INTRODUCTION

The effective formation of market relations in Russia is largely determined by the formation of modern managerial relations, increasing the manageability of the economy. It is management that ensures the coherence and integration of economic processes in organizations.

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

“To manage means to lead an enterprise towards its goal, extracting the maximum from the available resources.” Specialists of the new time need deep knowledge of management, and for this it is necessary to clearly understand the essence and concept of management.

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

THE CONCEPT OF MANAGEMENT STYLE

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

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

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

The management style characterizes not the leader's behavior in general, but precisely the stable, invariant behavior in it. Constantly manifested in various situations. The search and use of optimal management styles are designed to increase the achievement and satisfaction of employees.

The concept of management styles was intensively developed after the Second World War. However, its developments still face a number of unresolved problems. The main problems:

Difficulties in determining the effectiveness of management style. The results to be achieved with a particular style include many components and are not easily summarized and compared with the results of applying other styles.

Difficulty in establishing cause-and-effect relationships between management style and the effectiveness of its use. Typically, management style is seen as the cause of achieving a certain result - the performance of employees. However, this causal relationship is not always true. Often it is the nature of employees' achievements (minor or high achievements) that prompts the manager to use a particular style.

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

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

You can define the management style in 2 ways:

By clarifying the features of the individual management style that the boss uses in relation to subordinates.

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

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

Among the objective, external conditions that form the management style at a particular managerial level, one can include the nature of the team (production, research, etc.), the specifics of the tasks ahead (next, habitual or urgent, unusual), the conditions for fulfilling these tasks (favorable, unfavorable or extreme), methods and means of activity (individual, pair or group). Along with those indicated, such a factor as the level of development of the team stands out. The individual psychological characteristics of this or that manager bring originality to his managerial activity. On the basis of the appropriate transformation of external influences, each leader manifests his own individual management style.

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

Management 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 management styles:

Democratic style (collegiate);

Liberal style (anarchist).

Management style- This habitual the behavior of a leader towards subordinates in order to influence them and encourage them to achieve the goals of the organization. The degree to which a manager delegates, the types of authority he uses, and his concern for human relations first or for task completion all reflect the style of management that characterizes that leader.

Every organization is a unique combination of individuals, goals and objectives. Each manager is a unique person with a number of abilities. Therefore, management styles can not always be attributed to any particular category.

Authoritarian (directive) style Management is characterized by high centralization of leadership, the dominance of one-man management. The head 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 manager who uses it prefers the official nature of relations, maintains a distance between himself and his subordinates, which they do not have the right to violate.

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

Authoritarian management style - a leadership style in which the leader determines the goals and the entire policy as a whole, distributes responsibilities, and also, for the most part, specifies the appropriate procedures, manages, checks, evaluates and corrects the work performed.

1) in extreme conditions (crisis, emergency, etc.), when quick and decisive action is required, when the lack of time does not allow meetings and discussions;

2) when, due to previous conditions and reasons, anarchist moods prevail in this organization, the level of performance and labor discipline is extremely low

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

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

If the leader makes a decision alone, and then simply brings it to his subordinates, then they perceive this decision as imposed from the outside and critically discuss it, even when it is really successful. Such a decision is carried out with reservations and indifferently. Employees, as a rule, rejoice at any mistake of the leader, finding in it confirmation of their negative opinion about him. As a result, subordinates get used to being executors of someone else's will, fixing in their minds the stereotype "our business is small."

For the leader, 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 they know and notice a lot, keep quiet, either getting moral satisfaction from this, or believing that he still cannot be re-educated. The leader understands the current situation, but is powerless to blame others for the mistakes made, since the subordinates did not participate in the development of the decision. Thus, a kind vicious circle which sooner or later leads to the development of an unfavorable moral and psychological climate in an organization or unit and the creation of grounds for conflicts.

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

Threats of punishment, although present, do not prevail.

The claims of an authoritarian leader for competence in all matters generate chaos and, ultimately, affect the effectiveness of work. Such a boss paralyzes the work of his apparatus. He not only loses his best workers, but also creates a hostile atmosphere around him that threatens himself. Subordinates depend on him, but he also depends on them in many ways. Disgruntled subordinates can let him down or misinform him.

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

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

On the one hand, the authoritarian management style is manifested in the order, the urgency of the task and the ability to predict the result in conditions of maximum concentration of all types of resources. On the other hand, there are tendencies to curb individual initiative and one-way flow of information from top to bottom, there is no necessary Feedback.

