Home Roses The behavioral approach to understanding leadership involves assessment. Leadership theory. Theories of the origin of leadership

Roses

The behavioral approach to understanding leadership involves assessment. Leadership theory. Theories of the origin of leadership

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

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

If we recall the history of mankind or look at today's leaders in economics, culture, sports and, of course, in politics, then the picture will turn out to be quite variegated. Here is the mighty Peter the Great, and the "little" Napoleon, and the ailing Roosevelt, and the "mediocre" Stalin, and the "unbalanced" Hitler, and the fussy Gorbachev. All these people, no doubt, can be called leaders, but how different are their roles in history! How different they themselves are!

What are the personal, social, constitutional, or intellectual characteristics that set them apart from other people we would never call leaders?

Of great importance for the development of this approach were the results of the studies of S. Klubek and B. Bass, who demonstrated that it is practically impossible to make people who are not naturally inclined to leadership. It is possible only through psychotherapy to slightly change some of their character traits (Klubeck, Bass, 1954).

In 1954, E. Borgatta and his colleagues put forward the concept of "great man" ("great man" theory). They studied groups of three people who performed tasks similar in content, and found that the highest rating from the group members, as a rule, was received by the individual with the highest IQ. This took into account leadership abilities, the degree of participation in solving a group problem and the sociometric popularity of a person. Having won the position of a leader in the first of the three experimental groups, the individual retained this position in the next two groups, that is, he became a "great man" already on the basis of his first successful leadership experience. An important circumstance in this experiment was that in all cases only the composition of the participants changed, the group tasks and external conditions remained largely the same (Borgatta, 1954).

R. Kettel and G. Slice argued that leaders differ significantly from the rest of the group in eight of the following personality traits:
1) moral maturity, or the power of "I";
2) influence on others, or domination;
3) integrity of character, or the power of the "Super-I";
4) social competence, enterprise;
5) discernment;
6) independence from strong harmful drives;
7) willpower, control of their behavior;
8) the absence of unnecessary worries and nervous tension.

At the same time, an individual with a low indicator of social competence (shyness, passivity, self-doubt) or with excessive caution and frequent anxiety (that is, with a high indicator on the scale of “absence of unnecessary worries and nervous tension”) is unlikely to become a leader at all (Cattel, Slice, 1954).

Thus, such studies have once again confirmed that not every person can be a leader, but only one who possesses a certain set of personal qualities, a set of specific psychological traits. It is no coincidence that the structural approach is sometimes called "charismatic" theory, since it asserts the innateness of leadership qualities.

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

In the 40s of the last century, the first attempts were made to generalize the results of the structural approach. A number of scientists analyzed numerous facts about the relationship between personality traits and leadership qualities, collected as a result of empirical research.

For the first time in 1940 such an attempt was made by S. Bird in the book "Social Psychology" (Bird, 1940). The generalization of the results led to the conclusion that it is hardly possible to compile a scientifically based list of characteristics. The list of leadership traits mentioned by various researchers had as many as 79 positions, including such traits as initiative, sociability, sense of humor, enthusiasm, confidence, and friendliness. However, if you look at the scatter of these traits among different authors, then none of them occupied a stable position even in several lists: most of them were mentioned only once, a fifth - twice, 10% - three times, and only 5% of the traits were named four times. ... Disagreement existed even with respect to such traits as "willpower" and "intelligence", which gave rise to generally doubt the possibility of making a more or less reliable list.

In 1948, R. Stogdill reviewed 124 studies and noted that the study of the personality traits of leaders continues to provide conflicting results (Stogdill, 1948). Along with social status, he identified a number of characteristics most inherent in leaders: 1. High intelligence; 2. Striving for knowledge; 3. Reliability; 4. Responsibility; 5. Activity; 6. Social participation.

At the same time, Stogdill also noted that in different situations the leaders acting most effectively displayed different personal qualities, and concluded that a person cannot become a leader only because he has a certain set of personal characteristics (Stogdill, 1948).

