home Magazine Personality theories of leadership. Basic theories of leadership: theory of “great people”, behavioral theories, situational theories Universal theories of leadership

Personality theories of leadership. Basic theories of leadership: theory of “great people”, behavioral theories, situational theories Universal theories of leadership

Even in ancient times, people were interested not only in who would rule the population or part of it, but also what such a person should be like. This question was asked not only by ordinary citizens of the then states, but also by scientists and philosophers; The first steps in the study of various problems can be found in the texts of the works of ancient Greek and Roman classics. Over the centuries, the idea of an ideal leader has constantly undergone changes. Machiavelli (his most famous work, “The Prince,” precisely describes what an ideal ruler should be like) and many other thinkers also dealt with this problem.

Now psychology, political science, and many other modern sciences are developing their own classifications and theories of leadership, its nature and other related things. The most popular theories are discussed in this publication.

Theories of the origin of leadership

The theory of leadership traits, or charismatic theory, is one of the earliest serious approaches to the problem of leadership and what is a prerequisite for it in a person. The basis of this theory is the idea that a person does not become a leader due to his actual actions and his own life experiences, but is one immediately from the moment of birth. The essence of the trait theory itself is to identify those qualities that are necessarily inherent in a born leader.

Back in 1948, R. Stogdill made an attempt to compile a list of such characteristics. His list included such individual qualities as:

intellectual capabilities;
superiority over others;
self-confidence;
serious knowledge of what he does;
activity (energy, lack of passivity).

It is important to know! In practice, the lists of Stogdill and R. Manna (compiled in 1959) did not work: the main quality in them, intelligence, was inherent in many people who were not, in fact, leaders.

In the mid-eighties, W. Bennis, a famous consultant from America, conducted a large-scale study of nine dozen popular leaders and divided the characteristics that define their personalities into four groups:

physiological - weight, height, and so on, and they distinguish a person from society, not necessarily in an advantageous way (Churchill, Makedonsky, Lenin are excellent examples of this);
emotional (psychological) - efficiency, initiative and many other character traits (in practice, no evidence of a connection with leadership was really found);
intellectual - the smarter a person is, the closer he is to leadership, although this still depends on the average mental level of the audience, so again there is no direct correlation here;
personal business skills are skills already acquired in the process of work; here it all depends on the level of skills in a certain area and again there is no direct evidence of the correctness of this part of the theory, because if someone had success in the field of, for example, art business, it is not a fact that his skills would help him reach the top in banking, and vice versa.

The theory of personality traits is interesting in itself, but its practical application often fails, which speaks more about the incorrectness of the approach to the study of leadership qualities than about the possibility of applying it to reality. The lack of clear evidence of a connection with the identified qualities and the almost endless list of such characteristics themselves indicate the inconsistency of either the people who conducted the research or the entire theory as a whole.

The essence of such theories is that the personal qualities of a leader and his characteristic management style are important, but the success of his actions depends on the specific situation, therefore situational theories of leadership are important for practice.

A leader must be able to turn any situation in a direction beneficial to the business and be able to adapt to sudden changes in what is happening; In short, a leader must be flexible and mobile. To successfully “get out” in any situation, a clear knowledge of the qualities of subordinate people is necessary.

Currently, this is one of the still relevant leadership theories.

It is important to know! There is also a compromise theory, a systemic one - it involves defining the leader as the most effective organizer of subordinates in order to solve the problem facing them.

Use an Adsense clicker on your websites and blogs or on YouTube

Also, such a person will combine the greatest number of qualities that fall under the set of values of the organized group of people.

This set of theories is limited to two - one is focused on the interpersonal relations of the leader and subordinates, and for the other it is important to achieve the goal at any cost. For both theories, important criteria are:

ways of influencing staff and the boss’s attitude towards subordinates in general;
the degree of delegation of authority to subordinates;
type of power;
way of relationship with the external environment.

Already in the sixties of the twentieth century, behavioral theories of leadership were recognized as untenable due to their limitations, because they did not take into account many other factors influencing the effectiveness of management.

Leadership theories from a psychological perspective

The theories of leadership in psychology, all as one, claim that the very fact of becoming a leader, leader, boss is influenced, first of all, by the desire of the person himself to become one; but the existing explanations for the presence of such aspiration are very different.

According to Freud, the basis of the desire to have a leadership position is repressed sexual desire. Followers of Freudian psychoanalysis, instead of libido, consider the main thing here to be psychic energy as a whole; By sublimating, a person strives to lead something, creativity, and so on.

Leadership can also help a person fill the missing aspects of life, that is, satisfy psychological needs for something. For example, being a leader can replace someone's opportunity to become a parent; Let's say, the general director of a large company is like a “father” for its employees; Why not compensation?

Representatives of the Frankfurt School identified a personality type that pathologically strives for leadership due to many complexes: this is an authoritarian person, most often found in dysfunctional societies. Imposing one’s will on others is a psychological need of such individuals; Meanwhile, such aspirations are not a sign of strength, but of serious internal weakness of a person.

However, there are many more motivations for gaining power than described above in this section. One example of treating it not as pleasure is instrumental (it gives material and other benefits, and if it did not give, many would not aspire to leadership positions or even informal leadership at all). Another example is “game” leadership, that is, the management process itself is exciting and interesting for the leader.

Unsolved problem

The problem of leadership and the characteristics of a leader is still in the area of unresolved issues; theories are still being developed, many of them are constantly refuted by practice, and scientists cannot come to a common solution.

WHO IS A LEADER?

I. Definition of a leader.

Leadership is the ability to lead people to achieve specific goals.

The leader can be formal (for example, appointed to manage a specific area of work or department). Along with the formal leader, an organization may have an informal (unauthorized by the organizational structure) leader - a person who, due to his abilities and personal qualities, is able to captivate and lead people. The influence of an informal leader on an organization's performance can often be even more significant than the influence of a formal leader who does not have the qualities necessary to successfully manage people.

In the broadest sense, a leader is a representative, a confidant, an exponent of the basic interests and values of the group. In modern management literature, another concept is often used - the leader of an organization, considered as “a person who effectively carries out formal and informal leadership; plays a key role in the group in terms of directing, controlling and modifying the activities of other group members to achieve group goals.”

According to D. McGregor, leadership is determined by:

· characteristics of the leader himself;

· positions, needs and other characteristics of his followers;

· characteristics of the organization (its goals, structure);

social, economic and political environment

Nine Natural Laws of Leadership:

1. The leader has followers and allies who are ready to follow him

2. Leadership is an area of interaction

3. Leadership happens as an event.

4. Leaders exercise influence beyond formal authority.

5. Leaders operate outside of formal procedures.

6. Leadership involves risk and uncertainty.

7. Initiatives put forward by leaders are not followed by everyone.

8. Leadership is a product of consciousness, the ability to process information

9. Leadership is a spontaneously arising phenomenon. Leaders and followers process information within the framework of their own subjective, internal assessments and relationships

II.Leadership and management

The concepts of “leader” and “manager” are similar in meaning, therefore they are often used as synonyms. But they are not identical.

Leadership is a psychological phenomenon, while management is a purely managerial one. The leader spontaneously takes a dominant position in the group with the explicit or hidden consent of the majority of its members. His influence and authority are largely informal.

A leader is a formal boss holding an official position.

The differences between a leader and a manager are determined primarily by the fact that an informal leader is nominated “from below,” while a leader is appointed officially, from the outside, and requires official authority to manage people. An officially appointed leader has an advantage in gaining leadership positions in the group and therefore is more likely than anyone else to become a recognized leader. However, his status in the organization and the fact that he is appointed from outside place him in a position somewhat different from that of natural opinion leaders.

A manager is a professionally trained leader. It is believed that problems are solved if a manager manages to combine the functions of a leader and a manager in his activities. But in practice these functions are often not only not combined, but also opposite. The manager may partially take on the functions of a leader. If moral criteria are in the foreground for a leader, then the leader is primarily occupied with the functions of control and distribution.

The following relationship between the functions of a manager and a leader can be distinguished:

· the leader determines the direction of movement; the manager develops a plan and schedule for promotion in the chosen direction;

· the leader inspires and motivates the staff; the manager monitors people’s performance and compliance with the requirements for the work performed;

· the leader encourages employees to fulfill the plan, the manager monitors the achievement of intermediate goals;

· the leader, having assessed the quality of the result obtained, begins to plan to obtain a new one; the manager formalizes the result obtained and seeks additional benefits based on it

Fig. 1 Comparative characteristics of managers and leaders

BASIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES

Classical leadership studies began with an examination of the use of power and authority (an analysis of Machiavelli's The Prince). Machiavelli was the first to describe politics not as it should be, but as it is in real life, and, moreover, without connection with religious dogmas and metaphysical postulates. This author noted the presence of a certain secret connection, something like a conspiracy between the ruler and the obeyed in the space of power, which is effective and real to the extent that it remains an unrealized threat. Political doctrines that seek the basis of power in justice and the natural rights of the individual, in the light of Machiavelli’s legacy, should be characterized as a strategy of defense against fear, thanks to which power is first discovered. European thought is moving from the frightening revelation of power to the self-affirmation of the individual.

A significant amount of research in our country and abroad is devoted to the problem of leadership. Various approaches to this problem can be divided into the following main groups:

· theories of personal qualities of a leader;

· behavioral theories of leadership;

· leadership theories based on the situational approach;

· theories of charismatic qualities of leaders.