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

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

DEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT STYLE (COLLEGE)

Democratic style management is characterized by the distribution of authority, initiative and responsibility between the head and deputies, the head and subordinates. The head of the democratic style always finds out the opinion of the team on important production issues, makes collective decisions. Regularly and in a timely manner informing the members of the team on issues important to them. Communication with subordinates takes place in the form of requests, wishes, recommendations, advice, rewards for high-quality and efficient work, kindly and politely; orders are applied as necessary. The leader stimulates a favorable psychological climate in the team, defends the interests of subordinates.

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

DEMOCRATIC: CONSULTATIVE AND PARTICIPATIVE

Organizations dominated by the principle of democratic leadership are characterized by a high degree of decentralization of powers, the active participation of employees in decision-making, the creation of conditions under which the implementation official duties turns out to be attractive to them, and success serves as a reward.

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

As part of "advisory" the leader is interested in the opinion of subordinates, consults with them, seeks to use the best that they offer. Among incentive measures, encouragement prevails; punishment is used only in exceptional cases. Employees are generally satisfied with such a management system, despite the fact that most decisions are actually prompted to them from above, and usually try to provide their boss with all possible assistance and moral support when necessary.

"Participatory" a form of democratic management assumes that the leader fully trusts subordinates in all matters (and then they answer the same), always listens to them and uses all constructive suggestions, involves employees in setting goals and monitoring their implementation. At the same time, responsibility for the consequences of the decisions made is not shifted to subordinates. All this unites the team.

Usually, the democratic style of management is used when the performers are good, sometimes better than the leader, understand the intricacies of the work and can bring a lot of novelty and creativity to it. If necessary, a democrat leader 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, to prove the expediency of solving the problem, the benefits that employees can receive.

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

As a rule, the environment created by the leader-democrat is also educational in nature and allows you to achieve goals at low cost. There is a positive resonance of power: the authority of the position is reinforced by personal authority. Management takes place without brute pressure, relying on the abilities of employees, respecting their dignity, experience and skill. This forms a favorable moral and psychological climate in the team.

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

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

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

A subordinate-oriented leadership style close to democratic contributes to increased productivity, as it gives room for people's creativity and increases their satisfaction. Its use reduces absenteeism, creates a higher morale, improves relationships in the team and the attitude of subordinates to management.

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

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

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

LIBERAL MANAGEMENT STYLE (BUREAUCRATIC)

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

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

LIBERAL, INCLUDING BUREAUCRATIC

In the same place where it is a question of the need to stimulate the creative approach of performers to their work, it is most preferable liberal management style. Its essence lies in the fact that the leader sets a task for his subordinates, creates the necessary organizational conditions for work, defines its rules and sets the boundaries of the solution, while he himself fades into the background, leaving behind the functions of a consultant, arbiter, expert evaluating the results and in case of doubts and disagreements of the performers makes the final decision. It also provides employees with information, encourages, trains.

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

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

In advanced firms, coercion gives way to persuasion, and strict control to trust, subordination to cooperation, cooperation. Such soft management, aimed at creating "managed autonomy" of departments, facilitates the natural application of new management methods, which is especially important when creating innovations.

At the same time, this style can easily be transformed into bureaucratic, when the leader is completely removed from affairs, passing them into the hands of "nominees". The latter, on his behalf, manage the collective, while applying more and more authoritarian methods. At the same time, he himself pretends that the power is in his hands, but in fact he becomes more and more dependent on his voluntary assistants. A sad example of this is army hazing.

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

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

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

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

There are no "bad" or "good" management styles. The specific situation, type of activity, personal characteristics of subordinates and other factors determine the optimal ratio of each style and the prevailing leadership style. A study of the practice of managing organizations shows that each of the three leadership styles is present to one degree or another in the work of an effective leader.

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

THEORY OF MANAGEMENT STYLES

The outstanding psychologist K. Levin, who created the theory of personality, developed and substantiated the concept of management styles. On the basis of experimental data, he identified and described 3 main styles: authoritarian (directive); democratic (collegiate); liberal (neutral). Below is a comparative description of the main management styles according to K. Levin.

The authoritarian (directive) style is characterized by the centralization of power in the hands of one leader. The leader single-handedly makes decisions, rigidly determines the activities of subordinates, fettering their initiative.

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

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

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

emergency situations that require immediate solutions;

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

some people, due to their psychological characteristics, prefer to be led by an authoritarian.

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

It happens that the form and content of the leader’s work do not coincide: an authoritarian, in fact, leader behaves outwardly democratic (smiles, politely, thanks for participating in the discussion, but makes the decision alone and before the discussion itself) and vice versa. In addition, much depends on the situation - in some situations, the leader may act authoritarian, and in others - like a "democrat".