R. Mann (1959) came to a similar conclusion, also based on the analysis of many studies. At the same time, he attributed the following to personality traits that largely influence the behavior of a person as a leader and determine the attitude of those around him: intellect; ability to adapt; extroversion; the ability to influence people; lack of conservatism; susceptibility; empathy.

Mann found that the importance of these traits and the accuracy of their assessment depend on the position from which the leadership analysis is performed: from the point of view of a group member, from the point of view of an observer (researcher), or from the point of view of the leader's compliance with certain criteria. Thus, the ability to adapt is much more accurately assessed by group members, and extroversion is easier to establish using the method of formal criteria. At the same time, if you focus on the opinion of group members, then extroverts and introverts have an equal chance of becoming unofficial leaders. Thus, the role of individual character traits in leadership is ambiguous and largely depends on the research position and context in which leadership is implemented.

In a later review of 20 structural studies of leadership, J. Geier identified about 80 characteristics of an effective leader, but most of these characteristics are also found in only one or two studies, and only five of them are mentioned in four or more works (Geier, 1967).
After the publication of Stogdill, a fairly stable opinion began to form that the theory of traits was unproductive. Researchers who are fond of describing leadership traits risk overlooking other important factors of leadership, such as its social context.

According to S. Kossen, to become a good leader, an individual must have the following characteristics: the ability to creatively solve problems; the ability to convey ideas to followers; persuasiveness; the ability to listen carefully to other people and listen to their advice; a strong desire to achieve a goal; sociability, a wide range of interests; honesty, directness, constructiveness in relations with followers; self-esteem, self-confidence; enthusiasm, high discipline; the ability to "hold on well" under all circumstances and maintain internal balance (Kossen, 1983).

According to the results of studies carried out in a number of British government agencies, R. Chapman singles out insight, wealth of ideas, common sense, prudence, the ability to express one's thoughts, expressiveness of oral speech, sociability, an adequate level of self-esteem, perseverance, firmness as the characteristics necessary for a leader. poise, maturity (Chapman, 1984).

A. Lawton and E. Rose cite the following ten qualities necessary for a leader:
1) foresight - the ability to shape the image and objectives of the organization;
2) the ability to prioritize - the ability to distinguish between what is necessary and what is simply important;
3) incentivizing followers by expressing recognition and rewarding success;
4) mastery of the art of interpersonal relations: the ability to listen, prompt, the ability to be confident in their actions;
5) "political instinct", the ability to understand the needs of their environment and those in power;
6) resilience - steadfastness in the face of an opponent;
7) charisma, or charm, is something that defies definition, but captivates people;
8) the ability to take risks in such matters as the transfer of part of the work, authority to followers;
9) flexibility - the ability to respond to new ideas and experiences;
10) decisiveness, firmness when circumstances require it (Lawton, Rose, 1993, p. 94).

M. Gunter deduces six main characteristics inherent in a charismatic leader: "energy exchange", or suggestive abilities, the ability to influence people, "radiate" energy and charge others with it; "Bewitching appearance"; "Independence of character"; “Good rhetorical ability and some artistry” (Gunther, 1979).

According to J. Kotter, people are more likely to succumb to the influence of those who have admirable traits of character, who are their ideal and whom they would like to imitate (Kotter, 1977).

Based on many years of research, W. Bennis proposed to divide leadership qualities into four groups:
attention management, that is, the ability to present a goal, future result or direction of activity in such a way that it is attractive and motivating for followers;
meaning management, that is, the ability to convey your ideas and vision so that they are understood and carry deep social and personal meaning;
trust management, that is, the leader's ability to overcome fears, mistrust, communication barriers that prevent the leaders from fully trusting their leader;
self-management, that is, the ability to objectively assess their strengths and weaknesses, skillfully compensating for their shortcomings with the merits of their subordinates (Bennis, 1984).

