Which organizations have an authoritarian leadership style. Management in unstable conditions

In accordance with the most common characteristic in management science, they distinguish following styles leadership: authoritarian (autocratic, directive), democratic (collegial), liberal (liberal-anarchist, permissive, neutral, permissive).

An authoritarian leadership style is characterized by centralization and concentration of power in the hands of one leader. He single-handedly decides all issues, determines the activities of his subordinates, without giving them the opportunity to take the initiative. Subordinates do only what is ordered; at the same time, the information they need is reduced to a minimum. The activities of subordinates are strictly controlled. An autocratic leader uses coercion-based or traditional power.

WITH psychological point vision, authoritarian style management is unfavorable. An autocratic manager has no interest in the employee as an individual. Due to the suppression of their initiative and creative manifestations, employees are passive. As a rule, the majority of them are not satisfied with their work and position in the team. With this leadership style, additional reasons appear that influence the emergence of an unfavorable psychological climate: “sycophants”, “scapegoats” appear, intrigues are created. All this causes increased psychological stress, which is harmful to the mental and physical health of people.

An authoritarian leadership style is appropriate and justified: 1) in situations requiring maximum and rapid mobilization of resources (in conditions emergency situations, accidents, combat operations, production during war, etc.); 2) in the first stages of creating a new team; 3) in teams with a low level of consciousness of the members of this team; 4) in the army.

The democratic leadership style is characterized by decentralization of power. A democratic leader consults with his subordinates and consults with specialists involved in making decisions. Subordinates receive sufficient information to have an idea of their job prospects. Employee initiative is stimulated. The manager delegates part of his authority to subordinates. When exercising control, it introduces elements of collective self-government. A democratic leader uses primarily reward-based power and reference power (the power of example).

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

It is advisable to use a democratic leadership style in production teams, regardless of industry and type of products (services) produced. This leadership style achieves its greatest effectiveness in established teams with microgroups and informal leaders.

The liberal leadership style is characterized by minimal interference from the leader in the activities of the group. The liberal leader does not accept active participation V production activities subordinates. He sets tasks for them, indicates the main directions of work, provides them with the necessary resources and gives employees independence in achieving final results. His role comes down to the functions of a consultant, coordinator, organizer, supplier, controller. A liberal leader tries to use power based on rewards, expert power, or reference power.

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

The most successful liberal leader manages a team that has energetic and knowledgeable assistants (deputies) who can take on the functions of a leader. In this case, the team is practically led by deputies and decisions are made, and they also resolve conflict situations.

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

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

In some teams, a liberal leader is commanded by his subordinates, and he is considered a “good person” among them. However, this continues until it occurs conflict situation. In this case, dissatisfied subordinates become disobedient: the liberal style turns into a permissive one, which leads to conflicts, disorganization and deterioration of labor discipline.

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

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

In addition to the situational management style, the innovative-analytical style is popular and effective (especially in successful Japanese companies), capable of ensuring organizational survival in acute conditions. market competition. It has:
generation large number ideas;
the ability to logically analyze the feasibility and prospects of these ideas;
energy, innovation, sensitivity to new ideas and information;
tolerance for failure;
ability to work with people.

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

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

Thus, considering leadership styles in their entirety, we can conclude that they act as opposites: autocratic-democratic, participative; innovative-analytical - liberal.

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

Leadership style- a method, a system of methods of influence of a leader on subordinates. One of the most important factors for the effective operation of an organization, the full realization of the potential capabilities of people and teams. Most researchers identify the following leadership styles:

Democratic style (collegial);

Liberal style (permissive or anarchic).

Authoritarian management style characterized by high centralization of leadership and dominance of unity of command. The manager demands that all matters be reported to him and makes decisions alone or cancels them. He does not listen to the opinion of the team; he decides everything for the team himself. The predominant management methods are orders, punishments, remarks, reprimands, and deprivation of various benefits. Control is very strict, detailed, depriving subordinates of initiative. The interests of the business are placed significantly above the interests of people, harshness and rudeness predominate in communication. An authoritarian leadership style has a negative impact on the moral and psychological climate and leads to a significant decrease in initiative, self-control and responsibility of employees.

