinates. Such a leader can sit in the office for days and not go out to the workers - let them work for themselves.

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

Relationships with subordinates

A liberal expert develops friendly, informal and strong relationships. Leaders grow up in such collectives, who then either take power from the liberal, or go to new collectives - as practice shows, these are authoritarian leaders.

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

Problem solving

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

In the "manager and organization" relationship, "liberal" management styles are well known. Soft management, trust, cooperation and cooperation - these are the foundations of the liberal style of company management. There is no bad way to manage people, only the wrong use of the tools in your hands. Determining the manager's management style should be started as early as possible - it will be easier to adapt to the situation or quickly find a new job.

Way of communication

The leader-liberal does not attach much importance to the chosen method of communication, because the impact of this on the result of work is minimal. It is worth communicating with the leader himself, based on the goals of communication and what type of personality the leader has. At the same time, management styles can be different - either an anarchist or an expert. Do not worry too much if you suddenly called the boss "you" - he will correct you, but will not punish you with a fine, like an authoritarian. Examples: Roman Abramovich, Robert Kiyosaki.

Inconsistent

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

Characteristics of a manager

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

Relationships with subordinates

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

Problem solving

It is impossible to achieve goals with such a leader, because he vaguely imagines how the team should work. Problem solving is shifted to deputies and subordinates, and then taken over. Then some tasks are canceled, replaced with new ones, and so on. This style of leadership breeds confusion and anarchy.

Way of communication

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

Situational

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

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

Characteristics of a manager

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

Relationships with subordinates

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

The situational leader knows how best to communicate with a given group of subordinates or a single employee. In which case it is possible to remain silent or even to condone something, but it only seems to an inexperienced eye that the leader has given up slack.

Problem solving

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

In general, the manager himself is more like a shadow - he hides his personal and is only engaged in work. He has no favorites, and if he does, then you can guess for a long time who was awarded such a role. It does not show obvious negative, on the contrary, with each problematic employee, such a manager tries to find mutual language. Through experience, this is often successful. It seems that such a person does not think about himself at all: where are all the "Wishlist" and other complexes? To this question, the situational manager will only smile and shrug his shoulders.

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

Way of communication

Like the liberal expert, the situational manager chooses a simple style of communication. Despite the high rank, such people are simple and open, and often optimistic and endowed with a sense of humor. Often enter the position of an employee and can help beyond the working relationship. With age, managers become too kind and resourceful, sometimes they can lose their grip, which is used by unprincipled workers. But the team usually stands up for the leader, and if they see meanness towards their patron, they immediately take action.

Examples: most of military, directors and heads of factories and factories of the war and post-war period, such as Konstantin Rokossovsky, Ivan Romazan, Avraamiy Zavenyagin and others.

What style leader are you?

No matter how a manager behaves, it is worth remembering that the individual management style of a leader is made up of the characteristics of a person’s upbringing and character, so labeling is not worth it.

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

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

What to do if you find your manager on the list? Now you know how it is better to build relationships with him, and what moments should be avoided.

From this article you will learn:

• What characterizes the democratic style of management
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of the democratic style of government?

The system of methods by which the head of the organization influences subordinate employees is called leadership style. In order for the organization to work effectively, so that each employee has the opportunity to reach their full potential, it is necessary to responsibly approach the choice of this system. In the article we will reveal what a democratic style of management is and who it suits.

Characteristics of the democratic style of management

The democratic style of management is characterized by granting independence to employees within the framework of their functions and in accordance with their qualifications. Subordinates in organizations characterized by this style have considerable freedom of action under the control of the leader.

The Democrat boss prefers such mechanisms of influence as participation, belonging, self-expression. Teamwork is closer to him, and not pulling the "strings of power."

A Democratic leader has the following view of his employees:

• work is a natural process, and under favorable conditions, workers will not only take responsibility, but also strive for it;
• when rank-and-file specialists are involved in solving organizational issues, they will enjoy self-government and work on self-control;
• participation is a reward that is due when the goal is achieved;
• many employees are able to creatively approach the solution of tasks, but not everyone is ready to reveal their intellectual potential.

The Democratic leader does not set himself the goal of imposing his will on employees. He seeks to share power with them and control the result.