The provisions of the structural approach formed the basis of what appears to be the most reliable and valid method for selecting management personnel - the assessment center (Zankovsky, Zankovskaya, 2006). An assessment center is a complex, standardized technology based on the use of a wide range of situations (exercises) that simulate the professional activity of a manager. This technology is designed to identify the management potential of participants for professional selection, promotion and development. At the same time, managers are assessed according to 15–25 structural characteristics that predict success in subsequent activities in a higher position. The characteristics assessed during the assessment center may include the following: oral and written communication skills; human interaction skills; personal influence; creativity; objective self-esteem; objective perception of others; flexibility of behavior; maintaining the ability to act effectively in uncertain situations; resistance to stress; energy; ability to make decisions; the need for approval from the management; the need for peer approval; high internal standards in relation to their work; need for growth; the need for security; flexibility of goal setting; priority of work; orientation to the values of the organization; realistic expectations; the ability to work without immediate remuneration; a wide range of interests; organization and ability to plan.

Obviously, the overarching goal of the structural approach - to find a universal set of characteristics of an effective manager for all occasions - is hardly feasible. Every time, every society, every group forms or demands its own leaders, and at other times and under different conditions, a cruel tyrant could, at best, head a funeral service bureau in a quiet provincial town.

The frustration with the theory of traits was so great that even the theory of a "leader without features" was put forward to counter it. But she also did not give any answer to the question of where leaders come from and what is the origin of the very phenomenon of leadership.

In recent years, there has been some renewed interest in the structural approach within the framework of charismatic leadership. In accordance with early Christian tradition, "charisma" is a term for the special, God-given abilities that distinguish a person and elevate him above other people.

Charisma is a form of influence a leader has on followers / followers through a number of specific personality traits. These qualities include self-confidence, a sensitive response to the dynamics of changes in the external environment, a vision of the possibility of an extraordinary, creative problem-solving, the ability to clearly convey this vision to followers / followers, the ability to induce them to take action; non-standard and creative behavior in realizing one's vision (House, 1977; Meindl, 1992).

For the first time, M. Weber spoke about charismatic leadership, believing that it is charisma that is the main motivator for followers / subordinates to perform extraordinary actions (Weber, 1947). According to Weber, it is the charismatic leader who is able to play a key role in the life of the organization.

The few charismatic leadership models attempt to identify the stages of development of charismatic leadership in the context of the leader-follower / subordinate relationship. According to L. Conger (1989), at the first stage, the leader assesses the situation and formulates the ideas that must be realized. At the second stage, he coordinates his ideas with the followers. The third stage is related to building trust and consistency of actions. At the fourth stage, the charismatic leader serves as a role model and “motivator” for others. A charismatic leader is able to instill in the followers the belief in the possibility of realizing their plans.

In most discussions on the problem of charismatic leadership, the focus is on the concept of "vision", that is, the ability of a leader, even in a hopeless situation, to see prospects and solutions that do not even come to the minds of others. It is in times of crisis that the charismatic leader clearly and definitely proclaims what actions need to be taken and what the consequences of these actions will be. More often than not, in the face of stress, uncertainty, and chaos, the followers hand over the reins to those who are able to correct the crisis situation. The leader is given the opportunity to do what is needed to correct the situation or solve the problem. In many cases, the leader is not restricted in any way and is allowed to use all the necessary means at his discretion (Brysin, 1981; Fink, 1986; Mitroff et al., 1987).

The crisis also provides opportunities for the leader to provide unconventional actions for the followers. A charismatic leader, born of a crisis, has more freedom to inspire those who follow him to find ways out of it. Some of the methods, procedures and tactics of followers can be disordered, chaotic, and beyond the usual course of action. Nevertheless, in a crisis situation, a charismatic leader inspires, supports those who follow, and usually recognizes their actions as correct.

Modern concepts of charismatic leadership are so abstract that it is premature to speak of them as a serious scientific theory. One of the leading experts in the field of management, P. Drucker, believes that “charisma inevitably leads a leader into oblivion,” and the foresight of charismatic leaders, divorced from reality, more often brings harm to the organization than good (Drucker, 1954).