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

the average person is lazy and avoids work as much as possible;

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

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

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

Theory "X"

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

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

3. The employee is inclined to be led, he avoids responsibility, he has little ambition, he wants to be protected in everything.

Theory "Y"

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

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

3. The responsibility to set goals is the reward function.

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

5. Resourcefulness and creative spirit are widespread among the working people.

6. Spiritual potential is barely activated in industrial life 1 . Theory "X" and theory "Y" allow us to imagine two opposite types of people. McGregor believed that every leader bases his leadership style on the adoption of one of these theories. Moreover, “X” is characteristic of autocrats, and “Y” is characteristic of democrats.

In itself, McGregor's model is not a pure theory of management styles, but it was it that made it possible to more fully and accurately understand and analyze the classifications that existed at that time.

In this style of management, the motivation of subordinates is often limited because the leader withdraws socially, delegates, as a rule, less interesting work to subordinates and maintains in them the fear of threatening sanctions. Subordinates become indifferent to the leader, as well as to the enterprise. They obtain information through unofficial means due to information barriers set by the manager.

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

Management art methods are effectively applied in such important aspect management activities, as a leadership style, i.e. in the manager’s usual manner of behavior towards subordinates, in the way he usually organizes the work of his team and implements management decisions. This, of course, also applies to the teaching staff.

Authoritarian leadership style is associated with Latin word"full power", "command". It is based on blind submission to authority. A powerful person seeks to assert his authority, but at the same time tries to influence others, to subordinate them to his own influence. However, the style itself cannot be viewed only as negative. An authoritarian leader can be at the head of an authoritarian team that agrees with this nature of management. Most group members will feel comfortable because the leader, while organizing the work, makes all decisions independently. If we are talking about employees who are accustomed to obedience, then the effectiveness of this leadership style may be obvious.

The authoritarian leadership style has the following features: social conservatism, the need for hierarchy and respect for power, inflexibility of attitudes, stereotypical thinking, often herd hostility and aggressiveness, anxiety in behavior and difficulties in establishing trusting relationships with others.

The authoritarian style of a teacher’s work at school developed during the time of the Czech humanist thinker Comenius. In those years, the only source of information and assessment was the teacher. The concept of “authoritarianism” became entrenched in social thought and pedagogy after the Second World War. Authoritarianism was studied primarily in connection with the theme of totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism (from lat. totalis whole, complete) is a socio-political system that tries to ensure total control over all aspects of human life and is characterized by the unlimited power of the state and numerous victims of repression. Many prominent thinkers of the last century dealt with the problem of totalitarianism. Let us name among them the German-American researcher X. Arendt. According to her theory, totalitarianism is, first of all, a system of mass terror, providing an atmosphere of general fear in the country. Analyzing the main provisions of her book “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, we can conclude that the authoritarian style of leadership is a direct consequence of such a form of government in the state as totalitarianism.

Authoritarianism is a softened form of totalitarianism. E. Fromm and T. Adorno made a significant contribution to this problem. E. Fromm considered not only the leadership style, but also the characteristic psychological traits of this type of personality. In his works, Fromm analyzed the foundations of masochism and sadism in an authoritarian personality.

The most common manifestations of masochistic tendencies are feelings of inferiority, helplessness, and insignificance. Fromm also classifies three types of sadistic tendencies. The first type is the desire to make other people dependent on oneself and to acquire complete and unlimited power over them, to turn them into one’s tools, to “mold them like clay.” The second type is the desire not only to have absolute power over others, but also to exploit them, use them and “rob”, “swallow” everything that they can give both morally and intellectually. The third type of sadistic tendencies is characterized by the desire to cause other people suffering and watch them suffer. Suffering can be physical, but more often it is mental suffering. The purpose of actions here can be either the active infliction of suffering - to humiliate, intimidate another - or the passive contemplation of someone’s humiliation and intimidation. For an authoritarian character, according to Fromm, there are two genders: strong and powerless. Power automatically evokes the authoritarian's love and willingness to submit, regardless of who exerts it. And just as power automatically earns his “love,” powerless people or organizations automatically earn his contempt. At one sight weak person he feels the desire to attack, suppress, humiliate.

