Leadership and functions of leaders. Differences between leaders and managers

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 X and Y theory of D. McGregor, the leadership theory of K. Lewin, the continuum of leadership styles of 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) style of leadership 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 conflict.

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, which is based on team work organization, 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.

Approaches to the study of leadership:

An approach from the perspective of personal qualities(1930s) explains leadership by having a certain set of personal qualities common to all leaders. However, practice has not confirmed the presence of a standard set of qualities that leads to success in all situations.
Behavioral approach(1940-50s) views leadership as a set of patterns of behavior of a leader in relation to subordinates.
Situational approach(early 1960s) argues that situational factors play a decisive role in leadership effectiveness, but does not reject the importance of personal and behavioral characteristics.
Modern approaches(1990s) postulate effectiveness of adaptive leadership- reality-oriented leadership. It means the application of all known management styles, methods and ways of influencing people, in accordance with the specific situation. This allows us to interpret leadership not only as a science, but also as the art of management.

Approach from the perspective of personal qualities explains leadership by the presence of a certain set of personal qualities common to all leaders: ambition, drive, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, adaptability, ability and knowledge. These qualities are especially evident in famous, outstanding leaders (great man theory).

However, personal qualities do not guarantee success, and their relative importance depends largely on other factors. At the same time, within the framework of this approach, the first step was taken and a scientific basis was laid 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.

A Behavioral Approach to the Study of Leadership Theory

The behavioral approach focuses on leadership style, which refers to a set of characteristic techniques and methods used by a manager in the management process.

Leadership style reflects:

the degree to which a manager delegates authority to his subordinates
type of power used
methods of working with the external environment
ways to influence staff
the usual behavior of a leader towards subordinates.

Major leadership theories distinguish between two possible leader behaviors:

human relations(respect for the needs of employees, concern for staff development);
behavior oriented fulfillment of production tasks at any cost(ignoring the needs and interests of subordinates, underestimating the need for personnel development).

The behavioral approach laid the foundation for classification and directed the efforts of managers to find the optimal style, but already in the early 1960s. began to be viewed as limited, since it did not take into account a number of other important factors that determine the effectiveness of management activities in a given situation.

Situational approach to leadership theory

Situational factors play a decisive role in effective management, without denying the importance of personal and behavioral characteristics.

The main situational theories of leadership are the leadership model of F. Fiedler, the path-goal approach of T. Mitchell and R. House, the life cycle theory of P. Ghersi and C. Blanchard, the decision-making model of W. Vroom and P. Yetton, etc.

Most situational models are based on the assumption that the choice of an adequate leadership style is determined by analyzing the nature of the management situation and identifying its key factors.

Modern approaches to the study of leadership

Contemporary approaches to effective leadership include the concept of substitutes and influence amplifiers, self- and super-leadership, coaching style, transformational leadership and the charismatic approach.

In particular, transformational leadership And charismatic approach appeared in recent years based on attempts to formulate the qualities of leaders that give them an aura of special significance, exclusivity and magnetism, allowing them to carry people along with them. It has been found that those who follow charismatic leaders are highly motivated, able to work with enthusiasm and achieve meaningful results. This kind of leaders is especially necessary at critical stages of development, during the period of recovery from a crisis, the implementation of radical reforms and changes.

Several new management and leadership ideas are proposed:

support only highly profitable projects - activity within the company to increase it;
introducing complete autonomy for line managers who are in contact with consumers, allowing them to organize work at their own discretion, change technologies to meet customer requests;
management beyond the existing hierarchy;
the use of formal and informal information networks that unite autonomous elements.

Manager and leader

In European countries with a developed economic system, the concepts of leadership and management are perceived as equivalent and identical. Let's look at a practical example to understand the differences between these concepts.

Any company consists of formal and informal elements. Therefore, relationships in a team can be assessed from a formal and informal position. Formal relationships include job descriptions, orders and actions. Informal relationships include the emotional and psychological basis of psychological behavior. A manager is a formal leader defined by job descriptions. A leader is an informal leader chosen by the majority for his excellent qualities.

Note 2

A leader is an informal leader of the majority of workers who leads an informal group.

The leader has real advantages, functions, sanctions, and opportunities.

The leader expresses the opinion of the majority, but has no real opportunity to influence the situation, affecting only the emotional side of the team.