In early research by organizational behaviorists, leadership was viewed as a set of personal traits, or characteristics, of those people who were perceived as leaders. More recent research has defined leadership as behavior or a series of actions designed to help a group achieve its goals. While the personality and behavioral approaches focus primarily on the leader and what he is or does, the process approach views leadership as the process of developing relationships between leaders and subordinates. The process approach is represented by two main theories - the theory of transformational leadership and the theory of vertical pairing. Since the mid-60s of the 20th century, attention has been focused on the rapidly developing theories of “accidental” (situational) leadership, i.e. theories that argue that effective leadership is a function of the situation in which the leader and subordinates interact in certain ways. The situational approach is represented by a number of theories and models, which include Fiedler's theory of random leadership, the Vroom-Yetton-Yago model, the Hershey-Blanshard model and a number of others.

1. Personality theory

The most prominent early theories of leadership focused on what personality traits and characteristics distinguished leaders from non-leaders. Based on an analysis of the results of 20 studies devoted to this problem, over 80 such characteristics were identified. At the same time, the most common features that distinguish an effective leader from those whom they lead are:

· ambition;

· energy;

· desire to lead others;

· honesty and directness;

· self confidence;

· abilities and knowledge.

However, personal qualities do not guarantee success, and their relative importance depends largely on other factors, including the situation in which the manager operates. At the same time, within the framework of this approach, the first step was taken and a scientific basis was provided for the implementation of the processes of recruitment, selection and promotion of personnel based on personal qualities. Personal characteristics concepts are reflected in various performance assessment and employee development programs.

After a thorough analysis of several hundred personality traits that leaders must possess, scientists concluded that if certain traits were grouped into broad classes of factors, the differences between effective and ineffective leaders could be identified. General criteria for determining a leader’s personal traits include potential, desire for development, responsibility, participation and involvement, status, and situational factors.

Potential refers to an individual's ability to solve pressing problems, express correct judgments, and generally work harder. The specific characteristics of a person in this case are intelligence, constant readiness for action, the ability to communicate verbally, originality of ideas and, above all, common sense.

The desire for development is the second general characteristic of a leader. Effective leaders tend to achieve better academic results, have more knowledge, and are better physically than ineffective leaders. Self-improvement is probably one of the most important qualities of a person who wants to become a leader.

Accountability is another common characteristic that effective leaders possess. The traits that fall into this category - reliability, initiative, consistency, self-confidence, desire to excel others, caring for staff - enable a leader to gain authority in the organization.

Participation and engagement are essential for effective leaders. Effective leaders tend to be more active and more outgoing, have greater ability to adapt to different situations, demonstrate better results in collaboration, infecting those around them with their energy and captivating the team to achieve their goals.

Status is also a sign of leaders. Effective leaders, as a rule, have a higher socioeconomic status and are more popular than less effective ones, although this attribute is considered by some researchers to be far from indisputable.

The concept of physical qualities (tall height, weight, strength) was not confirmed. On the contrary, the leader is often short in stature and of little physical strength.

The concept of intelligence suggests that leadership qualities are associated with an individual's verbal and evaluative abilities. On the basis of which they concluded: the presence of these personal qualities predicts managerial success. Personal qualities of a leader: intelligence in verbal and symbolic terms; initiative, i.e. the ability to direct activity and desires in a new direction; self-confidence - favorable self-esteem; attachment to employees; determination, masculinity (in men) and femininity (in women); maturity; motivational abilities, i.e. the ability to motivate, to evoke needs in people through job security, financial reward, power over others, self-realization, achieving success at work.

Leadership trait theory is still the oldest and most popular theory. More precisely, there are a lot of such theories, but they are all united by one assumption - a leader differs from other people in a set of character traits that make him a leader

2. Behavioral theories of leadership.

If theories of leadership personality traits emphasized the need to recognize and select future leaders based on identifying relevant personal qualities and characteristics, then behavioral theories of leadership contributed to increased attention to issues of teaching effective forms of behavior.

Despite the variety of theories belonging to this group, they can all be reduced to the fact that they define leader behavior based on two main characteristics:

· behavior focused primarily on creating job satisfaction among subordinates and their development (interest in the needs of employees, respect for their ideas, delegation of authority to subordinate employees, concern for their advancement);

· behavior focused exclusively on completing production tasks at any cost (at the same time, the need to develop subordinates is often underestimated, their interests and needs are ignored).

The main behavioral models of leadership include the theory of “X” and “Y” by D. McGregor, the theory of leadership by K. Lewin, the continuum of leadership styles by R. Likert, the management grid of R. Blake and D. Moutan, the theory of E. Fleischman and E. Harris and etc.

One of the most common is the leadership theory of K. Lewin (1938).

She identifies three leadership styles:

· authoritarian – characterized by rigidity, exactingness, unity of command, prevalence of power functions, strict control and discipline, focus on results, ignoring socio-psychological factors;

· democratic – relies on collegiality, trust, informing subordinates, initiative, creativity, self-discipline, consciousness, responsibility, encouragement, transparency, orientation not only to results, but also to ways of achieving them;

· liberal – characterized by low demands, connivance, lack of discipline and exactingness, passivity of the leader and loss of control over subordinates, giving them complete freedom of action.

Kurt Lewin's experiment showed that effective groups had both autocratic and democratic leaders. Open leadership is associated with higher levels of subordinate satisfaction, as subordinates of such leaders show less resistance to innovation and demonstrate higher organizational consciousness than those who work under autocratic leaders.

The nominal (liberal) leadership style has not yet been studied as well as autocratic and open leadership, but the results show that the satisfaction of employees and the quality of their functioning with the nominal style is lower than with the democratic approach, but higher than with the autocratic approach.

K. Lewin's research provided the basis for the search for a management style that can lead to high productivity and satisfaction of performers.

Considerable attention was paid to the study of leadership styles in the works of R. Likert, who in 1961 proposed a continuum of leadership styles. Its extreme positions are work-centered leadership and people-centered leadership, with all other types of leadership behaviors in between.

According to this theory, there are four leadership styles:

1. Exploitative-authoritarian: the leader has clear characteristics of an autocrat, does not trust his subordinates, rarely involves them in decision-making, and creates tasks himself. The main incentive is fear and the threat of punishment, rewards are random, interaction is based on mutual distrust. Formal and informal organizations are in opposition.

2. Paternalistic-authoritarian: The leader favorably allows subordinates to have limited participation in decision making. Reward is actual and punishment is potential, both of which are used to motivate employees. Informal organization is partly opposed to formal structure.

3. Advisory: the leader makes strategic decisions and, showing trust, delegates tactical decisions to subordinates. Limited inclusion of workers in the decision-making process is used for motivation. The informal organization differs only partially from the formal structure.

4. Democratic is characterized by complete trust and is based on the widespread involvement of personnel in the management of the organization. The decision-making process is dispersed across all levels, although integrated. The flow of communications goes not only in vertical directions, but also horizontally. Formal and informal organizations interact constructively.

R. Likert called model 1 task-oriented with a rigidly structured management system, and model 4 - relationship-oriented, based on team organization of work, collegial management, delegation of authority and general control. According to R. Likert, the latter approach is the most effective.

Theory "X" comes from the premises:

1. The average person initially does not like to work and therefore always tries to evade it.

2. Most people, due to their innate aversion to work, must be constantly persuaded, controlled, directed or threatened with punishment before they take any action aimed at achieving the goals facing the team.

3. The average person prefers to be directed, tends to avoid responsibility, has little or no ambition, and values peace above all else.

The "Y" theory comes from the premises:

1. Physical and mental effort is as natural for a person as play and rest. The average person does not have an innate aversion to work.

2. External control and threats of punishment are not the only ways to direct the team’s efforts to achieve common goals. People are capable of self-government and self-control, serving a goal for which they feel responsible.

3. Responsibility for the goal is a natural prerequisite for the feeling of joy associated with achieving it. The greatest satisfaction—the satisfaction of the need for self-expression—can be a direct consequence of efforts aimed at achieving a common goal.

4. Avoidance of responsibility, lack of ambition and the desire for self-preservation are not innate human characteristics. Under certain conditions, a person learns not only to shirk responsibility, but also to take it upon himself.

5. Imagination, creativity, ingenuity and the ability to use these qualities for the benefit of one's organization are widespread among people. Adherents of the Y theory believe that wise leadership has no other tasks than the following:

· Economically feasible organization of the elements of a profitable enterprise - money, materials, equipment and employees.

· Since people are motivated to work, develop themselves and take responsibility, management should only help them realize these potentials.

· the main task of management is to organize production in such a way that people’s work aimed at solving the company’s problems coincides with their personal goals.

In contrast to X-theory proponents, who believe that their primary responsibility is to manage employees, Y-theory proponents strive to help employees master self-management skills.

The power and influence approach.

This approach describes the effectiveness of leadership in terms of power and types of power. Power is important not only in terms of influencing subordinates, but also influencing partners, clients, senior managers, and suppliers.

The main questions that researchers in this area are looking for answers to are:

1. What are the main types and sources of power?
2. How is power gained and how is it lost by leaders?
3. How does power determine leadership effectiveness?