In this regard, an authoritarian person admires authority and wants to obey, but at the same time he strives to be the authority himself so that others will obey him. An authoritarian personality can have activity, courage, and faith. But for a person with an authoritarian character, his activity is based on a deep feeling of powerlessness, which he is trying to overcome. Activity in this sense means action in the name of something greater than one’s own Self, and this must necessarily be indestructible and unchangeable.

A significant contribution to the assessment of the authoritarian leadership style was made by the German scientist Adorno, who showed that the transformation of hatred into love is never completed completely successfully, and part of the aggressiveness is absorbed and turned into masochism. In the concept of authoritarianism, Adorno included political monopoly, the existence of a single or dominant party in the country, the absence of opposition, restriction or suppression of political freedoms in society.

After analysis political aspects authoritarianism, this problem began to be studied within the framework of management psychology. The types of leaders and their corresponding leadership styles were studied by the German psychologist K. Lewin. The researcher was inclined towards a democratic leadership style, so he very insightfully analyzed the shortcomings of the authoritarian style. K. Levin and his colleagues conducted one of the earliest studies in psychology of the effectiveness of leadership styles. The experiment was carried out in a group of teenage children who, under the guidance of adults, sculpted papier-mâché masks. The leaders of the three groups (it should be remembered that the lessons were taught by adults, and not by leaders spontaneously emerging from among children) demonstrated different methods influence on subordinates. The experimenters then compared the performance of these groups. In his research, Lewin found that authoritarian leadership got more work done than democratic leadership. However, on the other side of the scale were low motivation, less originality, less friendliness in groups, lack of groupthink, greater aggression towards both the leader and other group members, high levels of repressed anxiety, and simultaneously more dependent and submissive behavior. Compared to a democratic leadership style, with a liberal style the amount of work decreases, the quality of work decreases, more play appears, and in surveys of experiment participants, preference is given to a democratic leader.

Boles later studies did not fully support the findings that authoritarian leadership resulted in higher productivity but lower satisfaction than democratic leadership. Nevertheless, Lewin's research provided the basis for other scientists to search for a style of behavior that can lead to the highest productivity and high degree satisfaction of team members.

Each organization has its own unique specific features. According to A. A. Rusalinova’s definition, leadership style is the consistently manifested features of the leader’s interaction with the team, formed under the influence of both objective and subjective management conditions and the individual psychological characteristics of the leader’s personality.

An authoritarian leader (autocrat) is a champion of centralized control, has sufficient power, and rigidly dictates his will to the executor. He makes decisions individually, prescribes the functions of subordinates, not giving them the opportunity to take initiative, suppresses any criticism of himself and provides performers with a minimum of information.

The autocrat deliberately appeals to the needs of more low level their subordinates, based on the assumption that this is the very level at which they operate. He is always confident in his personal correctness, based on his own knowledge and skills, large personal capital and extensive external relations in government agencies and the business environment. He alone is in all cases the final authority, the supreme judge, the source of rewards and punishments. This type of leader can lead his company to great success, but also to complete failure.

Specific features of the authoritarian management style are unity of command and high power distance. The authoritarian style is characterized by the fact that the leader takes the reins of power into his own hands, demanding complete obedience from his subordinates. This management style implies that all decisions in the organization are made by the manager without taking into account the opinions of employees.

Characteristics of an authoritarian management style

Control is also clearly expressed in an authoritarian management style - strict, driving ordinary employees into strict boundaries and depriving them of the opportunity to exercise initiative. As for communication in an organization, it is only a means for employees to carry out common activities.