Modern socio-economic conditions require constant changes from the organization, the search for new solutions and opportunities, the fuller use of the potential of all employees. This made psychologists pay attention to those characteristics of a leader that help him to act effectively in new conditions. These characteristics are most fully expressed in the concept of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is aimed at motivating the activities of the followers / subordinates to achieve ambitious and lofty goals and self-realization (Avolio, Bass, 1988). A leader's vision, conviction, and dedication are so compelling that they inspire followers to tackle the most difficult and challenging tasks. Such a leader motivates others, emphasizing in their perception the importance and value of the goal, giving them the opportunity to combine their personal interests with a common goal, creating an atmosphere of trust and striving for self-development.

B. Bass (1985) identified five characteristics of transformational leaders:
1. Charisma. A leader inspires respect and enthusiasm among followers for his ability to quickly understand the essence of the problem and present his vision of its effective solution.
2. Personalization of attention. The leader pays attention to the needs of the followers and proposes specific projects, in the implementation of which the followers grow personally.
3. Stimulating mental activity. The leader helps the followers to rethink the usual ways of studying the situation, encourages their creativity.
4. Conditional remuneration. The leader informs the followers of what they must do to receive the reward they prefer.
5. Management in exceptional cases. The leader allows the follower to work on the problem and does not intervene until the goal is achieved within a reasonable time frame and cost of the work.

However, charisma alone is not enough for successful transformational leadership. You also need analytical skills, communication skills, objective perception of oneself and others.

In general, the structural approach faced a large number of unsolvable problems:
1) the selection of the optimal set of characteristics turned out to be impracticable;
2) the approach completely ignores the leadership context - the group;
3) the approach failed to reveal the causal relationship between leadership and individual personality traits (do certain traits characterize a leader, or does successful leadership itself form specific traits, for example, self-confidence);
4) in the context of this approach, individual traits appear as static formations, devoid of development;
5) the low correlation (in the range from +0.25 to +0.35) of personality traits with behavioral manifestations of leadership, strictly speaking, does not allow considering these characteristics as reliable predictors.

And yet, despite all the shortcomings, this approach invariably attracts the interest of practical management. Even imperfect tests built on the achievements of a structured approach provide an opportunity for professional selection of leaders, improving the workforce of the organization. Especially often, testing is aimed at identifying the severity of the following five characteristics, which consistently demonstrate a high positive correlation with successful leadership:
1. Intelligence.
2. Dominance.
3. Self-confidence.
4. High activation (energy) level.
5. Professional knowledge and skills relevant to the task at hand.

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

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

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

1. Introduction

2. The approach of the position of personal qualities

3. Behavioral approach to leadership, behavioral approach theory

3.1 D. McGregor's theory

3.2 Levin's research

3.3 Fiedler's theory

3.4 Mitchell-House theory

3.5 Life cycle theory

4. Conclusion

5. References

1. Introduction

Nowadays, many enterprises have become so cumbersome that workers lose the possibility of human contact with their employers. In some manufacturing industries, a high degree of automation leads to the fact that workers are deprived, for example, of a sense of satisfaction and belonging to the product in the manufacture of which they invested their labor. Many employees do not even have any idea what purpose the customer is using their product for. The robotic nature of a significant portion of their labor prevents self-esteem from developing in them. In the words of the great Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky, "if it were necessary to reduce a person to a complete insignificance, for this it would be enough to instruct him to do completely useless work."

Human relations are in many ways nothing more than a manifestation of goodwill and common sense in practice. To a large extent, the success of an entrepreneur in the field of human relations depends on such things as making a workplace pleasant in a supermarket or an attractive job in a factory. Entrepreneurs often ignore these simple things, especially when their business is still expanding. At the initial stage of entrepreneurship, they, as a rule, have to take care only of themselves, and perhaps of their small number of staff. A firm consciousness of a single purpose binds together the owner of the enterprise and the staff. But as new employees appear, this connection gradually weakens if the entrepreneur himself does not pay due attention to the so-called human problems.

The stamp of futility rests on many types of labor performed in factories, department stores and offices. Many workers feel as if they are completely subservient to giant, faceless machines that rob them of their self-esteem and individuality. Due to such a degradation of the human spirit, the science of human relations was born, which should look for ways to revive the workers' sense of their own usefulness and thus contribute to an increase in their productivity. One of the principles of human relations says that "a person's life can be made more enjoyable if his work is more meaningful."