An effective leader skillfully uses both the power of position (position, level of hierarchy) and personal power. In each specific case, he uses the type that allows him to reduce status differences to a minimum and avoid the danger of colliding with the stable self-esteem of his subordinates, i.e., power is exercised “softly.”

An important issue addressed by this approach is the question of the limits of power that a leader should have. For example, what are the consequences of unlimited power? In conditions of unemployment and the absence of any organizations protecting the rights of workers, the limits of the power of the formal leader can be significantly expanded. Let us quote the revelation of one of the managers of the construction trust: “If I offer any employee from the management apparatus to lick, in the literal sense of the word, my car, he will do it. They are afraid of personnel cuts and therefore are ready for anything.” This statement, on the one hand, characterizes the leader and his position, on the other, the situation that led to the expansion of the limits of power.

The bridge connecting power theory and the behavioral approach is research into the influence tactics used by leaders. Influence tactics include: rationalization of motives, distribution of profits, exploitation of attractiveness, appeal to authority, consultation. The choice of influence tactics is determined by the situation, the goals of influence and the status of people in the group.

Until now, there is no clear concept of what leadership is. Foreign defines it as a phenomenon of group interaction, manifested in the ability of some individuals to influence the feelings, thoughts and behavior of others in the desired direction, based on leadership theories arose in order to explain this phenomenon. There are several approaches to studying this concept. This is due to the fact that all theories have their shortcomings.

Basic Leadership Theories:

Charismatic

It is also called trait theory. It was put forward in the USA in the 30s by E. Bogdarus. The bottom line is that character is innate. Only a person with a certain set of traits can be a leader. Many authors have tried to highlight them. Thus, K. Brad in 1940 compiled a list of 79 leadership traits. They included: intelligence, confidence, friendliness, enthusiasm, sense of humor and others. However, they did not occupy a stable position in the lists of other authors, and the task of identifying the qualities and traits of a leader turned out to be insoluble. In addition, the highlighted qualities, in addition to being broad, are also often contradictory. It was found that in practice there are people in the group who, in their abilities and intelligence, are superior to the leader, but are not the leader.

Situational

Replaced the charismatic theory of leadership. A person becomes a leader due to the occurrence of various life situations. In one case or another, people who are superior to others in certain qualities, when the need arises, demonstrate them and stand out from the crowd. That is, a leader is the person who has realized his qualities better than others. This theory has its drawbacks. It was found that:

some people have deep professional knowledge, but are not able to engage in leadership activities;
in difficult situations, the goals of different group members may be different, and such goals compete for priority;
in management practice, despite the changing tasks of the group, a change of leaders is not allowed.

The situational theory of leadership does not fully take into account the independence of the leader and his ability to influence the situation.

System

A leader is a person who organizes a group better than others to solve a specific problem. This person has more of the personality traits needed to solve the problem than any other member of the group. He is expected to meet the basic requirements: he will be able to coordinate the group’s activities, ensure its safety and give it faith in success.

Leadership is often seen as a type of power. In this regard, the concept arose that is, the constant, legitimate and priority influence of a person occupying a position of power on a group or society.

There are charismatic, situational and systemic theories of political leadership. The remaining existing theories are variations of the basic ones. Thus, a type of charismatic approach is a psychological concept, the representative of which is S. Freud.

Its essence is as follows: the basis for the occurrence of the phenomenon is suppressed libido. As a result of the process of sublimation, it manifests itself as a desire for power. In an effort to get rid of the complex, the individual imposes his will on others and becomes a leader.

Classification of political leaders

M.J. Hermann identified 4 images of leaders: minister, standard-bearer, merchant and fireman. The servant expresses the interests of his followers, relying in his activities on their opinion, the standard-bearer relies on his own vision of reality, with which he is able to captivate the masses. A merchant knows how to correctly present his program to voters, and a fireman knows how to quickly find solutions to emerging problems.

FEDERAL STATE EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTION OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

"SIBERIAN ACADEMY OF PUBLIC SERVICE"

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT

COURSE WORK

in the discipline "Control Theory"

on the topic: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP THEORIES.

Completed by: Pozhidaeva M. A.,

group No. 08112, State Medical University

Checked by: Simagina O.V.

professor of the department,

Novosibirsk, 2009

Introduction 4

1. Essence of Leadership 5

1.1. Characteristics of the phenomenon of leadership. 5

1.2. Management and Leadership 6

1.3. Leadership typology 9

2. Approaches to understanding leadership 12

2.1. Structural theories. 13

2.2. Behavioral theories 24

2.2.1. Experiments by K. Levin. 24

2.2.2. Basic mixed leadership styles 26

2.2.3. Management grid by R. Blake and D. Mouton 27

2.2.4. Ohio University Research. 29

2.3. Situational approach. thirty

2.3.1. PM theory of leadership. 32

2.3.2. Situational model of leadership by F. Fiedler. 35

2.3.3. Hersey-Blanchard situational theory. 39

Conclusion 43

Bibliography on topic 45

Applications 47

Introduction

Leadership is as old as humanity. It is universal and inevitable. It exists everywhere - in large and small organizations, in business and religion, in informal organizations. Leadership is the primary characteristic of any organization. For leadership to exist, groups must exist. And wherever groups arise, leadership appears.

Of course, man did not bypass the phenomenon of leadership in his quest for knowledge. Even the most ancient thinkers paid special attention to leadership. And of course, interest in this phenomenon has continued to this day. Moreover, we can safely say that issues related to leadership have become more pressing than ever. And this is easy to understand - after all, the population is growing, and so is its need for leadership. And at the same time in quality leadership. And most often, a truly good leader is a leader, a bearer of unique qualities and skills.

But what distinguishes a leader, what sets him apart from the mass of other people? Many scientists have tried and are trying to answer this question, building theories that explain the phenomenon of leadership.

The purpose of this work: research of existing theories that explain leadership, identification of their features, as well as their comparative analysis.

An object of this work: leadership phenomenon;

Item: leadership theories.

1. The Essence of Leadership

1.1. Characteristics of the phenomenon of leadership.

A leader is usually called a person who plays a decisive role in a group in determining and implementing the directions of its activities aimed at achieving group goals. The most important task of a leader is to take initiative, cultivate and support in people the desire for successful work. The ultimate goal for a leader is to achieve the goal set for him with the help of the team. In modern practice, leadership is recognized as only one of the qualities necessary for a leader to operate effectively (in the recent past, it was recognized as the most important requirement for a leader).

Leadership is a very complex type of activity, mastering which requires, in addition to certain natural inclinations, purposefulness, self-criticism (the ability to evaluate what has been achieved and make appropriate adjustments to one’s behavior), and dedication to an idea. A leader uses his power thoughtfully, with inspiration, and usually with success. To understand the functions of leadership, it is important to understand the essence of the organization as an “open system” consisting of interdependent parts (subsystems) open to the influence of physical, social, economic and psychological forces.

To become a true leader, it is useful to be a professional in a certain field of activity and to have a fairly broad outlook. Usually, for a leader, what has been said is far from enough: the true essence of a leader lies, first of all, in focusing on people. To practically implement his vision of the future, the leader needs to create a team of his followers, prepare it to achieve the intended goals, and make the best use of the methods, skills and energy of each group member. In solving these problems, it is extremely important to establish and fully support effective relationships between group members.

Leadership talent is a quality that is relatively rare, and yet many organizations are in dire need of it. Leaders are needed always and everywhere, but they are especially needed today, when market economic relations are being formed; leaders of a leadership type are required who have the talent to find new, largely unknown ways to solve problems, instill in people confidence in the rationality of the actions they take and motivate them with appropriate techniques.

In many ways, it is true that the personality of a leader is the key to success. In addition, the leader must have followers, be guided by universal values and goals, common symbols, and rituals of the group. The leader, through his inspiring example, helps to strengthen cohesion in existing groups. As a result, many groups within the leader's zone of influence begin to act united by one goal. The organization turns into something more than just a collection of closed groups, which creates a synergistic effect. 1

1.2. Management and Leadership

When considering the issue of management and leadership, one should turn, first of all, to the institution of power. Power is the ability and ability to influence the behavior of other people or groups through will, authority, law or violence. The power of a leader means the right and opportunity to dispose of someone or something, to subordinate it to one’s will. This power is generated by the tasks facing the organization or its structural divisions. It is customary to distinguish between formal and real power.

Formal power is the power of a specific official who occupies an official position in an organization. Real power is the power of influence, authority, determined by a person’s place in the informal system of relations taking place in the organization.

Formal power and authority are vested in the heads of formal organizations. Real power is inherent in the leaders of informal groups that arise as a result of the unregulated spontaneous activity of people entering into regular relationships. If formal groups are created at the will of the leadership, then informal groups are the product of spontaneous interaction between people in the course of their daily life and activities. If formal organizations are created according to a pre-determined plan, then informal organizations (groups) are a kind of reaction of people to their unsatisfied individual needs, in particular, the need for communication, support, protection, etc. 2

Thus, the concepts of “leader” and “manager” should be clearly distinguished. A leader is a person who is officially entrusted with the functions of managing a team and an organization. He is legally responsible for the functioning of the team (group) to the authority that elected or appointed him and has strictly defined sanctioning capabilities (encouraging and punishing subordinates) to influence their production, scientific, creative and other activities. The leader stands out from the group as the most referent person, to whom group members recognize the right to make decisions in situations that are significant for the group. The leader may or may not be the leader of the group. If the leader is appointed officially, then the leader is nominated spontaneously. The group begins to identify informal leaders even during its formation. Sometimes it happens that in a group that is embarking on a particular activity that is unusual for them, with general confusion, some people appear who show higher activity, greater awareness and interest. They are willing to listen to them, turn to them for advice, and treat them with special respect. These people are potential leaders. 3

In order to more clearly distinguish between the concepts of “leader” and “manager”, we present their main characteristics:

1) The leader is mainly called upon to regulate interpersonal relations in the group, while the leader regulates the official relations of the group as some official organization.