For organizations in which the democratic style of management prevails, a high decentralization of powers is characteristic. Employees actively participate in decision-making, are not bound by rigid frameworks when performing tasks. Such enterprises have all the prerequisites for quality work, the efforts of employees are evaluated fairly, their needs are respected.

What should be the leader of the democratic style of management

The Democratic boss goes to great lengths to create an atmosphere of openness and trust in the organization. If an employee needs help, he can turn to the manager without fear of being misunderstood.

In such organizations, the manager seeks to ensure that subordinate employees delve into the problems of the department, are able to find and apply alternative solutions.

The tasks of the chief include solving the most complex and important tasks, while the rest of the issues are distributed among subordinates. Such leaders are not subject to stereotypes, they are able to change their behavior in accordance with changes in circumstances, situations, team composition, etc.

In organizations with a democratic management style, instructions are given not in the form of instructions, but as proposals that take into account the opinion of employees. This approach is based on the manager's belief that best solution can be found during the discussion of work tasks.

The democrat boss is well aware of all the strengths and weaknesses of his subordinates. When entrusting employees with the performance of certain tasks, the manager proceeds from the capabilities of the employee, emphasizing the natural desire for everyone to express themselves through their intellectual and professional potential. The results obtained are the result of the belief of subordinates in the expediency and significance of the tasks performed.

The Democrat boss regularly informs his subordinates about how things are going and what are the prospects for the development of the organization. This approach makes it easier for employees to achieve their goals, to develop in them a sense of the real masters of the situation.

Since such a leader is well aware of the true state of affairs in his department and the mood of employees, he adheres to tactful behavior in relations with subordinates, seeks to understand their needs and interests. In case of occurrence conflict situations, he analyzes the root causes and draws conclusions for the future. Such a system of communication helps to strengthen the feeling of trust and respect between the leader and subordinates.

With a democratic style of management, the creative activity of employees is encouraged in every possible way (including through the transfer of authority), which also helps to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.

Because employees in fully understand their importance and responsibility in the fulfillment of their tasks, discipline gradually becomes self-discipline.

But one should not think that with a democratic style of management there is no unity of command, the power of the leader is weakening. On the contrary, in such a team, the power and authority of the boss become more significant, as they are built on managing people not with the help of brute force, but taking into account the potential of each subordinate.

To be a good Democrat leader, you need to have certain qualities. The main ones are listed below:

• openness;
• trust in employees;
• waiver of personal privileges;
• ability and willingness to delegate authority;
• non-interference in the implementation of current tasks, control through official authorities (through relevant leaders and channels);
• results control;
• substantiation before employees of the facts of sole decision-making.

Which employees are affected by democratic management style

The democratic style of management considers subordinates as partners capable of solving current problems on their own. Such employees have a high level of professional training, knowledge and experience.

In order for the democratic style of management to be effective, ordinary employees of the organization must have the following qualities:

• high level of professional training;
• willingness and ability to take responsibility;
• expressed need for independent action;
• willingness and ability to take responsibility for their actions;
• craving for creativity and personal growth;
• interest in work;
• orientation towards long-term life and organizational goals;
• the high importance of the opinions of colleagues about them;
• high level of self-control;

Pros and Cons of Democratic Management Style

The benefits of a democratic leadership style include:

At first glance, the democratic management style seems to be the best way to manage employees. But it also has some drawbacks.

Although given type management implies collegiality, the most significant decisions for the organization are still made by the highest bodies and officials, and ordinary employees simply follow the orders of higher management.

Undoubtedly, in some cases, leaders ask the opinion of subordinates, allow them to act as a single deliberative body. However, at the same time, employees do not receive the degree of importance that they would like to have within the limits of their functions.

In addition, a leader who uses democratic principles of management comes to the conclusion that the correctness of decisions made and the effectiveness of the work of subordinates are possible only through the use of these principles.

It should be noted that the democratic style of management should never be used in case of crisis and other extreme situations that affect every organization to one degree or another.

Other disadvantages of the democratic style of governance include:

The risk of democratic management style is the delegation of authority to persons who are not directly responsible for the implementation or non-performance management decisions. In case of making an unreasonable decision, the responsibility for it will fall on the head. At the same time, subordinates who are not burdened with a burden of responsibility may not be conscientious enough in the execution of delegated powers, but in this situation it will not be them who will be compromised, but a democrat leader who builds power relations from the standpoint of partnership and collegiality.