Friendly relationships are not welcome, since it is not the interests of the individual, but the interests of the company that are valued above all else. The manager, in turn, also prefers to maintain a certain distance between himself and his subordinates, which no one has the right to violate.

Methods of authoritarian management style

Unlike other management styles, the authoritarian style is more focused on punishment for any faults of employees, rather than on rewards for any achievements. Among the main methods of this management style are: reprimands, orders, comments, deprivation of all kinds of bonuses and benefits.
The main psychological factor affecting employees of an organization is fear - fear of shame, punishment, dismissal. Thus, it cannot be said that the authoritarian management style is characterized by a lack of motivation. Motivation exists, but it represents the reinforcement of employee activity by fear.

Because the authoritarian management style comes in two forms (benevolent and exploitative), management methods depend on which type of authoritarian style operates in the organization. It is easy to guess that the benevolent form of the authoritarian style implies a softening of management methods, as well as a significant reduction in the number of punishments.

Disadvantages of an authoritarian management style

Of course, the authoritarian style is by no means the best management style for the normal functioning of an organization. Experts believe that this style can be used in working with subordinates only in certain cases:

1. In emergency situations, which are understood as all kinds of emergency circumstances and disruptions to the company’s work, requiring prompt action and quick decision-making, as well as in conditions of limited time.

2. Anarchic sentiments of the organization, requiring immediate restrictions on workers by introducing strict discipline that prevents the occurrence of various riots, strikes, etc.

In a company that does not have clearly defined problems, an authoritarian management style can lead to internal discord in the functioning of the organization, the destruction of self-control, decreased performance, deterioration of the socio-psychological climate, lack of initiative and creativity of subordinates, increased staff turnover, and decreased responsibility of employees for the work they have done.

The authoritarian style of managing an organization is characterized by excessive centralization of the manager’s power and autocratic resolution of all issues. This style is characteristic of powerful and strong-willed people who are tough towards others. This article will examine its advantages and disadvantages in detail.

You will learn:

What is the authoritarian management style?
In what forms can it be presented?
What are the features of mixed forms of authoritarian management style.

Authoritarian management style - This is, first of all, strictly defined regulations of the organization, under which employees conscientiously perform their duties, meekly recognizing the authority of the manager.

Provisions found among the main characteristics of the authoritarian management style of an organization:

any issue is resolved by the manager;
team members are completely or partially deprived of the opportunity to contribute to organizational work;
the solution of important tasks is not entrusted to employees;
The manager himself determines the conditions and methods of work.

documents and accounting are always in order;
the quality of manufactured products is under control;
the number of conflicts on work issues in the team is minimal, because the tasks are set from above and are strictly regulated;
management is carried out centrally, which allows you to avoid disputes and objectively see the big picture.

a huge waste of energy and time for a leader who makes decisions alone;
there is a high probability of errors in decision making, because management is carried out by only one person;
pressure from management, suppression of initiative, constant control over workers;
helplessness of the work team in the absence of the boss;
tense environment, since many may be oppressed by the dictatorship of the leader.

Test: Are you more tough or soft as a leader?

A tough manager increases competition between sales employees. A calm and friendly boss supports the teamwork of the sales team. The editors of the Commercial Director magazine have compiled a test for you so that you can find out which management style will bring you more profit and how to maintain a balance in your management style.

Methods of authoritarian style of managing an organization

Management methods- these are techniques that a leader can use to effectively influence subordinates. Among the methods of authoritarian management style, the following can be distinguished:

organizational and administrative;
economic;
socio-psychological;
public or collective.

Organizational and administrative methods management is control over the activities of personnel with the help of orders, instructions, instructions, directives, resolutions, regulations, etc. In other words, the essence of the method is the use of administrative documentation. The advantage is that subordinates do not have the right to ignore official orders.

Economic methods management is control over the activities of personnel using a system of bonuses and fines. In this way, you can stimulate the employee and develop his interest in work. Advantage this method is that subordinates voluntarily perform the tasks assigned to them. The disadvantage is the additional financial costs. In addition, the introduction of fines is not legal.