2) Leadership can be stated in the microenvironment; leadership is an element of the macroenvironment, i.e. it is connected with the entire system of social relations;

3) Leadership occurs by chance; the leader of any real social group is either appointed or elected, but one way or another this process is not spontaneous, but rather purposeful, carried out under the control of various elements of the social structure;

4) The phenomenon of leadership is less stable; the “promotion” of a leader depends to a greater extent on the mood of the group.

5) Management of subordinates, unlike leadership, has a much more specific system of various sanctions, which are not in the hands of the leader.

6) The decision-making process of a leader is much more complex and mediated by many different circumstances and considerations that are not necessarily rooted in a given group, while a leader makes more direct decisions regarding group activities.

7) The leader’s sphere of activity is mainly a small group where he is the leader; the leader's sphere of action is broader because he represents the group in a larger social system.

Thus, from the provisions discussed above, it can be determined that a leader has influence - the ability to influence individuals or even groups through the power of his authority. The manager does not influence his subordinates (employees); he uses a system of compulsory powers of an official business, authoritative nature.

The relationship between an unofficial leader and a manager can contribute to effective joint activities, but can also become conflicting. Much here depends on their compatibility and teamwork, on the moral and socio-psychological climate in the team. Teams in which officially appointed or elected leaders are at the same time the most referent persons find themselves in a better position. 4

1.3. Leadership typology

The rapid qualitative growth of leadership research and the diversity of interpretations of this phenomenon have given rise to an urgent need to somehow systematize and streamline these studies. In this regard, attempts are being made to create a leadership typology. One of the first typologies (and the most influential to this day) was proposed by M Weber. It was based on the classification of the authority of persons exercising power. M Weber distinguished:

Traditional leadership based on belief in the sanctity of traditions (for example, the eldest son of a monarch after his death legally becomes the monarch).

Rational-legal, or bureaucratic leadership based on faith in the legitimacy of the existing order and its “reasonableness”

Charismatic leadership based on faith in the supernatural abilities of the leader, the cult of his personality. It occurs in critical situations. With the stabilization of the social system, it transforms into a traditional, or bureaucratic, “routinization of charisma” occurs.

The authority of the traditional leader, according to M. Weber, is based on long-standing custom. A person has the “right to leadership” due to his origin - belonging to the elite. This type of leadership is characteristic of a “pre-industrial” society.

Rational-legal, or bureaucratic, leadership, according to Weber, is inherent in “industrial society.” It arises when a leader becomes not due to any special personality traits (although the leader must demonstrate a certain level of competence), but through “legal” bureaucratic procedures. According to Weber, leadership in an “ideally” bureaucracy is impersonal, it acts as an instrument of law, impersonal.

The charismatic type of leadership, according to a number of researchers, claims to be a heuristic for understanding not only the phenomenon of leadership, but also the entire dynamics of the political process. This type of leadership is characterized by fanatical devotion of followers to the leader; any doubt about his charismatic qualities is considered sacrilege.

The peculiarity of charismatic leadership Weber, according to Weber, is that traditional and bureaucratic leadership function in stable social structures and are adapted, first of all, to solving everyday problems, while charismatic leadership arises at sharp turns of history. Initially, charismatic leadership is generally alien to any organization: the leader’s closest associates act on his behalf and rely on his authority. Therefore, charismatic leadership in its pure form exists only at the moment of its emergence. But so that it does not remain a purely transitory phenomenon, but takes on the character of a permanent relationship that forms a stable group of disciples or followers, the charismatic leader must adapt to everyday life and its tasks.

It is possible to point out certain weaknesses and contradictions in Weber's concept of charismatic leadership. Weber proceeds from a psychological interpretation of leadership types (they are based on “belief in the legitimacy of given power”), but later he is inclined to consider them as objective social structures. What is primary is not the type of social relations itself, but its awareness by the participants in these relations. 5

In modern science there are many typologies of leadership. Theodor Geiger distinguishes between functional and integral types, which, in turn, are divided into fractional classes and subclasses. Sometimes, instead of types of managers or leaders, typologies of leadership functions are created. D. Kretsch, R. S. Crutchfield and E. L. Bellaci identified types of leaders by function: execution, planning, external representation, control, reward and punishment, arbitration, creating an example, ideology, etc. Eduard de Bono records more than a dozen types of leaders: idea generator, synthesizer, diplomat, communicator, organizer, etc.

In modern Russian literature there are many classifications of leadership. B. D. Parygin’s typology is based on three different criteria: by content, by style, by the nature of the leader’s activity.

Inspiring leaders who develop and propose a behavior program

Leaders-executors, organizers of the implementation of an already specified program

Leaders who are both inspirers and organizers.

One of the foundations of the leadership typology is “styles” of leadership. According to style they are distinguished:

Democratic

- “Non-interfering”, “permissive”, liberal

It should be noted that many researchers do not distinguish the liberal style as special at all, limiting themselves to contrasting authoritarian and democratic types of leadership.

(Leadership styles will be discussed in detail below, within the framework of behavioral leadership theory).

According to the nature of the activity, they are distinguished:

Universal type, i.e. constantly showing the qualities of a leader.

Situational, showing leadership qualities only in a certain situation 6

2. Approaches to understanding leadership

There are three main approaches to the study of leadership. The first approach can be characterized as structural. He sets himself the task of identifying the universal personality structure of an effective manager, defining its characteristic traits or characteristics. The second approach can be called behavioral. It allows you to analyze leadership in the context of the leader’s behavior and highlight universal behavioral characteristics that ensure the leader’s success. Finally, the third situational approach attempts to synthesize structural and behavioral concepts in the context of specific situational variables.

2.1. Structural theories.

If you try to describe a leader based on general characteristics presented in the media, characteristics such as intelligence, charisma, determination, enthusiasm, courage, strength, integrity, self-confidence, etc. will undoubtedly be mentioned. Of course, such a set contains exclusively positive personal qualities and characteristics. Trying to present this list as completely as possible, one may ultimately come to the unexpected conclusion that their owner is more worthy of being a prime minister than a junior manager in industry.

But still, numerous studies have been and are still being devoted to the search for the optimal set of personality traits of a successful leader.

If we remember the history of mankind or look at today's leaders in economics, culture, sports and, of course, in politics, the picture will turn out to be quite motley. Here are the mighty Peter the Great, and the “little” Napoleon, and the sick Roosevelt, and the “mediocre” Stalin, and the “unbalanced” Hitler, and the fussy Gorbachev. All these people, without a doubt, can be called leaders, but how different their roles are in stories. How different they are from each other!

What personal, social, constitutional or intellectual characteristics distinguish them from other people, those whom we would never call leaders?

The problem of outstanding people - heroes opposed to the crowd - has long attracted the attention of thinkers and scientists. Reflecting on the role of outstanding personalities in history, ancient philosophers and historians, such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Suetonius, Titus of Livia, etc., were inclined to think that certain people become “heroes” solely due to their personal qualities. Therefore, their success did not depend on external conditions, and they, apparently, would have been heroes under any circumstances. The same views in the 19th century. adhered to by T. Carlyle, F. Galton and F. Nietzsche.

Carlyle acted as a herald of the “cult of heroes” - bearers of divine destiny and spiritual creators of the historical process, rising in the “gray” mass. He put forward the concept of a “hero” as a person possessing unique qualities that capture the universal imagination. In psychology and biology, the problem of outstanding personalities attracted Galton, who explained the phenomenon of leadership based on hereditary factors. He believed that the improvement of human nature could be achieved on the basis of the laws of heredity by breeding a race of especially gifted, mentally and physically strong people. These views, consonant with the hopes of modern producers of cloned sheep and rams, were called “eugenics”.

For Nietzsche, the desire for leadership is a manifestation of a person’s “creative instinct,” while the leader has the right to ignore morality - the delusion of the weak. In his myth of the “superman,” the cult of a strong personality was combined with the romantic idea of a “man of the future,” who has left modernity with its vices far behind and imperfection.

Following them, F. Woods, tracing the history of the royal dynasties of 14 nations, came to the conclusion that the form and manifestation of power in these states depended on the abilities of the rulers. The brothers of kings, also based on natural gifts, also became powerful and influential people. Woods concluded that the ruler determines the nation in accordance with his capabilities (“like the ruler, so are the people”) - A. Wiggan argued that the reproduction of leaders depends on the birth rate of the ruling classes. Their representatives, in his opinion, are biologically different from mere mortals due to this. that their offspring were and are the result of healthy marriages between aristocratic families.

J. Dowd denied the very concept of “mass leadership” and believed that individuals in each society differ significantly from each other in their energy, abilities and moral strength. Whatever the influence of the masses, in his opinion, they are always led by a few leaders.