Differences between a leader and a manager

A leader is appointed – a leader is elected
The leader is endowed with sanctions - the leader is empowered
The leader delegates - the leader convinces
The leader fines - the leader ignores
The leader controls - the leader analyzes

Leadership theories

Manager and leader are allies
The manager and the leader tolerate each other
The leader confronts the leader
Leader and manager in open conflict with each other

Manager and leader are one person

The most beneficial theory and the most desirable scenario for every leader. By opening a company and providing work to people, the manager hopes that employees perceive him as a formal and informal leader. In this situation, managing a team becomes very easy, since the manager’s decisions are not discussed or questioned. In practice, there are very few such enterprises.

Manager and leader are allies

Note 3

One of the most favorable situations in the practice of a leader. It occurs when the team, manager and leader are in an alliance. They act for the benefit of the company and develop it. The formal leader is the manager, the informal leader is the chosen representative of the team. At the same time, the team understands and perceives the actions of the manager and leader, acting adequately.

An acceptable situation is in which the formal leader - the manager knows and allows the existence of an informal manager. In such a situation, the most important thing is to prevent direct confrontation between the manager and the leader. This situation undermines the authority of the leader and calls him into question. The leader turns the team against the leader, does not give him the opportunity to work effectively and reveal his potential.

The last two scenarios for the development of relations between the manager and the leader are negative and require an immediate response from the manager. A leader, reaching the level of open conflict, undermines his authority and creates a threat to effective interaction between the leader and the team. Such a leader must be immediately removed from the team. If the situation does not change, the manager will be forced to change the entire team. In case of open conflict, this is the best option, since employees will remember this situation and look for a new leader to satisfy their informal interests.

There are several approaches to the study of leadership.

1. Approach from the perspective of personal qualities(1930s) explains leadership by having a certain set of personal qualities common to all leaders. However, practice has not confirmed the presence of a standard set of qualities that leads to success in all situations.

2. Behavioral approach(1940–50s) views leadership as a set of patterns of behavior of a leader in relation to subordinates.

3. Situational approach(early 1960s) argues that situational factors play a decisive role in leadership effectiveness, but does not reject the importance of personal and behavioral characteristics.

4. Modern approaches(1990s) postulate efficiency adaptive leadership - reality-oriented leadership. It means the application of all known management styles, methods and ways of influencing people, in accordance with the specific situation. This allows us to interpret leadership not only as a science, but also as the art of management.

1. Approach from the perspective of personal qualities explains leadership by the presence of a certain set of personal qualities common to all leaders. Based on an analysis of the results of twenty studies, over eighty such characteristics (physical, intellectual, personal, psychological) were identified. However, the most common characteristics that distinguish an effective leader from those he leads are ambition, energy, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, adaptability, ability and knowledge. These qualities are especially evident in famous, outstanding leaders (great man theory). 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.

2. Behavioral approach indicates that effective leadership depends not so much on the personal characteristics of the manager, but on the adequacy of the situation of his behavior, level of qualifications and actions taken. The behavioral approach focuses on leadership style, which is understood as a set of characteristic techniques and methods used by the manager in the management process. Style reflects the degree to which a leader delegates authority to his subordinates, the type of power used, methods of working with the external environment, ways of influencing personnel, and the leader’s habitual manner of behavior towards subordinates.

a) human relations-oriented behavior(respect for the needs of employees, concern for staff development);

b) task-oriented behavior at any cost (ignoring the needs and interests of subordinates, underestimating the need for personnel development).

One of the most common is leadership theory K. Levina(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.

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 conflict.

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 characterized by complete trust, 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.

In general, behavioral leadership theories have contributed to an increased focus on learning effective behaviors. The organization's task was not only to recognize an effective leader in the personnel selection process, but also to teach him the skills to successfully manage people. The behavioral approach laid the foundation for the classification of leadership styles and directed the efforts of managers to find the optimal style, but already in the early 1960s. began to be viewed as limited, since it did not take into account a number of other important factors that determine the effectiveness of management activities in a given situation.

3. Situational approach: situational factors play a decisive role in effective management, while not denying the importance of personal and behavioral characteristics. The main situational theories of leadership are the leadership model of F. Fiedler, the path-goal approach of T. Mitchell and R. House, the situational leadership theory of P. Hersey and C. Blanchard, the decision-making model of W. Vroom and P. Yetton, etc.

Most situational models are based on the assumption that the choice of an adequate leadership style is determined by analyzing the nature of the management situation and identifying its key factors.

One of the first theories of the situational approach was the leadership model F. Fiedler. She focused on the situation and identified three factors influencing a leader's behavior:

− relationship between leader and subordinates(degree of trust and respect);

− task structure(labor regulation);

− leader's power(scope of official powers).

