Leadership cannot be taught in school, college or university. This is an innate property of a person, which must develop throughout life, acquiring for this necessary knowledge, skills and rethinking personal experience.

Successful leadership requires taking into account the constantly changing conditions of life and activity of people, the degree of awareness of them as individuals, their level of education, awareness, etc. The combination of these circumstances forms the basis of what is commonly called the approach to leadership. The latter is understood as a set of principles of attitude towards the employee, management of him, recognized at the moment by society.

Until the last quarter of the 20th century, most organizations practiced a technocratic approach to managing people. Within its framework, three periods can be conventionally distinguished.

Early technocracy proceeded from the fact that man is an appendage of the machine. Therefore, in the first place, it was recommended to improve equipment and pay less attention to workers. This resulted in the most severe exploitation of the physical and spiritual abilities of people (the working day reached 16 and even 18 hours a day, children from 4-5 years old were involved in labor, operations were extremely simplified and dequalification of previously high-class craftsmen occurred).

Classical technocracy recognized man in production as equal in value to the machine. This made it possible to rationalize labor operations, taking into account the capabilities and characteristics of the organism (anthropological, biomechanical, etc.), and take measures to improve working conditions. However, the individual was completely ignored here.

Humanistic technocracy already assumed an appeal to a person as such, but impersonal (without taking into account individual characteristics and interests of each). This gave rise to mental overload, unwillingness to conscientiously fulfill their duties, irresponsibility and, in general, inefficient use of the capabilities of employees.

At the end of the 20th century, the humanistic approach to leadership began to gain more and more popularity. He no longer focused on an abstract person, but on the uniqueness, uniqueness of each individual. Within its framework, the organization of the work of personnel and their management is increasingly aimed at creating opportunities for people to work with maximum efficiency, to receive satisfaction from their activities, relationships in the team, and most importantly, to develop and improve themselves.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar Documents

The concept and essence of leadership style, the factors of its formation. Classification of leadership styles, their characteristics. Analysis of leadership styles in OOO "Sport-Master". Plan for advanced training of leaders of the organization and methods for improving management style.

term paper, added 01/17/2012


The concept and classification of leadership styles. The effectiveness of personnel management. Features of the choice of leadership style that would contribute to the sustainable development of the enterprise. Creating a favorable atmosphere in the team, stimulating staff.

abstract, added 05/10/2014


The concept of leadership styles. Common features liberal leadership style. Features of the work of a liberal leader with subordinates. The effectiveness of this management style, its positive and negative features. Improving leadership style.

control work, added 12/07/2009


The essence and features of leadership styles and management methods in the organization. Organizational and economic characteristics of the organization. Analysis of leadership styles and methods, as well as indicators characterizing their effectiveness, in the Nika organization.

thesis, added 12/14/2013


Leadership as a socio-psychological phenomenon, its classification. Types of management in the organization. Determination of the most effective leadership style. Forms and stages of adoption management decisions. Basic principles for improving the effectiveness of leadership.

abstract, added 05/18/2009


Study of the essence and types of groups. Group cohesion and efficiency. The study of the powers of the head of the enterprise for personnel management. Conflict relations with the leader. Socio-psychological methods of team management.

abstract, added 02/17/2014


Concepts, structure and classification of leadership styles. The essence and main indicators of management efficiency. The role, functions and tasks of the Committee for Economic Policy in the management of the district. Correlation between leadership styles and management effectiveness.

term paper, added 09/24/2014


Essence, basic concepts, ways and methods of improving the efficiency of personnel management. Analysis of the application of personnel management methods in the organization. Development, justification and evaluation of proposals for improving the efficiency of personnel management.

thesis, added 07/19/2014

In the practice of current activities, power is realized in leadership process, that is, activities to manage the joint work of people, their behavior, ensuring the achievement of the goals of the organization (subdivision). It includes setting goals, coordination, motivation and is based not only on official orders, but on the personal example of the leader and mutual respect.

The relationship that arises in connection with leadership has two aspects - functional and personal. functional relationship exist between positions and are related to decision-making, task setting, delegation of authority, etc. They are initially formal, and personal aspects here can both help and hinder the management process, which must be taken into account. personal relationships- this relationship is personalized, that is, arising between specific people. In general, the evolution in this area is from predominantly formal to predominantly personal relationships.