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Managers should now pay more attention human qualities his subordinates, their dedication to the firm and their ability to solve problems. The high rate of obsolescence and the constant change that characterizes almost all industries today force managers to be constantly ready to carry out technical and organizational reforms, as well as to change the leadership style. Even the most experienced leader, who is fluent in management theory, is not immune from an unreasonable, emotional reaction to a situation.

Not only the authority of the leader and the effectiveness of his work depend on the choice of leadership style, but also the atmosphere in the team and the relationship between subordinates and the leader. When the whole organization works efficiently and smoothly enough, the leader discovers that in addition to the goals set, many other things have been achieved, including simple human happiness, mutual understanding and job satisfaction.

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

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

public services

Commercial organizations

non-profit organizations.

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

This phrase is increasingly used in everyday life. Its use is applicable to methods of leadership, education, communication, activities, and even clothing. Let's figure out what is meant by the use of these words.

The democratic style is characterized by collegiality, joint activities united by one purpose. The use of this method encourages initiative, allows you to increase the number of options for resolving any issues, since there are no frameworks and restrictions, to introduce an atmosphere of trust and benevolence.

The democratic style is characterized by the division of responsibility among the entire team. The democratic leadership style is based on trust, information, responsibility and conscientiousness.

Authoritarian democratic style

This method united two complete opposites and forced them to act together. How can this be? After all, the authoritarian style implies autocracy, and the democratic style implies the presence of freedom. This is the "trick" of this style. The decision can be made by the boss alone, and the methods of its implementation can be entrusted to employees.

Conversely, the team finds different variants resolution of the situation, and the leader claims one thing. The use of this style falls entirely on the leader, depends on his experience and leadership qualities.

liberal democratic style

Briefly, it can be formulated as "maximum freedom with minimal control." With this method, a liberal leader cannot demand that employees fulfill their tasks due to personal qualities. He is afraid of spoiling relations with the team, so all orders are replaced with advice or requests, chief distanced from the process of work, so as not to take responsibility for its implementation.

The psycho-emotional mood among employees is unfavorable, and the work is done carelessly. But in a team where professionals work and everyone knows their business, you can use this method of leadership.

Democratic permissive style

The combination of two such styles is similar to liberal democratic. But there is a significant difference. The main characteristic of the democratic style is freedom in the choice of decisions and the way to achieve the goal, and permissive style is characterized by the absence of any control on the part of management over the process of solving and eliminating problems.

Democratic leadership style

The democratic style of the leader gives employees a chance for self-realization. Seeing that their initiative is appreciated, they try to make every effort in order to complete the task by minimal cost.

A democratic leader is able to rally employees together, where everyone will feel involved in the work being done. This has a great effect on the psychological atmosphere in the team and contributes to increased productivity.

Democratic management style

The democratic style of activity implies a focus on results. But this can only be achieved by developing the team. All the questions and contradictions that arise in this case regarding the performance of the assigned work and the interests of the team are not veiled, but are jointly resolved to the satisfaction of both subordinates and the boss, which is what the leader of a democratic management style strives for. A collegial approach helps to find the most effective solution to any problem.

Democratic parenting style

It is considered the most balanced, since the child is explained such concepts as “good” and “bad”, giving the right to choose for himself. The democratic pedagogical style of education pushes children to independent knowledge of the world and teaches them to be responsible for their choice.

Democratic style pedagogical communication manifests itself, for example, in situations where, in case of mistakes, the child is not punished, but jointly analyze the causes of the appearance of shortcomings, develop ways to correct them. The democratic style of the teacher allows the child to fully reveal his abilities, correct his behavior, and make the right choice.

Democratic style of communication

This style of communication increases the effectiveness of the conversation, as feedback is generated. The interlocutor becomes as open as possible to dialogue, clearly and clearly expresses his thoughts, does not try to disguise them. This, in turn, has a great effect on establishing relationships and mutual respect and trust between the interlocutors. This is the only way to find out how valuable mutual cooperation will be.

Pros and cons of democratic style

As elsewhere, every action has positive and negative aspects. It did not pass the democratic style. For every plus there is a minus. The democratic style helps to increase the number of methods of influencing the situation, but the speed of decision-making is reduced due to the need to view all methods and choose one.

Democratic style of management - a set of management techniques, the behavior of a leader, 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 leader prefers to influence people with the help of convictions, a reasonable belief in the diligence and skill of subordinates.