Fiedler classified group leaders according to their "least preferred employee" (LPC) attitude based on personality traits and attitudes. The basis for a leader’s characteristics is his assessment of the NPC, which makes it possible to establish two orientations that determine the effectiveness of the leadership style: orientation to human relations(a leader who characterizes NPCs in positive categories) and task orientation(leader giving the NPC a negative assessment). This theory established two important facts related to providing effective leadership.

Task-oriented leaders produce higher group performance in favorable and unfavorable situations. Relationship-oriented leaders produce higher group performance in intermediate states;

The effectiveness of a leader depends both on the degree of favorableness of the situation and on the leadership style.

The decisive factor is the matching of the leadership style and the situation in which the team works. There are two ways to achieve this:

− adapt the leader to the situation (through his selection, stimulation, training, retraining, or, in extreme cases, replacement);

− change the situation (by giving the manager additional powers).

The condition for optimal management styles is a focus on solving production problems and establishing favorable relationships in the team. This theory states that an effective leader must demonstrate both styles and apply them depending on the nature of the current management situation.

It is also important to conclude that every situation in which leadership is manifested is always a combination of the actions of the leader, the behavior of his subordinates, time, place and other circumstances. And this combination is more often unfavorable than favorable.

The theory of situational leadership is of great importance P. Hersey and C. Blanchard. It is based on the proposition that an effective leadership style depends on the “maturity” of the performers. Maturity is determined ability(qualifications and experience of employees) and mood(readiness to bear responsibility, desire to achieve a set goal, self-confidence), i.e. is a characteristic of a specific situation.

Analyzing various combinations of orientation to work tasks and human relationships, P. Hersey and K. Blanchard identified the following leadership styles: instructing (S1), persuading (S2), encouraging (S3) and delegating (S4), corresponding to the levels of development of employees (Appendix No. 4).

The theory establishes four leadership styles corresponding to the level of staff maturity:

ü high task orientation and low people orientation (give directions, instructions);

ü equally high focus on the task and people (selling, convincing);

ü low task orientation and high people orientation (participate, encourage);

ü equally low task and people orientation (delegate).

This theory states that an effective leadership style should always be different depending on the maturity of the performers and the nature of the management situation.

Decision Model V. Vroom and P. Yetton focuses on the decision-making process. She highlights five leadership styles, representing a continuum, from autocratic decision-making style(A1 and A2), advisory(C1 and C2) and up group(full participation style) (G2):

A1 – the manager solves the problem himself and makes a decision using the information he has;

A2 – the manager solves the problem himself, but the collection and primary analysis of information is carried out by subordinates;

C1 – the manager makes a decision through individual consultations with individual subordinates;

C2 – similar to style C1, but consultations are conducted in group form;

G2 – the decision is made by a group in which the manager plays the role of “chairman”.

The use of each of these styles depends on the situation (problem) for which the seven consistently used in the decision-making process criteria:

1) the value of the quality of the solution;

2) the manager has sufficient information and experience to make an effective decision;

3) the degree of structure of the problem;

4) the importance of the involvement of subordinates for making an effective decision;

5) the likelihood of supporting the autocratic decision of the leader;

6) the degree of motivation of subordinates when solving a problem;

7) the likelihood of conflict between subordinates when choosing an alternative.

The first three criteria relate to the quality of the decision, the last four - to factors limiting the agreement of subordinates with the decision.

A graphical interpretation of the theory has been developed in the form of a “decision tree”, where each criterion is formulated in the form of a question (Appendix No. 5).

The choice of leadership style is carried out by assessing the criteria of the problem corresponding to the current situation.

Situational leadership theories have important practical significance because they affirm the multiplicity of optimal leadership styles depending on the situation. They point out the lack of a single universal management style and establish leadership effectiveness depending on situational factors. A manager must be able to show flexibility and find the optimal solution, not relying only on intuition or habitual behavior, but adapting to the requirements of a specific situation.

In each specific case, the actions of the manager must be determined by the specific situation. A leader who can take advantage of the situation will be effective. To do this, it is necessary to know well the abilities of subordinates, their capabilities to complete the task, and the limits of their influence on the performers.

In the process of completing a task, the situation may change, and this will require changing the methods of influencing subordinates, i.e. leadership style. Like management in general, leadership is to some extent an art, so a leader who is able to change his leadership style if necessary will be successful, i.e. focus on real production and environmental conditions.

4. Modern approaches to effective leadership include the concept of substitute leadership, attribution theory, transformational leadership and the charismatic approach.

Substitutes for leadership. In contrast to previous traditional approaches to leadership, substitute leadership theory argues that in some cases hierarchical leadership makes little or no sense. D. Germier and a number of other researchers are convinced that certain individual, work and organizational variables can either act as a substitute for leadership or neutralize the influence of the leader on subordinates. Some of these variables are given in Appendix No. 6.