Directions of democratic management style

The democratic style of management includes a number of directions based on the relationship "leader - subordinate". Its varieties are listed below.

1. Participatory. It consists in complete trust on the part of the leader to subordinates. This style is characterized by finding out the opinions of employees on issues related to the activities of the company, using constructive suggestions from employees and involving them in setting certain goals. Responsibility for decisions made in this case not transferred to subordinates.
2. Advisory. In this case, the leader, reserving the acceptance important decisions, consults with subordinates, prompting them the most correct ways out of any situations. Employees are satisfied with the organization of the process, provide assistance and support to the boss. Employees are rewarded as an incentive, not punished.

Any kind of democratic management style will work in an organization where employees are well versed in the processes of production. As an example, consider next situation. In the company, a young specialist is appointed as the head of the department. It is beneficial for him to build a democratic scheme of relations with subordinates, listening to their advice, taking into account their professional knowledge. Thus, the leader relies on the experience of his subordinates, and they, in turn, assist him in making important decisions.

The word "style" is of Greek origin, which originally meant a rod for writing on a wax board, and later came to be used in the meaning of "handwriting". Thus, the leadership style is a "handwriting" in the actions of the leader.

The style of management depends on the characteristics of the administrative and leadership qualities of the leader. In the process of labor activity, an individual type, the "handwriting" of the leader is formed, which makes it possible to focus on the fact that there are no and cannot be two identical leaders with the same leadership style. Thus, the leadership style is a strictly individual phenomenon, as it is determined by the specific characteristics of a particular person and reflects the characteristics of working with people.

Also, the leadership style is understood as stably manifesting features of the interaction of the leader with the team, which are formed under the influence of both objective and subjective conditions of management, and individual psychological characteristics of the leader's personality.

An effective manager, choosing a management style, should keep in mind the following circumstances:

Know yourself;

understand the situation;

Evaluate the management style adequately to the situation and the level of subordinates;

Consider the needs of the group;

Consider the needs of the situation and subordinates.

Each leader has his own personal characteristics, which are manifested in the process of leadership, therefore, different leadership styles are formed. In accordance with the most common classification in management activities, the following management styles are distinguished:

2 Democratic (collegiate).

3 Liberal (permissive, permissive, neutral).

Authoritarian leadership style

The authoritarian leadership style (influence) is imperious, based on the desire to assert its influence, authority. With this style, the leader is committed to the formal nature of relationships with subordinates. He provides his employees with only a minimum of information, because he does not trust anyone, he tries to get rid of strong workers and talented people. For him the best worker is the one who knows how to understand the thoughts of the boss. In such an atmosphere, gossip and intrigue flourish. However, such a management system does not contribute to the development of the independence of employees, since subordinates try to resolve all issues with management. None of the employees knows how their leader will react to certain events; he is unpredictable. People are afraid to give him bad news, and as a result, he lives in the belief that everything turned out the way he intended. Employees do not argue or ask questions, even if they see serious mistakes in the decision of the leader. As a result, the activity of such a leader does not allow subordinates to take the initiative, interferes with their work.

This leadership style is characterized by centralization and concentration of power in the hands of one leader. He single-handedly decides all issues, determines the activities of subordinates, not giving them the opportunity to take the initiative. Subordinates do what is ordered; while the information they need is kept to a minimum. The activities of subordinates are strictly controlled. It consists in the fact that the leader seeks to concentrate power in his hands, takes full responsibility for the results. Such a manager has enough power to impose his will on the workers.

So, with an authoritarian management style, the subordinate is perceived as having an aversion to work and, if possible, avoiding it. In this case, the employee needs constant coercion, control, punishment. The subordinate constantly avoids responsibility, prefers to be led.

The autocrat deliberately appeals to the needs of the lower level of his subordinates on the assumption that this is the level that is most important for subordinates.

From a psychological point of view, the authoritarian style of management is unfavorable. The leader-autocrat has no interest in the employee as a person. Employees due to the suppression of their initiative and creative manifestations are passive. They are not satisfied with their work and position in the team. With this leadership style, additional reasons appear that influence the emergence of an unfavorable psychological climate: “toadies” appear, intrigues are created. All this is the cause of increased psychological stress, which is harmful to the mental and physical health of people.