All these theories, studies and opinions lead directly or indirectly to the idea that if a leader is gifted with qualities that distinguish him from followers, then it should be possible to define or isolate these characteristics. This conclusion formed the basis of the theory of leadership traits, the authors of which explained the leadership process by the manifestation of certain character traits initially inherent in the individual.

The results of studies by S. Klubek and B. Bass were important for the development of this approach, demonstrating that it is almost impossible to make lindens who are not naturally inclined to leadership into leaders. It is only possible through psychotherapy to slightly change some features of their character.

In 1954, E. Borgatta and his collaborators put forward the concept of the “great man” theory. They studied groups of three people performing tasks of similar content and found that the individual with the highest intelligence scores tended to receive the highest ratings from group members. At the same time, leadership abilities, the degree of participation in solving a group task and the sociometric popularity of the person were taken into account. Having won the position of leader in the first of three experimental groups, the individual maintained this position in the next two groups, that is, he became a “great man” already on the basis of his first successful leadership experience. An important circumstance in this experiment was that in all cases only the composition of the participants changed, while the group tasks and external conditions largely remained the same.

R. Cattell and G. Stice argued that leaders differ significantly from other group members in the following eight personality traits:

moral maturity, or the strength of the “I”;

influence on others, or dominance;

integrity of character, or the strength of the “Super-Ego”;

social competence, entrepreneurship;

insight;

independence from strong harmful impulses; - willpower, control of one’s behavior.

absence of unnecessary worries and nervous tension. At the same time, an individual with a low indicator of social competence (timidity, passivity, lack of self-confidence) or deprived of strong feelings and nervous tension is unlikely to become a leader at all.

Thus, these studies once again confirmed that not every person can be a leader, but only one who has a certain set of personal qualities or a set of certain psychological traits. It is no coincidence that the structural approach is sometimes called the “charismatic” theory, since it is based on the innateness of leadership qualities.

In American social psychology, these sets of traits were recorded with particular care: a clear and justified list of characteristics could become the basis for constructing a test system for the professional selection of leaders.

In the 40s, the first attempts were made to generalize the results of the structural half-move. Reel researchers analyzed numerous facts collected as a result of empirical research about the relationship between personality traits or leadership qualities.

For the first time in 1940, such an attempt was made by S. Beard in the book “Social Psychology”. Generalization of the results led to the conclusion that compiling a scientifically based list of characteristics is hardly possible. Thus, the list of leadership traits mentioned by various researchers amounted to 79 characteristics. Among them were the following: initiative, sociability, sense of humor, enthusiasm, confidence, friendliness.

However, if you look at the “dispersion” of these traits among different authors, then none of these traits occupied a stable position even in several lists; Most of the named traits were mentioned only once, a fifth - twice, 10% - three times, and only 5% of the traits were named four times. There was discrepancy even regarding such traits as “willpower” and “intelligence,” which gave reason to generally doubt the possibility of compiling a more or less reliable list of traits necessary or inherent in a leader.

In 1948, R. Stogdill reviewed 124 studies and noted that the study of personality traits in leaders continued to produce conflicting results. However, along with social status, he identified a number of the most characteristic traits of leaders:

intelligence,

desire for knowledge,

responsibility.

activity.

social participation.

At the same time, Stogdill also noted that in different situations, the leaders who acted most effectively showed different personal qualities, and concluded that “a person cannot become a leader only because he has a certain set of personal qualities,”

R. Mann came to a similar conclusion, also made on the basis of an analysis of many studies. At the same time, among the personality traits that significantly influence a person’s behavior as a leader and determine the attitude of others towards him, he listed:

intelligence;

ability to adapt;

extroversion;

the ability to influence people;

lack of conservatism;

sensitivity and empathy.

Mann found that the importance of these traits and the accuracy of their assessment depended on whether leadership was analyzed from the point of view of a group member, from the point of view of an observer (researcher), or from the point of view of the leader meeting certain criteria. Thus, the ability to adapt is much more accurately assessed by group members, and extroversion is easier to establish using the method of formal criteria. At the same time, if we focus on the opinions of group members, then extroverts and introverts have equal chances of becoming unofficial leaders. Thus, the role of individual character traits in leadership is ambiguous and largely depends on the research position and the context in which leadership is implemented.

In a more recent review of 20 structural studies of leadership, J. Geyer identified approximately 80 characteristics of effective leaders, but most of these characteristics were also found in only one or two studies, and only 5 of them were mentioned in four or more studies.

Already after Stogdill’s publication, a fairly stable opinion began to form that the theory of traits was unproductive. Researchers who are interested in describing leadership traits risk overlooking other important factors of leadership, such as its social context.

According to S. Caussin, to become a good leader, an individual must have the following traits:

the ability to solve problems creatively;

the ability to convey ideas to followers,

persuasiveness;

the ability to listen carefully to other people and listen to their advice;

a strong desire to achieve a goal;

sociability, wide range of interests;

honesty, directness, constructiveness in relations with followers;

self-esteem, self-confidence;

enthusiasm, high discipline;

the ability to “hold yourself well” under any circumstances and maintain internal balance.”

According to the results of studies conducted in a number of UK government agencies, R. Chapman names the following characteristics as necessary for a leader:

insight,

wealth of ideas

common sense,

prudence,

ability to express one's thoughts,

expressiveness of oral speech,

communication skills

adequate level of self-esteem,

perseverance,

hardness,

equilibrium,

maturity. 7

A. Lawton and E. Rose, on the contrary, argue that the necessary ten qualities of a leader are the following:

foresight - the ability to shape the appearance and objectives of the organization;

the ability to determine priorities - the ability to distinguish between what is necessary and what is simply important;

stimulating followers with recognition and rewards for success;

mastery of the art of interpersonal relationships, i.e. the ability to listen, give advice, and be confident in one’s actions;

“political instinct” - the ability to understand the needs of one’s environment and those in power;

steadfastness - steadfastness in the face of an opponent;

charisma or charm is something that cannot be defined, but captivates and inspires people:

the ability to take risks in such matters as transferring part of the work or authority to followers;

flexibility - the ability to respond to new ideas and experiences;

determination, firmness when circumstances require it. 8

M. Gunter identified six main characteristics inherent in a charismatic leader: “exchange of energy,” or suggestive abilities: the ability to influence people; “radiate” energy and charge others with it; “bewitching appearance”; “independence of character”; "good rhetorical ability and some artistry."

According to J. Kotter, people are more likely to be influenced by those who have character traits that they admire, who are their ideals and whom they would like to imitate.

So, there is still no consensus on what qualities a leader should have. The lists of leadership traits mentioned above say very little about the importance of each of them.

It is obvious that the ultimate goal of the structural approach - to find a universal set of characteristics of an effective manager for all occasions - is hardly feasible. Every time, every society, every group forms or requires its leaders, and in another time and in other conditions, a cruel tyrant could, at best, head a funeral service bureau in a quiet provincial town.

The disillusionment with the trait theory was so great that even the theory of a “leader without traits” was put forward in opposition to it. But it also did not give any answer to the question of where leaders come from and what is the origin of the phenomenon of leadership itself.

In general, the structural approach encountered a number of insoluble problems:

identifying the optimal set of characteristics turned out to be impossible;

the approach completely ignored the group context in which leadership is exercised;

the approach was not able to reveal the cause-and-effect relationship between leadership and individual personal characteristics (do certain traits characterize the leader or does successful leadership create specific traits, for example, self-confidence),

in the context of this approach, individual traits appear as static formations devoid of development;

the low correlation (in the range from +0.25 to +0.35) of personality traits with behavioral manifestations of leadership, strictly speaking, does not allow us to consider these characteristics as reliable predictors.

And yet, despite all the shortcomings, the structural approach invariably arouses the interest of practical management. Even non-ideal tests, built on the achievements of the structural approach, make it possible to carry out professional selection of leaders, improving the personnel composition of the organization. Testing is especially often aimed at identifying the following five characteristics, which have consistently demonstrated a high positive correlation with successful leadership:

intelligence;

dominance;

self confidence;

high activation (energy) level;

professional knowledge and skills relevant to the task being performed.

The structural approach had and has another extremely important meaning for management and the organization as a whole. Although research evidence has failed to support most of the theory's tenets, it has had extraordinary ideological implications for the development of management itself, requiring managers to have strong leadership skills and considerable potential, and implying that leadership is inextricably linked to extraordinary human qualities and abilities.

In organizations, the image of a sergeant-major manager, about whom one can say: “You can’t imagine a worse person, but the manager is a very good one,” has become less and less accepted. With the development and growing popularity of the structural approach, a new image of the manager-leader was gradually established, i.e. a manager whose personal characteristics themselves allow him to lead without resorting to “traditional” sources of power in the organization. Such a leader is able to achieve his goals, relying solely on his personal influence, his knowledge and abilities.

The concept of leadership, thus, turned out to be directly related to the problem of the legitimacy of power, indirectly pointing to procedures and rules (legal and behavioral), adherence to which can provide a member of an organization with a path to gaining formal power in the organization. In a broader sense, the concept of manager-leader has become increasingly associated with the procedures and demands that society as a whole offers to the individual for gaining power.

Within the framework of the concept of leadership, the structural principles of the organization and the very concept of power were transformed into psychological phenomena. Power in an organization has largely become linked to the personality of the leader: only those individuals whose personal and professional characteristics exceed those of other members of the organization have legitimate the right to lead the latter. Of course, in practice this principle was, as it is now, far from being fully realized, but nevertheless its gradual introduction into people’s consciousness opened up opportunities for many talented people to join management.