2. Personal approach

Leadership, leadership became the object of research when, at the beginning of the a twentieth century began to study management for the first time. However, it was only between 1930 and 1950 that study of leadership in the cru NS scale and on a systematic basis. These early studies aimed to identify the properties or personality characteristics of effective p at leaders. According to the personality theory of leadership, also defined by O rum common to all personal qualities. Developing this idea, it can be argued that if these qualities could be revealed, people could learn to educate NS take them in and thus become effective leaders. Nekot O some of these traits studied are the level of intelligence and knowledge, impressive appearance, honesty, common sense, initiative, social and economic education and a high degree of confidence n ness in itself.

In the 40s, scientists began to study collected facts about the relationship between personal qualities and leadership. Unfortunately, despite hundreds of studies conducted, they have not come to a consensus on the set of qualities that certainly distinguish a great leader. In 1948, Stogdill made a comprehensive review of leadership research, where he noted that the study of personality continues to produce conflicting results. He found that leaders tended to be distinguished by intelligence, desire for knowledge, reliability, accountability, activism, social participation, and socioeconomic status.

However, Stogdill also noted that effective leaders displayed different personalities in different situations. Then he drew a conclusion that today's behavioral scientists would agree with: "A person does not become a leader just because he possesses a certain set of personal properties."

Conclusion that there is no such set of personal qualities that I will T common in all effective leaders, often cited as evidence a tela that the effectiveness of leadership is situational in nature. O d however, Stogdill himself believes that his point of view does not sufficiently emphasize the personality T the new nature of leadership. He argues that there is strong evidence that different situations require work. s personal abilities and qualities. While he does not call for a return to a personal approach to leadership, Stogdill concludes that “structured at the personal qualities of a leader should be correlated with the personal qualities, activities and tasks of his subordinate n nyh ".

3. NSa behavioral approach to leadership, behavioral theory

An important contribution of the behavioral approach to leadership theory is that it helped to analyze and classify leadership styles, i.e. how the leader behaves with his subordinates. Leadership style in the context of management is the habitual manner in which a leader behaves towards subordinates in order to influence and motivate them to achieve the goals of the organization. The degree to which a manager delegates authority, the types of power he or she uses, and his or her concern, primarily about human relations or, above all, about the performance of a task, all reflect the leadership style that characterizes the leader. According to the traditional classification system, the style can be autocratic (this is one extreme) and liberal (the other extreme), or it will be a work-centered style and a person-centered style.

3.1 Theory D. McGregora

The autocrat leader in managing leadership is authoritarian. An autocratic leader has enough power to impose his will on performers, and, when necessary, does not hesitate to resort to it. The autocrat deliberately appeals to the needs of the lower level of his subordinates. and based on the suggestion that this is the same level at which they operate e reign. Douglas McGregor, a renowned leadership scholar, called the pre d the premise of the autocratic leader in relation to the workers by the theory "X". According to the "X" theory:

People initially do not like to work and avoid work whenever possible.

People have no ambition, and they try to get rid of responsibility, preferring to be led.

Most of all, people want security.

To get people to work, it is necessary to use coercion, control and the threat of punishment.

Based on these initial assumptions, the autocrat usually centralizes authority as much as possible, structures the work of subordinates, and gives them little freedom to make decisions. The autocrat also tightly directs all work within his competence and, in order to ensure that the work is done, he can exert psychological pressure, as a rule, threaten. When an autocrat avoids negative coercion and instead uses a reward, he or she is called a supportive autocrat. He shows active concern for the mood and well-being of his subordinates. He or she may even agree to allow or encourage them to participate in scheduling assignments. But he or she retains the actual power to make and execute decisions.

A democratic leader's view of workers is different from an autocratic leader's. McGregor called them the "Y" theory:

Labor is a natural process. If conditions are favorable, people will not only accept responsibility, they will strive for it.