In emergency situations, accidents, military operations;

At the first stage of creating a new team;

In collectives with a low level of consciousness of members.

1.4.1.1 Aggressive leadership style

The manager who adopts this style assumes that people are inherently lazy and stupid in general, which means that they try to avoid work at the first opportunity. Therefore, subordinates must be forced to work. Such a leader does not allow himself to show softness and participation. In dealing with people, he is usually unfriendly, often rude. Seeks to keep subordinates at a distance, limits contact with them. In communication with employees, he often raises his voice, actively gesticulates, insults people.

1.4.1.2 Aggressive-compliant leadership style

This style is selective. The leader is aggressive towards his subordinates and at the same time pliable, obliging towards his superiors. They are afraid to show their own weaknesses and shortcomings.

1.4.1.3 Selfish leadership style

A leader who shares this style of leadership single-handedly decides all issues of production and the activities of the team. It seems to him that he knows everything himself, and therefore strives for autocracy, does not tolerate any objections, is prone to hasty, but not always right decisions.

1.4.1.4 Kind-hearted leadership style

The basis of this style is the authoritarian nature of leadership, however, the leader gives his subordinates the opportunity to participate in the adoption of certain decisions to a limited extent. To evaluate the performance of employees, along with the dominant system of punishments, incentives are also used.

Leadership style- a method, a system of methods for influencing a leader on subordinates. One of the most important factors in the effective operation of the organization, the full realization of the potential of people and the team. Most researchers distinguish the following leadership styles:

Democratic style (collegiate);

Liberal style (permissive or anarchist).

Authoritarian management style characterized by a high centralization of leadership, the dominance of one-man management. The leader demands that all cases be reported to him, single-handedly makes decisions or cancels them. He does not listen to the opinion of the team, he decides everything for the team himself. The prevailing methods of management are orders, punishments, remarks, reprimands, deprivation of various benefits. Control is very strict, detailed, depriving subordinates of initiative. The interests of the cause are placed much higher than the interests of people; harshness and rudeness prevail in communication. The authoritarian leadership style has a negative impact on the moral and psychological climate, leads to a significant decrease in initiative, self-control and responsibility of employees.

Subordinates are recipients of orders. According to "theory x and xy:

the average person is lazy and, as far as possible, shirks from work;

workers are unambitious, afraid of responsibility and want to be led;

pressure on subordinates and sanctions against them are necessary to achieve the goals of the enterprise;

strict management of subordinates and private control over them are inevitable.

Theory "X"

1. Average person has an innate aversion to work and will seek to avoid it if possible.

2. Therefore, the majority of people must be forced to work, controlled and led under the threat of punishment, so that they can make their best contribution to the goal.

3. The worker tends to be led, he avoids responsibility, he has little ambition, he wants to be protected in everything.

Theory "Y"

1. A person does not have an innate dislike for work. Work is natural, as is rest.

2. If a person identifies himself with goals, then he cultivates self-discipline and self-control. External control and the threat of punishment are unsuitable means.

3. Duty to goal setting is a reward function.

4. Under appropriate circumstances, a person not only learns to accept responsibility, but also strives for it.

5. Resourcefulness and creativity are widespread among the working people.

6. Spiritual potential is barely activated in industrial life 1 . Theory "X" and theory "Y" allow us to imagine two opposite types of a person. McGregor believed that every leader bases his leadership style on the adoption of one of these theories. At the same time, "X" is typical for autocrats, and "Y" for democrats.

The MacGregor model itself is not a pure theory of management styles, but it was she who made it possible to more fully and accurately understand the classifications that existed at that time and analyze them.

In this style of management, the motivation of subordinates is often limited because the leader separates socially, transfers, as a rule, less interesting work to subordinates and maintains in them the fear of threatening sanctions. Subordinates become indifferent to the leader, as well as to the enterprise. They get information because of the information barriers set by the head in unofficial ways.

The disadvantages of the authoritarian style lie in the weak motivation for the independence and development of subordinates, as well as the danger of erroneous decisions through excessive demands from managers regarding the quantity and (or) quality of work.