Social-psychological methods management - motivating employees using psychological techniques and simple “human” communication. Effectiveness depends on the abilities, experience and charisma of the leader. It requires a competent approach, without which you can only aggravate the situation, becoming “one of our own” for everyone, which will lead to a loss of authority.

Social or collective methods influence. Theoretically, they can serve as a means of authoritarian management, since the boss always has the opportunity to exercise leadership, using boards and councils as intermediaries. However, formally this conflicts with the very definition of authoritarianism. However, indirect management deserves mention as one of the methods available to the manager.

It should be noted that there are two types of forms of authoritarian management style: benevolent and exploitative. Depending on which of them the company works with, management methods are chosen. The benevolent form of the authoritarian style is represented by relaxed management methods and a significant reduction in the number of punishments.

"Exploitation" authoritarian style.

It consists in the fact that the boss takes responsibility for the entire work process and gives orders to his subordinates, without considering anyone’s opinions, even if they are reasoned. Punishment is used as the main form of motivation.

All orders are carried out by employees blindly, from the position of “our business is small.” The manager's mistakes cause schadenfreude among his subordinates.

Great responsibility can weigh heavily on a manager, because he alone pays for all the mistakes and is not always able to identify their cause. Employees, even if they are able to help, often prefer to remain silent, believing that they will not be listened to. This situation is regularly repeated and leads to the formation of a tense psychological situation in the team: some feel unfulfilled, others feel overworked.

Thus, mistakes in an exploitative-authoritarian style have a double price:

psychological trauma due to constant stress;
economic losses.
"Benevolent" authoritarian style.

This type of authoritarian leadership style implies a parental attitude towards subordinates. The boss is interested in the staff’s point of view, but can ignore even a reasonable opinion and do it his own way. The manager provides some freedom of action, but strictly controls the work process and monitors compliance with the company’s charter and the requirements of the work algorithm. Are used various methods punishments and rewards.

Managing a women's team: psychological characteristics

A few words about the authoritarian-democratic management style

Unlike the usual mixed authoritarian style, it supports innovations and initiatives of staff; employees are part of the common cause and are aware of their responsibility for the result. Workers will be able to cope with the task even in the absence of the boss.

For example, the following situation is possible: the main power is concentrated in the hands of the boss, but at the same time the rights and responsibilities are distributed between him and his deputies or subordinates. The team is constantly aware of all important issues.

However, with an authoritarian-democratic style, if the need arises, the leader will easily ignore the opinions of his subordinates and make a decision alone. It is also possible to use reprimands, comments and orders as management methods.

However, the authoritarian-democratic leadership style helps to achieve success only if the leader is a knowledgeable and experienced person, capable of maintaining harmony in the team and accepting right decisions. It is also possible that a “side effect” of the democratic management style may occur, when the boss reduces control too much and subordinates relax.

Authoritarian management style: modern modifications

In modern management theory and practice, there are many leadership styles and their modifications, but the most common are the following:

Bureaucratic leadership style

The relationship between the manager and subordinates is formal and anonymous, the personal power of the boss is minimal. Bureaucratic style represents an extreme degree of structuring and regulating the actions of company employees. This is achieved through a careful division of responsibilities, the creation of job rules and regulations, which detail who should do what and how. Information comes to employees through formal sources. Control is carried out by checking written reports and through messages.

The bureaucratic style can be called a weakened version of the authoritarian style, since the boss can give orders through documents, but he delegates the main powers to the drafters and controllers of regulations. In Russia today, the bureaucratic style is characteristic of government controlled, where it is used, as a rule, selectively.

Autocratic leadership style

It is rare and more typical for large companies. The manager has a management apparatus that acts on the basis of his orders, which violates the official chain of command, since the manager indirectly performs the function of a subordinate structure.

A distinctive feature of this management style is underdeveloped personal communication between the boss and subordinates. The autocratic style was often found during the command-administrative system in the Soviet Union, as well as in other states. In our time, it has been preserved in large companies and state corporations.