Thus, even despite the inconsistency and shortcomings of the structural approach, the mentioned applied and ideological aspects of the leadership problem have provided and continue to provide sustainable interest in the personal characteristics of leaders and still fascinate not only ordinary readers, but also researchers. 9

2.2. Behavioral theories

This approach considers leadership in the context of the external behavior demonstrated by the leader and attempts to find some stable set of behavioral characteristics that ensure the success of the leader.

It was within the framework of this approach that the concept was formed leadership style, which is understood as “a set of techniques and methods used by a leader (also a manager) with for the purpose of influencing people dependent on him or subordinate to him.”

2.2.1. Experiments by K. Levin.

Priority in the development of the behavioral approach belongs to K. Lewin, who on the eve of World War II, together with his colleagues, conducted an experiment that had a significant impact on the subsequent development of the concept of leadership. His experiment involved three groups of teenagers who, under the guidance of adults, sculpted papier-mâché masks. The group leaders were adults who demonstrated different management-leadership styles. The researchers were interested in how a leader's behavior style was related to the effectiveness of the three groups. The leadership styles demonstrated by adults received labels that have since become firmly entrenched in the social psychological literature: “authoritarian,” “democratic,” and “permissive.”

Authoritarian called a style in which the leader acts in an authoritative, directive manner towards his followers, rigidly distributing roles between group members, not allowing them to go beyond their limits, and carefully controlling their work in all details. An authoritarian leader concentrates almost all the main functions of management in his own hands, not allowing group members to discuss or challenge his actions and decisions.

Characteristics that are opposite to the authoritarian style of leadership are: democratic a style in which the leader seeks to manage the group together with his followers (subordinates), giving them sufficient freedom of action, allowing them to discuss their decisions, supporting the initiative they show in a variety of forms.

Conniving leadership style is a form of leadership in which the leader practically withdraws from the active management of the group and behaves as if he were an ordinary member of the group. It allows group members to do whatever they want, giving them complete freedom of action.

Apparently, the names of leadership styles proposed by Lewin were largely metaphors, but they undoubtedly began to play a normative role, indicating that a “democratic” leadership style was preferable. Subsequently, many researchers proposed to abandon this terminology altogether and introduce new designations in order to eliminate the value-normative connotation, which is poorly consistent with the principle of scientific objectivity.

For example, the terms “directive”, “collegial” and “permissive” (liberal) style were proposed, which much more successfully reveal the behavioral essence of the phenomena under consideration.

The research by Levin and his colleagues was not immediately appreciated by management and the scientific community. Only in the late 40s did researchers turn their attention to the study of behavioral styles as the main determinants of leadership. The structural approach implies the presence of “ready-made”, static traits of a leader, i.e. a leader must be born. And if an individual is not given the opportunity to be a leader, then nothing can be done about it. 10

2.2.2. Basic mixed leadership styles

However, based on Lewin's idea, scientists continued their research and proposed an expanded version. As practice has shown, the three main styles described above are almost never found in their pure form. Most often, managers have mixed styles - directive-collegial, directive-passive, passive-collegial.

Directive-collegial style. The leader mainly makes decisions independently. He is active at work, which is not observed among his subordinates. The predominant methods of work are orders and instructions. Supervision of subordinates is carried out strictly and regularly. The leader is highly demanding of his subordinates. The main attention in the work of subordinates is paid not to achievements, but to their mistakes and miscalculations. The attitude towards criticism is negative. The leader is usually self-possessed and task-oriented. Has a positive attitude towards innovation. In the absence of the leader, the team copes well with the work.

Directive-passive style. The activity of the performers is moderate. The leader often resorts to requests and persuasion, but often switches to a commanding tone, especially in cases where his initial persuasion does not bring results. Control of subordinates is carried out rarely, but quite strictly. Relies on the competence of employees. He is tactful with staff, generally strict with his deputies, and demands unquestioning obedience. Avoids innovations. He entrusts the solution of social problems of the team to his deputies. In the absence of a leader, the team reduces work efficiency.

Passive-collegial style. A leader of this type avoids responsibility, is passive in performing managerial functions, and has little control over his subordinates. The main method of working with subordinates for such a leader is requests, advice, and persuasion. The attitude towards innovations in the field of production is passive. Can often follow the lead of subordinates. In the absence of a leader, the team does not reduce the efficiency of its work.

It should be borne in mind that the form and content of a leader’s actions do not always coincide with each other. Often an essentially authoritarian leader outwardly behaves quite democratically. This is achieved by developing very advanced communication techniques, for example, by demonstrating affection for people, outward interest in them, their ideas, and emphasized politeness. eleven

2.2.3. Management grid by R. Blake and D. Mouton

Individual management styles can be represented on the so-called management grid of R. Blake and D. Mouton. The matrix of this lattice has two dimensions: first, production orientation; the second is a focus on personnel, caring for people.

The first dimension is focused on completing production tasks at any cost, regardless of personnel. This is especially true for managers who strive to achieve high production performance at all costs. This dimension involves solving a wide range of production issues related to the efficiency of management decision-making, personnel selection, organization of the labor process, volume and quality of products, etc. [Appendix 1]

The second dimension (personnel orientation) involves the creation of good working conditions that meet the needs and desires of employees, and the development of favorable interpersonal relationships. Each type of managerial behavior can be designated by its own coordinates. Appendix 1 indicates four polar coordinates (1.1., 9.1., 1.9., 9.9.) and a median coordinate 5.5. Coordinates 5.9. - 9.9. gravitate towards a democratic management style, in which employees are given the opportunity for self-realization and confirmation of their own importance. This management style corresponds to modern scientific ideas about efficient production.

Coordinates 5.1. – 9.1. inherent in an authoritarian management style. Model with coordinates 1.9. corresponds to the type of leader who places human relationships at the heart of his activities. Such a leader is convenient for his subordinates; he tries to avoid explaining the causes of conflicts in the team in the hope that they will disappear on their own. This leads to a loss of initiative among the organization's employees. Without incentives to work, they become uninitiative and lose interest in creative work. 12

2.2.4. Ohio University Research.

In the late 1940s, Ohio State University researchers began intensive research into the behavioral skills and characteristics of leadership. Researchers have attempted to identify independent factors in leader behavior. After starting to analyze more than a thousand variables, they were eventually able to distill them into two categories that described a significant portion of leadership behavior. These dimensions are called: structuring activities (initiating structure) and attentiveness to people (consideration).

Activity structuring relates to the extent to which a leader defines and structures his own role and the roles of others in achieving the group's goal. It includes a set of activities aimed at organizing work, forming relationships and defining goals. A leader with high scores on this factor clearly sets the task for each group member, requires the fulfillment of certain performance standards, and emphasizes the time parameters of work.

Attentiveness to people relates to the leader's relationships with other members of the organization. This factor emphasizes the importance of mutual trust and respect by the leader for the ideas and feelings of subordinates. A leader must take care of the physical and mental comfort of his subordinates, their self-esteem and job satisfaction. A leader who scores high on this factor helps subordinates solve their personal problems, is friendly, tactful, and treats them as equals.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that leaders who score high on both factors tend to elicit greater performance and job satisfaction from their subordinates than managers who score high on only one factor or low on both.

Researchers especially emphasize the importance of balancing both factors, since, for example, an emphasis on the first of them leads to an increase in complaints from subordinates, a decrease in job satisfaction, increased absenteeism and staff turnover. Increased concern for those repaired, in turn, often causes negative assessments of the manager’s performance by management. 13

2.3. Situational approach.

Numerous studies of leadership have convincingly demonstrated that predicting its success is a much more complex task than isolating individual personality traits or behavioral complexes. The refusal to search for universal personal and behavioral invariants has led researchers to recognize that the most important determinants of effective leadership are related to the specific management situation. The inconsistency of these results has led scientists to take a closer look at situational factors and try to integrate structural and behavioral approaches in the context of specific situational variables. This conceptual framework argues that leadership is primarily a product of a specific situation.

It should be noted that the importance of situational variables in leadership has been noted by many researchers. Some of them even made attempts to highlight the most important ones. So. L. Carter and M. Nixon found that the type and style of a leader largely depends on the nature of the task at hand. There were sharp differences in the type of leadership between groups solving different kinds of problems, and the leaders of groups with similar goals were, in general, similar to each other, differing from each other only in some personal characteristics.

Factors such as the structure of the group and the model of communication in it are of great importance in the behavior of a leader. An important element is the duration of the group's existence and activities. In established groups, their established organization and structure largely determine both the behavior of the leader and the behavior of the entire group. In a group that has been operating for quite a long time and has developed stable structures for streamlining the activities of its members, the stability of the leader’s behavior is explained not only by personal and situational reasons, but also by the influence of the existing structural elements.

The structure of communication, having taken root, can lose all dependence on the specific task facing the group and its solutions. The structure that helped this group successfully solve similar problems will be acceptable for solving other problems, since it maintains order and subordination to the laws of interaction that have already been established in the group.

According to B. Bass's research, if an individual moves to a new group, his previous status, which he had in any social structure, has a significant impact on his leadership claims in the new group, as well as on the possible degree of success in the process of conquering him. leader position.