If people are attached to organizational goals, they will use self-management and self-control.

Involvement is a function of goal achievement reward.

Creative problem-solving skills are common, and the intellectual potential of the average person is only partially utilized.

Because of these assumptions, a democratic leader prefers mechanisms of influence that appeal to higher-level needs: the need for belonging, high purpose, autonomy, and self-expression. A democratic leader avoids imposing his will on his subordinates.

Organizations dominated by a democratic style are characterized by a high degree of decentralization of powers. Subordinates take an active part in decision-making and enjoy wide freedom in performing tasks. Quite often, by explaining the goals of the organization, the leader allows the subordinates to define their own goals in accordance with those that he formulated.

Because a democratic leader assumes that people are motivated by higher-level needs - for social interaction, success, and self-expression - he or she tries to make the responsibilities of subordinates more attractive. In a sense, he or she tries to create a situation in which people, to some extent, motivate themselves, because their work is inherently rewarding. He or she tries to teach subordinates to delve into the problems of the organization, give them adequate information and show them how to seek and evaluate alternative solutions.

3.2 Levin's research

Perhaps the earliest study of the effectiveness of leadership styles was conducted by Kurt Lewin and colleagues. This research was conducted before McGregor described executives in light of his X and Y theories. Levin's subjects were 10-year-old boys. These boys were divided into several groups and assigned to different clubs; each was led by an adult with autocratic, democratic, and liberal leadership styles. Subordinates are given almost complete freedom to define their goals and control their work. Authoritarian leadership is characterized by a high degree of personal power of the leader: the leader determines all the strategies of the group; no authority is delegated to the group. Democratic leadership is characterized by power-sharing and worker participation in governance; responsibility is not concentrated, but distributed. Liberal leadership is characterized by liberal leadership participation; the group has complete freedom to make its own decisions.

In his famous study, Levin found that authoritarian leadership did more work than democratic leadership. However, on the other side of the scale were low motivation, less originality, less friendliness in groups, lack of groupthink, more aggressiveness towards both the leader and other group members, more suppressed anxiety, and at the same time more dependent and submissive behavior. Under liberal leadership, the workload decreases, the quality of work decreases, more play appears, and polls show preference for the democratic leader.

More recent research has not fully supported the findings that autocratic leadership was more productive but less satisfied than democratic leadership. However, the study e Levin's research provided a basis for other scientists to search for a behavioral school for a style of behavior that can lead to high productivity and high levels of satisfaction.

3.3 Fiedler's theory

Fiedler's Situational Leadership Model: The Fiedler's model was an important contribution to the further development of the theory, as it focused on the situation and identified three factors that influence the behavior of the leader. These factors are:

The relationship between managers and team members implies the loyalty shown by subordinates, their trust in their leader and the attractiveness of the leader's personality to the performers.

The structure of the task implies the familiarity of the task, the clarity of its formulation and structuring, and not vague and lack of structure.

Positional authority is the amount of legal authority associated with a manager's position that allows him to use remuneration, as well as the level of support that a formal organization provides to the manager. Fiedler believes that while each situation has its own leadership style, the style of one leader or another remains generally constant. Since Fiedler assumes that the person cannot adapt their leadership style to the situation, he suggests placing the leader in situations that best suit a stable leadership style. This will ensure the proper balance between the demands of the situation and the personal qualities of the leader, which leads to high productivity and satisfaction.

Consider 2 potential situations. The first is the most favorable for the leader. In it, the task is well structured, the official authority is large, and the relationship between the manager and subordinates is also good, which creates the maximum opportunity for influencing. In contrast, 2 the situation is the least favorable, because official powers are small, relations with subordinates are poor, and the task is not structured. Interestingly, Fiedler's research suggests that the most effective leadership style in both of these extremes is task orientation. This seeming inconsistency can be explained with a spoon. The potential advantages of a task-oriented leadership style are speed of action and decision-making, unity of purpose and strict control over the work of subordinates, then for the success of production, an autocratic style is initially an effective tool for achieving the goals of the organization, provided that the performers are willing to cooperate with the manager. In this situation, a task-oriented leadership style is most appropriate, because the relationship between the leader and the subordinates is already good. Therefore, the leader does not need to spend a lot of time maintaining this relationship. In addition, since the leader has significant power and the task is routine, subordinates obey the leader's instructions and need little help. Therefore, the role of the leader in this situation is to say what needs to be done.