Patriarchal leadership style

An organization with this leadership style exists according to the principle big family, where its head becomes the leader. He looks after his subordinates, cares and demands respect, gratitude and diligence from them. Within this style, employees are stimulated by creating personal dependence and devotion in them.

The positive side of the patriarchal style is that it can be effective in a low-competent team, where the professionalism and responsibility of the staff is poorly expressed.

The negative side of this management style is that guardianship can serve as an obstacle to the development of initiative.

Charismatic leadership style

Similar to the patriarchal style, but in this case the authority of the boss is higher and more personal. The style is based on the belief of subordinates that their boss is special and unique. Charismatic leader does not delegate basic issues management structures and tries to connect the success of the company with his own qualities, fuels the impression of himself as an outstanding person. There are no clearly defined statutes and rules. The management apparatus is a kind of headquarters, where the boss and his associates have approximately equal responsibilities. Such leaders are especially in demand in critical times of crisis.

In our country, the charismatic style is common in enterprises created on the initiative of the leader himself. As the company grows, there is a need to tighten and regulate the organization of the work process, since the capabilities of charismatic leadership weaken.

Expert opinion

Russian leaders are negatively affected by stereotypes

Galina Rogozina,

Head of Leadership Development Practice at the consulting company RosExpert, Moscow

The CEO, due to the specifics of his activities, often appears as a public figure. And then the typical Russian stereotypes of a leader are applied to him: authoritarian, domineering, demanding, tough. Russian managers are credited with the roles of “ strong hand", "strict but fair" boss. Therefore, trying to conform to prevailing opinions, the Russian leader in public relies only on his own views, turning a blind eye to the point of view of others and not involving them in resolving issues. He is accustomed to assigning responsibilities and depriving him of powers, and in disputes to defend his opinion to the end. If it is possible to do without controversy, the general director shows patience, gives the opportunity to all participants in the meeting to speak, and in the end makes a decision independently and unconditionally.

Organizational management system in modern business conditions

How to Know if an Authoritarian Management Style Is Suitable for You

The ability to adapt to a specific situation by choosing an appropriate management style is not inherent in the leader from the very beginning. In order to learn this, you need to work for a long time and gain experience.

The following factors need to be considered:

Nature of activity

The type of activity of the company's employees has a significant influence on the choice of management style. For example, a liberal management style is perfect for a creative team, but at times it needs to be given a shake-up by a democratic or even authoritarian style. Lack of boundaries for creativity is necessary, but everything is good in moderation. If it turns out that for every mistake of employees the company incurs losses (not necessarily in financially), then it would be more appropriate to use an authoritarian style. However, no team can survive on punishments alone, so don’t forget about rewards.

Difficulty of the task

As a rule, the most difficult problems have many possible solutions. It becomes difficult to choose the most effective one. If it is difficult to say which is better, a democratic management style will do. Solving a problem alone is dangerous; it is much more effective to think about the issue together, considering different points of view.

And if the issue is simple, then the manager is able to solve it on his own, or by entrusting it to employees, but in this case their competence is important.

Team specifics

It is a big plus for a manager if he personally knows all his subordinates. Then it will be easy for him to choose an approach for everyone and reveal their potential. Some work more productively when they are given clear tasks, while others are stronger at improvisation. A prudent boss should keep in mind such characteristics of each employee. Naturally, this is easier to do in a small team.

When a team consists of newcomers who have little understanding of the business, it is better to manage in an authoritarian style. If the majority of the team are professionals, working with a democratic management style will be more effective.

Force majeure situations

Unfortunately, force majeure situations happen to everyone; as a rule, not a single thing can be done without it. The main thing is to be able to find a way out correctly. In emergency conditions, time to make a decision is limited, there is no time to gather a council, and it is better for the manager to make the decision personally. This is inherent in the authoritarian style.

Problems of business management: how mentality affects work

Expert opinion

You need to be able to apply different management styles depending on the situation.