Until the last quarter of the 20th century, most organizations practiced technocratic approach to leading people. Conventionally, its existence can be divided into three periods:

1. Early technocracy was based on the principle that a person is an appendage of a machine, therefore, first of all, it is necessary to improve equipment and pay less attention to workers. This was expressed in the most severe exploitation of the physical and spiritual capabilities of a person (the working day reached 16 and even 18 hours a day; children from 4-5 years old were involved in labor; operations were extremely simplified and dequalification of previously high-class craftsmen took place).
2. Classic technocracy recognized a person as equal in value to a machine, which made it possible to rationalize labor operations taking into account the parameters and capabilities (anthropological, biomechanical, etc.) and take measures to improve working conditions, but with complete disregard for the individual.
3. Humanistic technocracy presupposes what is already addressed to the person as such, but unified, depersonalized without taking into account the individual interests of each. This resulted in neurosis, inability and unwillingness to conscientiously fulfill one's duties, irresponsibility, and generally inefficient use of the individual's capabilities.

At the end of the 20th century, the popularity of humanistic approach to leadership, within which the organization of work and people management is increasingly built, starting from the person himself, so that he can work with maximum efficiency, get satisfaction from the content of his activities, relationships in the team, develop and improve himself.

management personnel motivation technocratic

Most organizations today choose the path of technocratic team management, as this approach is the most effective and does not require establishing relationships with staff, the head and managers of the organization. With this approach, the management link of the organization treats its personnel as separate working units and does not regard its employees as individuals with their own characteristics of intelligence and character. Therefore, middle managers do not look for approaches to each employee, which in the long term could give a better influence of management on the activities of the staff and could increase the efficiency of the team. In such companies, the lower level of the organization, that is, the personnel directly performing the main work of the company, must unquestioningly execute the instructions of the management, without introducing their own ideas and plans to achieve the goal, even if they may be more rational. In the event that an employee fails to cope with the duties given to him for some personal reasons, the managerial link recognizes him as incapacitated and replaces him with another employee. Hence the similarity of this management model with a technical mechanism in which parts are replaced in case of their incapacity. Usually, with this approach, there is a high turnover of staff in the organization, which in turn negatively affects the efficiency of the company as a whole.

There is a parallel division of leaders into three levels, introduced by the American sociologist Talcott Parsons:

• - technical level - corresponds to the level of the lower level,
• - managerial level - corresponds to the level of middle management,
• - institutional level - corresponds to the level of the highest level.

With a technocratic approach to management, the managers of the organization influence the staff with the help of orders from top management. In such organizations, managers act as conductors of orders from management to direct executors. Often, their role as generators of any independent decisions is significantly reduced and, as a result, their main duties include only monitoring the execution of the orders received, and in many respects, if the goals set are not met, managers are personally responsible for the results of the work of employees. In such a situation, the methods of influence of managers on performers are quite harsh. So, for example, if employees do not cope with their tasks, the managerial link can influence them by the method of "intimidation". This is the threat of dismissal or demotion in the status of the company. An example of such a method is a situation in which an employee who has received an order from the organization's management either completely refuses to carry it out due to his own personal considerations, or does not fully cope with the received order. In such a situation, the manager may threaten the employee with dismissal or demotion. This method can have a very negative impact on the general atmosphere in the team and usually leads to high staff turnover, as a result of which the efficiency of the company as a whole is lost. Another common way to regulate the work of personnel in recent times became a system of penalties. According to the system of fines, each employee of the organization (often the middle management of the organization) is subject to a financial penalty against his future salary for not fulfilling any production tasks set by the management. In modern realities, managers often shift the shortcomings of their work onto lower-level personnel, which in turn has a bad effect on their relationship with the team.

In its development, the concept of the role of personnel in production has already gone through four stages. The first three professed a technocratic approach.

1. Usage labor resources:

from the end of the 19th to the 60s of the 20th century. In production, only the function was considered human activity- labor, measured by the cost of working time and wages.

• 2. Personnel management:
• 1930s The scientific basis of this concept was the theory of bureaucratic organizations, when a person was considered through his formal role - a position, and his management was realized through administrative mechanisms.
• 3. Human resource management:

from the 60s to the end of the 80s of the XX century. Man began to be regarded as a non-renewable resource - an element of social organization in the cohesion of three components ( social relations, labor functions, the state of the worker).

And finally the currently existing function:

4.Management:

since the 90s of the XX century. Until now. In accordance with this concept, a person is the main subject of the organization and a special object of management, which cannot be considered only as a "resource".

The general trend was that with the development of the productive forces and the very process of managing them, there was a change in the role and place of the person himself in production.