Leadership substitutes make the leader's influence either unnecessary or redundant by taking his place. It is not necessary or even possible for a leader to lead in a task-oriented manner if the instructions are already coming from an experienced, talented, and well-trained subordinate. Unlike leadership substitutes, neutralizers prevent certain forms of leader behavior or nullify all his actions. Thus, if a leader has little formal power or is physically separated from his subordinates, his actions may be nullified even in cases where a supportive leadership style is needed.

A number of studies comparing workers in Mexico, the United States, and Japan have demonstrated that there are both similarities and differences between leadership substitutes in these countries. A review of 17 studies carried out in the United States and other countries also contains rather contradictory data. Thus, the authors of the studies argue that it is necessary to expand the list of characteristics and styles of leader behavior and that, apparently, such an approach is especially important when considering high performing teams. In this case, for example, the team itself can set its own standards and replace them with the requirements of a superior manager, who indicates what standards should guide subordinates when performing work and how exactly they should solve assigned tasks (task-oriented behavior).

Attribution theory and leadership. All of the traditional leadership theories that have been discussed so far have assumed that leadership and its impact can be objectively identified and measured. However, this is not always true. Attribution theory addresses precisely these problems - people's attempts to understand reasons, assess responsibility and personal qualities, since in each specific case all these parameters are involved. Attribution theory is extremely important for understanding the nature of leadership.

First, let's think about a team or student group that you are familiar with. Now suppose you are asked to characterize its leader according to one of the scales. If you are like the vast majority of people, the high effectiveness of a group will motivate you to give a positive description of its leader; in other words, you will attribute good qualities to a leader based on the high performance of his group. Similarly, leaders themselves may attribute causes to their subordinates' performance and respond differently depending on the attribution. For example, if a leader attributes poor performance of employees to their lack of effort, he may reprimand them; but if he attributes it to an external factor, such as work overload, he can try to solve the problem. There is ample evidence to support the operation of attribution theory in relationships between subordinates and managers.

Charismatic approaches. According to views R. House Charismatic leaders are those who can, due to their personal abilities, have a deep and extremely powerful impact on their subordinates. Such leaders have a strong need for power, have a sense of self-efficacy, and are deeply convinced of the correctness of their moral beliefs. Thus, the desire for power makes these people want to become leaders. Subsequently, this need is reinforced by confidence in one’s own moral correctness. In turn, feelings of self-efficacy make these individuals feel that they can be leaders. These personality traits define charismatic behavior—role modeling, image building, clear goal setting (emphasis on simple and dramatic goals), emphasizing high expectations, demonstrating confidence, and creating motivation among followers.

One of the most interesting and important works based on House's charismatic theory is the study of US presidents. The results of this work demonstrated that some presidents had charisma based on the personality traits listed in House theory and their response to crisis situations. As for the other presidents, those voters who considered Bill Clinton a charismatic person continued to vote for him. R. House and his colleagues summarized the results of other studies, which to some extent confirmed their theory. The most interesting of these studies demonstrated that negative, or “dark,” charismatic leaders emphasized personalized power—themselves—while positive, or “light,” charismatic leaders emphasized socialized power and the delegation of authority to their followers. This helps explain the differences that exist between dark leaders like Adolf Hitler and light leaders like Martin Luther King.

Transformational approach. Based on the ideas of D. McGregor Burns and the works of R. House, B. Bass proposed an approach that emphasizes transformational leadership.

Transformational leadership goes beyond the routine execution of work. According to B. Bass, transformational leadership occurs when leaders expand and give a new level to the interests of their employees, when they achieve awareness and acceptance of the goals and mission of the group, and when they force their followers to abandon selfishness for the sake of the people around them.

Transformational leadership is characterized by four parameters: charisma, inspiration, intellectual enthusiasm and respect for the individual. Charisma provides vision and a sense of mission and generates pride, respect and trust among subordinates. Thus, it was a manifestation of charisma that S. Jobs, the founder of Apple Computer, emphasized the fundamental novelty of the Macintosh computer. Inspiration creates high hopes, uses symbols to focus efforts on one goal, and provides simple descriptions of important goals. So, in the movie "Patton" J. Scott stands in front of the troops against the backdrop of a wall-sized American flag and two holstered revolvers on his side, the handles of which are decorated with ivory. Intellectual stimulation stimulates intelligence, rationality and thorough problem solving. For example, your boss convinces you to take a fresh look at a very difficult task. Respect for the individual implies personal attention to each person, an individual approach to each employee, mentoring and advice. For example, your boss says something that reinforces your belief in your own worth as a person.

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.