An individual's position in a group largely determines his ability to influence others. The higher his social status, the higher the degree of influence of any group member.

Having once become a leader and, thanks to this, having won a central position in the communication system, and most importantly - in the hierarchy of statuses, which, in turn, strengthen the leader’s position, the individual develops leadership abilities that enhance his positive assessment from group members. In addition, access to organizational resources encourages him to look for any opportunities to maintain his position, while the leader’s efforts aimed at meeting the needs of the remaining group members contribute to a decrease in individual activity and the desire for leadership of each of them.

However, only a few researchers have been able not only to identify important situational leadership variables, but also to present holistic theories and applied methods that make it possible to measure and change (optimize) leader behavior in specific organizational situations. 14

2.3.1. PM theory of leadership.

The RM theory of leadership was developed by the Japanese psychologist D. Misumi. Back in the mid-40s, inspired by his acquaintance with the research of K. Levin and his colleagues, he independently, independently of the studies of American universities we have already mentioned, began to develop his own theory of leadership. Misumi also comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to identify two basic factors that ensure the effectiveness of a leader, but considers them not as independent formations, but as a function of the interaction of specific leadership behavior with the group dynamics of a specific group.

Such dimensions of a leader’s behavior, according to Misumi, are a leadership style focused on achieving the goals of organizational activities (planning, control, coordination, pressure, etc.) and a focus on supporting and satisfying the individual and group needs of members of the organization and its preservation. as a whole organism. The initial letters of two English words denoting the considered behavioral categories of leadership: P(erfomance)- activity and M(intenance)- support, and gave the approach a name.

It is easy to see that the essence of these factors largely coincides with the two-factor behavioral models we have already considered. D. Misumi's discovery is that he demonstrated the difference between the leader's behavior itself and the function that this behavior performs when perceived by subordinates. The dominant emphasis of PM theory is the consideration of leadership as a group-dynamic process, expressed primarily by members of the group headed by the leader.

In order for a manager to master the skill of successful leadership, he must have objective feedback about his influence on subordinates, be able to determine his actual leadership style, and also plan for its directed change. For this purpose, within the framework of his theory, D. Misumi developed a special questionnaire to determine PM factors in the behavior of a leader.

In addition to the two basic factors, the method allows you to diagnose eight auxiliary factors:

a desire to work,

salary satisfaction,

job satisfaction,

psychological climate,

Team work,

holding meetings,

communication and interaction,

psychological standards of group activity.

To develop the PM questionnaire, the author used the nonparametric equivalent of multidimensional scaling, as well as factor analysis. The sample sizes are astounding, seemingly unmatched by any other leadership study; In the banking sector alone, 2,489 work groups in 16 Japanese banks were surveyed! The method was used even more widely in industry, transport and government agencies in Japan. Factor analysis of this huge body of empirical data confirmed the adequacy of the questionnaire to the theoretical model: the two leading factors were invariably the P(erfomance) and M(aintenance) factors. Based on the varying degrees of actualization of both behavioral categories of leadership in group dynamics, Misumi proposed the following typology of manager behavior:

Numerous studies over the course of 50 years have proven that in almost all types of organizations the RM style of leadership (both letters are capitalized, large), i.e. when and R- and M-functions are implemented to the maximum, it is the most effective. And vice versa, rm-style leadership (both letters are capital, small), i.e. when both functions are practically not implemented, it turns out to be minimally effective for the organization.

The questionnaire consists of 60 questions. The first 40. combined into 8 groups (subfactors) are devoted to discussing various aspects of organizational activity. The last 20 questions are directly related to the main styles and management strategies: questions from 41 to 50 are devoted to the R-style, and from 51 to 60 - to the M-style. Using the PM questionnaire, a leader can obtain objective information about his influence on people, can determine his current leadership style, and trace trends in its change towards effective RM-style, can control the dynamics of his interaction with the group, choosing means to optimize this interaction.

Application of the method involves the following steps:

Filling out the PM questionnaire by members of groups headed by lower or middle level managers.

Conducting a training seminar for a group of lower and middle level managers with them filling out the PM questionnaire,

Repeated completion of the PM questionnaire by members of groups led by lower-level managers after 3 months.

Repeated holding of a training seminar with managers.

The questionnaire is processed by calculating the sum of the average values for two basic PM factors. The intersection point of factors on the RM-graph, the coordinate axes of which are the RM-norms of effective units of a given organization, makes it possible to determine the leadership style exercised by the manager, as well as the direction and content of development. A similar assessment of eight auxiliary factors allows us to operationalize those aspects of a manager’s activity that require adjustment.

Thus, the method not only allows one to assess the leader’s behavior in the context of many situational variables, but also acts as part of a special organizational development program, primarily aimed at adjusting and optimizing the leader’s behavior. The adaptation of the PM method to the People's Republic of China has been extremely successful, where it has been used with extraordinary success in government and commercial organizational structures. 15

2.3.2. Situational model of leadership by F. Fiedler.

One of the most famous situational models of leadership was proposed by F. Filler. In the early 60s, F. Fiedler and his colleagues came to the conclusion that different types of leadership are effective in different conditions. For example, in some situations, a people-oriented dealer contributed to increasing the efficiency of the group, improving its moral climate, and growing the general culture of its members. However, in other groups, only the authoritarian, active, task-oriented leader achieved productivity growth.

Research has revealed that it is impossible to predict changes in group dynamics based solely on the personal characteristics of the leader, but it is quite possible to do so if a number of organizational variables are known. F. Fiedler proposed a model according to which the effectiveness of a group depends on the optimal match between the leadership style and the level of control (power) that the leader has in a particular situation. Fiedler developed the LPC (Least Preferred Co-worker) questionnaire, which made it possible to determine the leader's main orientation - to people or to the task. He then identified three key situational variables that can be manipulated to create the optimal match between situation and leadership style.

Fiedler's model is undoubtedly a continuation of the structural and behavioral approaches, because his questionnaire is a completely traditional psychological test aimed at identifying the personal and behavioral characteristics of a leader. At the same time, he went much further than these approaches, highlighting situational variables and considering the effectiveness of a leader as a function of his interaction with the latter.

The LPC questionnaire consists of sixteen scales formed by pairs of adjectives with opposite meanings (for example, pleasant - unpleasant, effective - ineffective, benevolent - hostile, etc.). The test taker is asked to remember one of his subordinates, to whom he treats or treated with the greatest hostility, and evaluate him on the indicated 16 scales, each of which has 8 gradations. Fiedler believed that such a test allows one to determine leadership style. If the test taker evaluates positively even the least pleasant employee, then this can be considered as evidence of people-orientation. Conversely, if an unpleasant or negligent employee is evaluated negatively, this indicates a leader's task orientation.

A significant limitation of Fiedler's model is that the leadership style measured by his questionnaire is strictly dichotomous and fixed. In his opinion, leadership style is inherent to the individual by nature and is practically not subject to change depending on the specific situation.

The effectiveness of a leadership style, according to Fiedler, is determined by its suitability to a specific situation, in which the following three variables are key:

The relationship between leader and subordinates, i.e. degree of trust and respect. that employees feel towards their manager. This variable indicates how loyal and friendly the group accepts its leader and how attractive he is to followers.

The structure of the task, i.e. the degree of its formalization. The structuring of a problem is determined by four criteria: to what extent the chosen solution appears correct in the minds of group members; How clearly the group understands all the requirements for this solution (clarity of problem statement); what restrictions exist regarding actions related to the task; Is this solution the only one, or are alternative options possible?

Position power, understood as the ability of a manager to make decisions related to the punishment or reward of subordinates. It is determined by the scope of the leader’s official powers, the position of the group led by the leader in the overall organizational structure, tradition or the informally recognized authority of the leader.

These variables are also dichotomous: the relationship between leader and subordinates can be either good or bad; the structure of the task - complex or simple; official power - strong or weak.

Filler believes that the better the relationship between the leader and his subordinates, the higher the structure of the task and the stronger the official power, the higher the degree of managerial control of the leader over the group and the more ready the group itself is to be led in a given situation. Conversely, low indicators of these situational variables make the degree of managerial control of the leader and the manageability of the group minimal. Various combinations of high and low scores on these variables describe eight different situations that a leader may encounter.

After conducting numerous studies on how effective leadership behavior depends on leadership style and situational variables, Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are most effective when they have either high or low levels of hands-on control. They are effective when their relationships with subordinates are favorable, the task is structured, and they have significant position power. This same type of leadership turns out to be most effective in the least favorable conditions: with a lack of power, the absence of a clear task and strained relationships with subordinates.

Thus, correlating leadership style with assessments of three situational variables predicts leader effectiveness as a function of organizational conditions.

Given that Fiedler considers leadership style to be an innate characteristic, his model provides two ways to improve leader effectiveness. First, the leader can be selected according to the existing organizational conditions. Just as a football coach releases a new player after seeing a change in the nature of the game, an organization assigns a manager with a leadership style that is more appropriate to the situation.

At the same time, the model faces serious difficulties in assessing situational variables, does not take into account the characteristics of subordinates, does not take into account the level of professionalism of the leader and the group, and, finally, many questions are raised by the theoretical and psychometric foundations of the LPC questionnaire. However, this model is still very popular. She played a significant role in stimulating research interest in situational factors of leadership. 16

2.3.3. Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.