The democratic style is the most suitable for the formation of team relationships, since it forms goodwill and openness of relationships both between the leader and the subordinate, and between the subordinates themselves. This style to the maximum extent combines the methods of persuasion and coercion, helps each employee to clearly formulate his personal goals, establish effective communication between leader and subordinate. The negative consequences of using the democratic style include additional time to discuss the problem, which in extreme conditions can drastically reduce management efficiency.

Democratic management style - the adoption of fundamental laws, policy documents, taking into account, 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 limits of their functions and their qualifications. This is a collegial style that gives greater freedom to subordinates under the control of the leader.

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

A Democrat's view of his employees boils down to this:

1) labor is a natural process. If conditions are favorable, 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 common, and the intellectual potential of the average person is only partially used.

A true 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 a high decentralization of powers. Subordinates take an active part in the preparation of decisions, enjoy freedom in performing tasks. The necessary prerequisites for the performance of work have been created, a fair assessment of their efforts is being carried out, a respectful attitude towards subordinates and their needs is observed.

The leader puts a lot of effort into creating an atmosphere of openness and trust so that if subordinates need help, they can not hesitate to contact the leader.

In his activities, the leader-democrat relies on the entire team. He tries to teach subordinates to delve into the problems of the unit, to give them effective information and show how to seek and evaluate alternative solutions.

Personally, the manager deals only with the most complex and important issues leaving subordinates to decide the rest.

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 opinions of subordinates. This is not due to the lack of one's own opinion or the desire to share responsibility, but the conviction that in a skillfully organized discussion process one can always find best solutions.

Such a leader is well versed in the merits and demerits of subordinates. Focuses on the capabilities of the subordinate, on his natural desire for self-expression through his intellectual and professional potential. He achieves the desired results by convincing the performers of the expediency and significance of the duties assigned to him.

The democrat leader constantly and thoroughly 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 tasks set, to instill in them a sense of true masters.

Being well informed about the true state of affairs in the unit he leads and about the moods of his subordinates, he is always tactful in relationships, sympathetic to their interests and requests. He perceives 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 leader are combined with his work to educate his subordinates, a sense of trust and respect is strengthened between them.

The democratic style encourages the creative activity of subordinates (largely through the delegation of authority), contributes to the creation of an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.

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

The democratic style does not at all impede unity of command, does not weaken the power of the leader. Rather, on the contrary, his authority and real power increase, since he manages people without brute pressure, relying on their abilities and taking into account their dignity.

The democratic style of management is characterized by a high degree of decentralization of powers, the active participation of employees in decision-making, the creation of such conditions under which the performance of official duties is attractive, and achievement serves as a reward for them.

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

In a consultative environment, the manager largely trusts his subordinates, consults with them, and seeks to use 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 decisions are actually prompted from above, and usually try to provide all possible assistance to their boss and provide moral support when necessary.

The participatory variety of the democratic style of management assumes that leaders fully 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 monitoring their achievement. At the same time, responsibility for the consequences of the decisions made is not shifted to subordinates.

Usually, the democratic style of management is used when the performers are well, sometimes even better than the leader, understand the intricacies of the work and can bring novelty and creativity to it. If necessary, a democrat leader 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, to prove the expediency of solving the problem and the benefits that employees can receive. At the same time, the internal satisfaction received by the subordinate from the opportunity to realize their creative abilities is of paramount importance. Subordinates can independently make decisions and look for ways to implement them within the framework of the powers granted. When exercising control, the manager appreciates the end result, not paying much attention to the little things. 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

The democratic style is characterized by granting independence to subordinates within the limits of their functions and their qualifications. This is a collegial style that gives greater freedom to subordinates under the control of the leader.

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

A Democrat's view of his employees boils down to this:

1. labor is a natural process. If conditions are favorable, 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. inclusion is a function of the reward associated with the achievement of the goal;
4. creative problem solving is common, and the intellectual potential of the average person is only partially exploited.

A true 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 a high decentralization of powers. Subordinates take an active part in the preparation of decisions, enjoy freedom in performing tasks. The necessary prerequisites for the performance of work have been created, a fair assessment of their efforts is being carried out, a respectful attitude towards subordinates and their needs is observed.

The leader puts a lot of effort into creating an atmosphere of openness and trust so that if subordinates need help, they can not hesitate to contact the leader.

In his activities, the leader-democrat relies on the entire team. He tries to teach subordinates to delve into the problems of the unit, give them effective information and show them how to look for and evaluate alternative solutions.

Personally, the leader deals only with the most complex and important 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 opinions of subordinates. This is not due to a lack of opinion or a desire to share responsibility, but to the conviction that in a skillfully organized process of discussion, the best solutions can always be found.