Scientists have come to a common and reasonable opinion that a person has in social production two roles:

• - Man as a resource production system(labor and human), a significant element of the production and management process.
• - A person, as a person with needs, motives, values, relationships, is not only an object, but also the main subject of management.

This is how the evolution of the concept of human resource management took place as a result of the evolution of the approach to the person himself.

All concepts have a different approach to managing employees.

The nature of the job of a middle manager varies considerably from organization to organization and even within the same organization. Some organizations give their middle managers more responsibility, making their work somewhat similar to that of senior managers. In many organizations, middle managers are an integral part of the decision-making process. They identify problems, initiate discussions, recommend actions, develop innovative creative proposals.

All managers play certain roles and perform certain functions. But this does not mean that a large number of leaders in big company busy doing the same job. Organizations that are large enough to provide clear demarcations between managerial and non-management jobs typically have such a large amount of management work that it too must be separated.

The work of the managerial link when choosing a technocratic style of management differs from the work of managers of a humanistic style. If, with the humanistic style of management, the main work of managers becomes establishing contacts with personnel, involving employees in solving certain managerial tasks and problems, then the main goal of technocratic managers is not so much the development of management strategies and the direct solution of managerial tasks and problems, but control over the activities of personnel for fulfillment of the tasks set by the senior management.

The success of any enterprise depends on many factors, such as the decision financial matters, organization production process, recruitment, but no less importance has a management style chosen by the leader.

Whether the leader can organize people to achieve the necessary results and at the same time to ensure that subordinates are satisfied with their work depends on their position in the company. final result work.

An unsuccessfully chosen model of personnel management leads to all sorts of conflicts, which often destroy the team and create a tense atmosphere in the enterprise, hinder work. But the complete absence of conflicts is also bad, sometimes they are an incentive to resolve many problems. Therefore, it is very important for the manager to correctly assess the existing working conditions at the enterprise, the characteristics of the selected personnel, the specifics of the task and, based on this, build his own management model.

Numerous studies show that team satisfaction with intra-organizational relations is higher with a humanistic management style. Technocratic leadership has a negative impact on the socio-economic climate in the team. At the same time, it is observed that discipline is most developed in teams with a democratic and authoritarian style of management, and the least - with a liberal style of leadership.

The effectiveness of a particular management style is determined by the specific conditions of the leader's activity, which, as a rule, are changeable - the transition to an authoritarian style is justified only under unfavorable conditions for performing tasks, in other cases, the humanistic style is more productive, the least effective is the liberal (permissive) style.

A leader who wants to work effectively cannot afford to adopt one style of leadership throughout their entire career. Leaders must learn how to use different styles, methods and types of influence that are most suitable for a specific situation, for a specific team and the tasks facing it.

The best leadership style is one that is reality oriented. In the literature, an “effective” leadership style is one that changes depending on the situation. Therefore, no leadership style can be considered the most effective. An effective leader is one who can adapt the principles of management to the current needs of production, taking into account unforeseen situations.

Leadership style in the context of management is the habitual manner of behavior of a leader in relation to subordinates. The degree to which a manager delegates authority, the types of authority he uses, and his concern for human relations first or for task completion all reflect the leadership style that characterizes that leader.

Leadership styles can be mixed and depend on the situation, i.e. adaptive. This brings more results than adherence to only one style. Nevertheless, in general, it can be said that the main emphasis in leadership should be placed on socio-psychological, economic methods of leadership and on a democratic style of management. The command method is not suitable, because. in my opinion, it is impossible to force new ideas, non-standard approaches to solving problems to be born at the behest, just because the boss wants it that way.

Relying on democratic style, it is necessary to provide maximum freedom to employees in the performance of their tasks. At the same time, it is necessary to determine control points for checking, and possibly correcting the progress of the task, because using excessive freedom, subordinates, not understanding the ultimate goal, can solve the tasks in the wrong direction. Therefore, the most effective style in today's rapidly changing world, the style is adaptive, i.e. reality style.

In this paper, we reviewed management styles and analyzed their significance in successful work any organization. Thus, the goal and objectives set at the beginning of the work were achieved.

Most organizations today choose the path of technocratic team management, as this approach is the most effective and does not require establishing relationships with staff, the head and managers of the organization. With this approach, the management link of the organization treats its personnel as separate working units and does not regard its employees as individuals with their own characteristics of intelligence and character. Therefore, middle managers do not look for approaches to each employee, which in the long term could give a better influence of management on the activities of the staff and could increase the efficiency of the team.