Galina Agureeva,

President of the South Russian Club of HR Managers, Rostov-on-Don

The structure of business in Russia is improving, and in connection with this, the leadership abilities of top managers are developing. Our companies won in terms of margin, price, and assortment. Now our staff is competitive. The degree of professionalism of the work team and their boss has become our main advantage. At the same time, an effective manager must be able to use all management styles. For example, most of today's authoritarian leaders come to the conclusion that it is impossible to keep a tight rein on subordinates all the time - it is necessary to be lenient with them from time to time.

The crisis has become an additional reason to reconsider the leadership style. Many general directors faced the need to fire people, cut compensation packages, freeze projects, and confront employee depression. The heads of companies were simply forced to “go out to the people”, explain what was happening, and use non-material means of motivation. However, to succeed along this path, a leader must clearly understand what results he wants to achieve. Only then will it be clear to him what management and communication technologies need to be applied. At the same time, you cannot speak once and lock yourself in your office again. You need to constantly appear in public. Such activity requires a lot of effort and time and often distracts the head of the company from performing his immediate duties.

The transition to a different leadership style should be smooth. A person needs time to change. You cannot be a despot today and tomorrow pat your subordinates on the shoulder and ask their opinion on every issue. Moreover, it is also easier for employees when changes occur gradually. For example, when managers learning to manage in a coaching style begin to be interested in the point of view of employees, instead of giving instructions, this sometimes causes confusion among subordinates - they are not ready for such a relationship. In such situations, if the head of the company understands that he is authoritarian and non-public, you can first place a more flexible and communicative person next to him, for example an HR director. Otherwise, anyone can take on the role of “idea mastermind” and the situation will get out of control.

As for me, the head of public professional organization he simply cannot be a cabinet leader. He must manage a community of professionals, many of whom enjoy enormous authority in the business environment. Directive communication and a commanding tone are impossible with such people. It must also be remembered that the leader of a public organization does not have a large budget, and therefore, in order to stimulate people to perform complex organizational and intellectual work, it is necessary to skillfully use intangible means. It is necessary to capture the needs of community members, formulate common goals, inspire, guide and organize people, and then constantly keep them active.

How can a leader gain authority in a team?

12 tips on what an authoritarian management style should look like

Don't contradict your principles.

A leader who has achieved love and respect should not neglect his principles. Write a list of things that are completely unacceptable for you when communicating with your team. If, for example, you are determined not to be late for work, communicate this to your team. Punishments for such offenses are another matter. The main thing is not to give in to your principles under any circumstances. Once you turn a blind eye to an employee being late and leave him without sanctions, your rule will immediately lose its meaning for the entire team. It is better not to overdo it with such principles, five are enough, otherwise you can create the image of a despot, and this is of no use to you.

Set clear time frames.

Spend a clearly defined amount of time in any meeting, for example, 30 minutes. It is possible that some issues will require more careful consideration and will take longer, but such cases will be the exception. If employees keep in mind that they have only 30 minutes to resolve the issue, they are almost 100% likely to complete the task within this time frame. Give them an hour to discuss and they will think the whole time. Give a task without limiting the time for solving it, it will not be ready the next day.

Don't be afraid of conflicts in your team.

You should not be afraid of conflicts arising in the team. After all, they can sometimes be beneficial. Even conflict within a team can create healthy competition, which will significantly increase labor efficiency if supported.

Reward everyone for their achievements.

If a solution proposed by an employee turns out to be successful, you should not attribute its success to the entire team or to yourself personally. This can completely discourage you from taking initiative and will reduce your efforts at work.

Treat every employee equally.

Avoid familiarity from subordinates. Absolutely everyone should be at an equal distance from you in communication; you should not make exceptions for anyone. If one of the employees is close to you in real life, try to agree with him that at work you are a boss and a subordinate, and outside of work you are close people.

Everyone should get what they deserve.

Everyone should receive what they deserve. If your subordinates have made a mistake, you don’t need to console them like children. Employees must realize that they are responsible for their misconduct and all consequences fall on their shoulders. But successes should be dealt with according to the same principle: the efforts and achievements of employees should be encouraged. Morally or financially - it's up to you. If a subordinate has achieved success, you should not pretend that this is how it should be. Every team needs emotional reinforcement to be effective.