Such a leader is well versed in the merits and demerits of subordinates. Focuses on the capabilities of the subordinate, on his natural desire for self-expression through his intellectual and professional potential. He achieves the desired results by convincing the performers of the expediency and significance of the duties assigned to him.

The democrat leader constantly and thoroughly 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 tasks set, to instill in them a sense of true masters.

Being well informed about the true state of affairs in the unit he leads and about the moods of his subordinates, he is always tactful in relationships, sympathetic to their interests and requests. He perceives 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 leader are combined with his work to educate his subordinates, a sense of trust and respect is strengthened between them.

The democratic style encourages the creative activity of subordinates (largely through the delegation of authority), contributes to the creation of an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.

People are fully aware of their importance and responsibility in solving the problems facing the team.

Discipline is transformed into self-discipline.

The democratic style does not at all impede unity of command, does not weaken the power of the leader. Rather, on the contrary, his authority and real power increase, since he manages people without brute pressure, relying on their abilities and taking into account their dignity.

Characteristics of the democratic style

Democratic leadership is a leadership style based on the inclusion of employees in decision-making and the development of labor regulations. The democratic style is characterized by the desire of the leader to develop collective decisions, interest in informal relationships. The goals of the activity are agreed with the employees. When distributing work, the wishes of the group members are taken into account. Evaluation of employees is carried out according to well-known criteria. Typically, this style is established when a qualified, intelligent, but somewhat indecisive and power-hungry person comes to manage the organization, and indecision in this case is not so much a property of his character as a consequence of understanding the complexity, multifactorial phenomena with which one has to deal.

Such a leader needs to listen to authoritative opinions, compare his position with them, and verify it during the discussion. He does not neglect additional information, and other people's experience. Thus, interest in a different point of view and discussion of the problem when making a decision are by no means formal, which is clearly felt by the participants in such a discussion. At the same time, decision-making remains the prerogative of the leader. Democratic style does not abolish the principle of unity of command. By joining the collegial decision, the leader turns it from a project into a document and assumes all the personal responsibility associated with it both for implementation and for the consequences. But unlike the authoritarian style, this by no means absolves other participants in the decision-making process of responsibility. True, we are now talking not about “external” responsibility (under fear of negative sanctions), but, above all, internal responsibility, to oneself, the instruments of which are conscience, professional self-assessment, the opinion of significant persons, etc.

The leader, who uses a predominantly democratic style, seeks to resolve issues collegially, inform subordinates about the state of affairs, and respond correctly to criticism. In communication with subordinates, he is polite and friendly, is in constant contact, part managerial functions delegates to other specialists, trusts subordinates. Demanding but fair. In preparation for implementation management decisions team members are involved. A democratic manager during business meetings is usually placed in the middle of the groups. This creates a relaxed atmosphere when discussing the problems of the development of the organization.

Democratic style. Findings:

· The nature of the style: Delegation of authority with the retention of key positions in the head. Decision making separately by levels based on participation. Information flows actively in two directions.

· Strengths: Ability to predict results. The focus is on order and results.

· Weak sides: Containment of individual initiatives, a large external workload of the leader, frequent "hands-on work", "crushed" conflict in the team, significant turnover of qualified specialists.

· Application conditions: Competent manager and trained subordinates.

Characteristics of the liberal style

Liberal style is a style in which the leader most often does not interfere in the work of subordinates, giving them broad independence. He clothes his decisions in the form of recommendations and advice, which subordinates have the right not to follow if they find more effective method achieving the set goal. The liberal (passive) style of management is characterized by the leader's desire to withdraw from decision-making or to shift this task to others, complete indifference to the affairs of the team. A leader who chooses this style gives complete freedom of action to his subordinates. He gives them the necessary information at their request. The group lacks a clear structuring of work, the distribution of rights and responsibilities. A leader with a liberal leadership style practically does not interfere in the activities of the team, and employees are given complete independence, the opportunity for individual and collective creativity. Such a leader with subordinates is usually polite, ready to cancel the decision he made earlier, especially if this threatens his popularity.

Passive style. Findings:

· The nature of the style: Removal of responsibility by the leader in favor of the group (organization).

· Strengths: Allows you to start the business as it is seen and without the intervention of the leader. It implies a high degree of independence and qualification of subordinates.

· Weaknesses: The group can lose control and slow down problem solving without leadership intervention.

· Psychological climate: Creative atmosphere, enthusiasm for work. Conflicts, if they arise, are usually constructive.

· Conditions of use: In relation to individual qualified personnel.