The economic approach to management gave rise concepts scientific management . Within the framework of this approach, the leading place is occupied by technical (in the general case, instrumental, i.e., aimed at mastering labor practices), rather than managerial training of people in the enterprise. Organization here means a set of mechanical relationships, and it should act like a mechanism: algorithmic, efficient, reliable and predictable.

The essence of the technocratic approach in dynamics is shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 - The essence of the technocratic approach to personnel management

Among the main principles the concept of the use of labor resources can be distinguished as follows:

Ensuring the unity of leadership - subordinates receive orders from only one boss;

Compliance with a strict managerial vertical - the chain of command from the boss to the subordinate descends from top to bottom throughout the organization and is used as a channel for communication and decision-making;

fixing the necessary and sufficient amount of control - the number of people subordinate to one boss should be such that it does not create problems for communication and coordination;

maintaining a clear separation of headquarters and linear structures organizations - staff personnel, being responsible for the content of activities, under no circumstances can exercise the powers vested in line managers;

Achieving a balance between power and responsibility - it makes no sense to make someone responsible for any work if he is not given the appropriate authority;

Ensuring discipline - submission, diligence, energy and manifestation of external signs of respect must be carried out in accordance with accepted rules and customs;

· achieving the subordination of individual interests to a common cause with the help of firmness, personal example, honest agreements and constant monitoring;

Ensuring equality at every level of the organization, based on goodwill and fairness, to inspire staff to effective execution their duties; a well-deserved reward that boosts morale, but does not lead to overpayment or remotivation.

Table 1.1 - Implementation conditions economic approach to personnel management

1.2.2 Organic approach

Within the framework of the organic paradigm, team management concepts and contracts of individual responsibility. It was the organic approach that marked a new perspective on personnel management, deriving this type management activities far beyond the traditional functions of organizing labor and wages. The personnel function from the registration and control gradually became developing and spread to the search and selection of employees, career planning of figures significant for the organization, employee assessment administrative apparatus and improving their skills. The conditions for implementing the organic approach are given in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 - Conditions for the implementation of an organic approach to personnel management

Overcoming the contradictions characteristic of the organic approach to management made it possible to formulate the following recommendations, significant in terms of improving the efficiency of personnel management.

1. Recognizing that mistakes made when operating in a complex environment are inevitable, it is necessary to encourage in employees such qualities as openness and reflexivity.

2. Significantly encourage such methods of analysis that recognize the possibility of implementing different approaches to solving problems. At the same time, it is necessary to initiate constructive conflicts and discussions between representatives of different points of view. This often leads to a rethinking of the organization's goals and a reformulation of how to achieve them.

3. It is important to avoid that the structure of activities directly determines the organizational structure. Goals and objectives should not be set from above, but appear in the process of work. The plans indicate rather restrictions (what needs to be avoided), something that specifically needs to be done.

4. It is necessary to select people, create organizational structures and support processes that promote the implementation of these principles.

1.2.3 Humanistic approach

The humanistic paradigm comes from concept of human relations and from the concept of organization as cultural phenomenon.

Figure 1.2 - The essence of the humanistic approach to personnel management

According to the humanistic approach, culture can be seen as the process of creating a reality that allows people to see and understand events, actions, situations in a certain way and give meaning and meaning to their own behavior.

From the point of view of this parameter, it is important to what extent the employees of the enterprise are integrated into existing system values ​​(to what extent they unconditionally accept it as “their own”) and to what extent they are sensitive, flexible and ready for changes in the value sphere in connection with changes in the conditions of life and work. It is also important whether the enterprise as a whole lives by the same rules and principles of decision-making, or whether different groups in the enterprise live by different rules and profess different principles.

Positive role humanistic approach:

1. The concept of organization as a cultural phenomenon allows us to understand how, through what symbols and meanings, the joint activities of people in the organizational environment are carried out. Whereas in the past many managers viewed themselves primarily as people creating structures and job descriptions coordinating activities or creating schemes to motivate their employees, now they can look at themselves as people performing symbolic actions aimed at creating and developing certain meanings.

2. Organizations are capable of not only adapting but also changing their environment based on their own vision of themselves and their mission. The development of an organization's strategy can turn into an active construction and transformation of the surrounding reality.

3. Within this approach there is an understanding that effective organizational development is not only a change in structures, technologies and skills, but also a change in the values ​​that underlie joint activities of people.

Table 1.3 The difference between human resource management and personnel management