Don't change yourself.

A person who is good-natured by nature is unlikely to make a strict authoritarian boss. If he tries to become like this, it will look unnatural. The same as if a tough and powerful person, who is listened to outside the work team, tries to look after his subordinates like a father who is lenient towards all mistakes. Choose a management tactic that you feel comfortable with. And remember the main thing: best style management is a balanced mixture of all styles.

Take even more interest in your work.

You should know more than anyone about the responsibilities of your subordinates. Your point of view on a particular work issue should be the highest priority.

Be clear about your instructions.

You need to express yourself very clearly - there is no time for empty talk.

Learn to make decisions.

It is your responsibility to solve problems, you are responsible for them. For this reason, you should communicate your wishes to employees through verbal and non-verbal means.

Monitor the work of your subordinates.

Always be aware of what is happening. Put procedures in place to ensure you always have access to the information you need to evaluate each employee's diligence and performance.

Draw the attention of your subordinates to any cases of non-compliance with the rules.

Let them know what behavior is not acceptable. Insist on strict adherence to the organization's rules.

How to Easily Increase Your Authority: The Secrets of Benjamin Franklin

Authoritarian management style using examples of global companies

Corporation "Chrysler»

In 1978, Lee Iacocca took over as head of the Chrysler Corporation. At that time, the organization faced significant difficulties: its position in the American market was rapidly declining and the situation threatened to lead to bankruptcy.

Lee Iacocca consulted with various experts and came to the conclusion that the main problem of the corporation was the liberal management style. The new leader changed this approach, focusing on a combination of democratic and authoritarian principles. This led to the fact that the Chrysler Corporation was able to short time regain lost positions and become one of the leaders in the automotive industry.

Henry Ford

Henry Ford's approach to organizing his company is curious in many ways. The introduction of conveyor production, the mechanization of transport operations, meticulousness in the selection of personnel, even the study of their living conditions - all this led to the emergence of a powerful, efficient and thought-out structure.

No less remarkable is Ford's dictatorial management style. Any links of managers and department heads had very narrow powers in the company and rather performed the nominal role of intermediaries between the manager and workers than any management functions. Ford persistently rejected almost all intermediate management elements in the company and sought to ensure that the workforce consisted almost entirely of workers.

The success of Ford Motor was ensured by the stability of production, but by the end of the 20s, the social and market environment of America had changed. The lack of flexibility in the company's policy caused difficulties in its adaptation to new circumstances, and its leading position was lost.

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs was a unique figure among leaders. He was not only the media face of the company, but also its ideologist, as well as a tough leader who rejected a democratic management style. However, his authoritarianism did not lie in the absence of intermediate superiors with significant powers. It was in this regard that Jobs gave them sufficient power and freedom. Much more significant is the fact that the leader was the face of Apple, irreplaceable due to his personal charisma and strength of character. In addition to his leadership qualities, he also had significant commercial competence to effectively manage the company.

Bill Gatesand companyMicrosoft

Bill Gates stands out from other leaders because of his democratic approach. But this democracy is selective: the creator of the Microsoft company introduces concessions for representatives of the position he likes most - programmers. It gives them significant freedom, both in terms of their work schedule and in their approach to completing assigned tasks.

However, one should not assume that this approach is based solely on the preferences of Bill Gates. The head of Microsoft is well aware that a programmer, unlike many other employees, does not necessarily have to be at his workplace all day. If his tasks come down to achieving a certain result by a given time, then it is permissible for a person to build his own schedule and create the most comfortable atmosphere around himself.

Thus, Gates’ reward system may at first glance be perceived as an authoritarian management style, where the manager is selective towards employees and forms a certain elite among them, neglecting the interests of others. However, all these actions, on the contrary, are signs of a democratic approach with a maximum degree of freedom based on logic and common sense.