One of the most famous applied models of leadership is the situational theory of P. Hersey and C. Blanchard. It is used as the main method for training management personnel in such well-known companies as IBM. Mobil Oil, Xerox, as well as in officer training.

This theory focuses on the leader's subordinates or followers. According to this theory, the success of a leader depends on the adequate choice of leadership style, which must correspond to the maturity of the members of the group he leads.

The emphasis on subordinates or followers is due to the fact that they are the environment that accepts or rejects the leader. After all, no matter what a leader does, his effectiveness is based primarily on the actions of his subordinates. And oddly enough, this critical factor has long been ignored by many leadership theories.

The maturity of a group refers to the ability and desire of its members to take responsibility for their behavior. The concept of “maturity” includes two components: professional and psychological maturity. The first component covers the professional knowledge and skills of subordinates. A professionally mature individual has the knowledge, skills, abilities and experience that allow him to perform his professional tasks without anyone's guidance and instructions. Psychological maturity is determined by the desire or motivation to do one's job. People who are psychologically mature do not require external stimulation and encouragement; they are internally motivated.

Hersey and Blanchard also identify two leadership styles: people-oriented and task-oriented. By combining the different expressions of these styles, they come up with four specific leadership styles:

1. “Directive” (strong expression of task orientation + weak expression of orientation towards people). The leader defines the roles of subordinates and specifies what, how, when and where to do.

2. “Supportive” (strong task orientation + strong people orientation). The leader implements both directive and supportive behavior (apparently, a style close to the PM leadership of J. Misumi).

3. “Participant” (weak expression of task orientation + strong expression of orientation towards people). The leader and subordinates jointly participate in decision making, with the leader primarily playing the role of moderator and coordinator.

4 . “Delegating” (weak expression of task orientation + weak expression of orientation towards people). The leader is inactive, provides minimal guidance and support to subordinates.

Another component of the theory under consideration is the identification of four stages of group maturity:

Ml. Members of the organization (group) are unable and unwilling to take responsibility for their work. They lack both professionalism and self-confidence.

M2. Members of the organization (group) are not capable, but want to complete the assigned work. They have motivation, but lack the appropriate professional skills

MZ. Members of the organization (group) are capable, but do not want to do the work proposed (assigned) to them by the leader.

M4. Members of the organization (group) are both able and willing to perform the assigned work.

According to the model, leader behavior directly depends on the maturity of the group. As subordinates reach higher levels, the behavior of an effective leader is characterized not only by a decrease in control over the group, but also by a decrease in the leader’s influence on the system of interpersonal relationships. On the stage Ml subordinates require clear and specific instructions. If the group is at the stage M2, A leader needs to demonstrate a high level of both task and people orientation. The first will compensate for the lack of necessary knowledge and skills among subordinates, the second will remove the group’s resistance to the leader’s pressure. At the KM stage, motivation becomes the main problem in group activities, and the leader’s people-oriented behavior can largely solve it. And finally, at the stage M4 the leader does not need to actively influence his subordinates, since they can already work independently, possessing both high motivation and high professionalism.

It is easy to see that the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory of leadership is in some respects similar to the Blake-Mouton management grid. Thus, the directive style is in many ways similar to the authoritarian style 9.1, the supportive style is similar to the 9.9 style, etc. However, the inclusion of a group context qualitatively changes the content of this typology. Style 9.9, which was considered by R. Blake and J. Mouton as the best for all cases of management, in the situational theory of Hersey-Blanchard appears only as one of the possible styles, the effectiveness of which is determined by the maturity of the group. The validity of the theory has been confirmed by a number of researchers. 17

Conclusion

There are many approaches to understanding what makes a leader successful. The rather obvious answer is that a leader becomes such due to his character traits. But it was soon noticed that in different situations, leaders who achieved success had completely different qualities, which did not allow us to identify universal traits inherent in all leaders. Radically new approaches to explaining leadership were born. Leadership has been tried to be considered in the context of external behavior demonstrated by leaders. There have been attempts to synthesize theories. But so far no one has been able to deduce the only correct one, if such a thing is even possible.

However, it should be noted that within the framework of research conducted by scientists in the field of explaining the phenomenon of leadership, a lot has already been achieved. Many leadership models serve as a useful tool that helps leaders understand the specifics of the decision-making process and develop optimal options for their implementation.

As part of this work, the phenomenon of leadership was examined and its differences from management were identified. Existing approaches to explaining leadership behavior were examined, their features and differences were identified.

It is clear that leadership problems require increased attention from researchers.

References

1. Batarshev A.V. Personality of a business person: Socio-psychological aspect. – M.: Delo, 2003. – 384 p.

2. Bennis W. Leaders: trans. from English – St. Petersburg: Silvan, 1995. – 186 p.

3. Zankovsky A. N. Adaptation of the PM method and its use for studying strategies for overcoming problematic situations in management activities: theory and methods of psychological analysis. – M.: IPRAN, 1999. - 281 p.

4. Zankovsky A. N. Organizational psychology. – 2nd. ed. – M.: Flinta: PPSI, 2002. – 648 p.

5. Karpov A. V. Psychology of management. - M.: Aspect Press, 1999. – 298 p.

6. Kretov B.I. Typology of leadership.// Social and humanitarian knowledge. – 2000. - No. 3. – pp. 73-78.

7. Krichevsky R. L. If you are a leader... - M.: Aspect Press, 1996. – 322 p.

8. Lawton A., Rose E. Organization and management in public institutions. - M.: Nauka, 1993. – 280 p.

9. Novikov V.V. Social psychology: Phenomenon and science. - M.: Svarog, 1998. - 289 p.

10. Yakhontova E. S. Control theory. – M.: Teis, 2001. - 495 p.

Bibliography on the topic

1. Blondel J. The future of political leadership research. // City management. – 2007. -№6. – P. 2-10.

2. Bogatyreva E. A. Information parameters of state leadership in the modern world.// Sociology of power. – 2006. - No. 6. – pp. 112-116.

3. Demidov I. D. Leadership: myths, scientific analysis, practice.// Sociology and social anthropology. – St. Petersburg, 1997. – P. 276-290.

4. Dobrotvorsky I. L. Management. Effective technologies: textbook. – M.: PRIOR, 2002. – 404 p.

5. Ilyasov F. Political marketing and the phenomenon of leadership. // Public service. – 1999. - No. 1. – pp. 99-108.

6. Kondakov I. M. Self-assessment of competence in conflict resolution by middle managers. // Psychological Journal. – 1998. – T.19, - No. 1. – pp. 135-143.

7. Meskon M. Fundamentals of management: Transl. from English – M.: Delo, 2002. -704 p.

8. Mikhailov G. Professional self-awareness of a leader. // Applied psychology and psychoanalysis. – 2004. - No. 2. – pp. 20-29.

9. Nevskaya T. A. The personality of a politician as a factor determining the electoral choice.// Bulletin of Moscow University, Series 12, Sociology and Political Science. – 2007. -№2. – pp. 140-152.

10. Nefedov Yu. V. On the way to defining the national idea of leadership. // Personnel Management. – 2006. - No. 11. – pp. 41-43.

11. Peters T. Leadership is still a challenge!// The Art of Management. – 2001. - No. 3. – P. 53-60.

12. Pronin S. B. Hidden oppositionists, informal leaders are the most dangerous for business. // Personnel management. – 2007. -№1. – pp. 16-19.

13. Pugachev V. P. Management of the organization’s personnel. – M.: Aspect Press, 2002. – 279 p.

14. Rezanovich I. Leadership as a value of a modern manager. // Public service. – 2005. - No. 3. – pp. 84-87.

15. Smolkov V. G. The essence and typology of leadership.// Social and humanitarian knowledge. – 2001. - No. 6. – pp. 61-68.

16. Sokolinsky V. M. Leaders in the economy. // Business and politics. – 1997. - No. 6. – pp. 48-54.

17. Starobinsky E. E. Intellectual capital of an entrepreneur. – M.: Delo, 1996. – 304 p.

18. Torrington D. Human resource management: textbook: Transl. from English – M.: Business and Service, 2004. – 752.

19. Shushlyapin O. Leadership and motivation for creativity. // Higher education in Russia. – 2000. - No. 2. – P. 86-90.

20. Yurasov I. Friend and foe or leadership as a communicative ability. // Personnel management. – 2006. - No. 8 – P. 32-34.

1.9. Maximum attention to people, minimum attention to work			9.9. High focus on effective work combined with trust and respect for people


	5.5. Moderate attention to work and people


1.1. Little attention to production and people		2 Karpov A. V. Psychology of management. - M.: Aspect Press, 1999. – p.59 Coursework >> Management ... theories leadership.....................................................................16-17 2.3. Theory analysis..........18 2.4. Psychological theories leadership...positions, giving them relatively great powers... Leadership in the organization and basic theories leadership Abstract >> Management ... leadership 2.1. Theory leadership qualities 2.2. Charismatic concepts leadership 2.3. Factor-analytic situational theory leadership 2.4. Theory constituents and interactive analysis 2.5. Psychological theories leadership ... comparative analysis ... Comparative analysis competitive strategies for an export-oriented enterprise Coursework >> Management Innovations……………………………..21 2. Comparative analysis competitive strategies for export-... - rooted in theories industry competition (in particular in theories industry life cycle); ... and scientific and technical leadership competitive history of microelectronic...