In the second situation, the authority of the leader is so small that the performers will almost certainly resist any influence as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Here the authoritarian style will be most effective, because it maximizes the direct control of the leader, which is absolutely necessary for the correct direction of the efforts of subordinates.

A people-centered leadership style is likely to enhance the leader's ability to influence. Showing concern for the well-being of subordinates would actually improve the relationship between the leader and the subordinate. Provided that subordinates are motivated by the needs of a higher level, the use of this leadership style can provide an opportunity for the leader to stimulate the personal interest of performers in a particular job. This would be ideal because a self-directed workforce requires tight, tight oversight and also minimizes the risk of losing control.

Like all other models, Fiedler's model is not without flaws and will not receive full support from other theorists. By determining that a task-oriented leadership style would be most appropriate in the most or least favorable situations and that a human-oriented style would perform best in moderately favorable situations, Fiedler laid the foundation for the future situational management approach.

According to one of the authors, “Fiedler's situational approach is a great way to emphasize the importance of the interaction between the leader, the performers and the situation. His approach warns against the simplistic notion that there is one optimal leadership style, regardless of the circumstances. Moreover, evidence from numerous studies suggests that a situational approach can have practical implications for the selection, recruitment and placement of leaders. It is clear that the situational approach has already made and continues to make a significant contribution to the understanding of the concept of leadership. "

3.4 Mitchell-House theory

The path-target approach of Mitchell and House. Another situational leadership model, much like Fiedler's and having much in common with expectation theory related to motivation, was developed by Terence Mitchell and Robert House. The term "path - goal" refers to such concepts of the theory of expectations (expectations) as effort - productivity, productivity - results (reward) and the perceived value of reward in the eyes of the subordinate. Essentially, the path-to-goal approach attempts to explain the impact that managerial behavior has on subordinates' motivation, satisfaction, and productivity. According to this approach, a leader can encourage subordinates to achieve the goals of organizations, influence on the way to achieve these goals.

Below are some of the techniques that a leader can use to influence the ways or means of achieving goals:

An explanation of what is expected of the subordinate.

Providing support, mentoring and removal of blockages.

Directing the efforts of subordinates to achieve goals.

Creation of such needs from subordinates, which are within the competence of the manager, that can be satisfied.

Meeting the needs of subordinates when the goal is achieved.

House initially considered two leadership styles for his model:

The support style is similar to the person-centered or relationship-centered style.

This is the style we find in a friendly and easy-to-handle leader who is concerned about the status, well-being, and needs of his subordinates.

The instrumental style is similar to the work- or task-oriented style.

This leadership style is manifested in the fact that subordinates are told what they want from them, they are given specific instructions on what and how to do, thereby making the role of the team leader understandable to everyone.

Professor House later incorporated two more styles:

Participatory style is characterized by the fact that the leader shares the information he has with his subordinates and uses their ideas and suggestions to make decisions in the group.

The achievement-oriented style is characterized by setting a rather intense goal for subordinates, the expectation that they will work to the fullest extent of their capabilities.

Situational factors. The leadership style that best suits the situation and is preferred by subordinates depends on two situational factors: personal qualities of subordinates, as well as requirements and influences from the external environment. When subordinates have a strong need for self-esteem and belonging, the support style will be most appropriate. However, if subordinates have a strong need for autonomy and self-expression, they are more likely to prefer the instrumental style.

Another personal characteristic. Influencing the choice of conformity NS leadership style is the belief of subordinates that he or O are able to influence the external environment. Behavioral scientists naz NS This characteristic is used as a control point. At its core, a checkpoint refers to the manager's degree of confidence that his or her action is T vii affect what happens to them. Individuals who believe they do influence their environment prefer leadership styles that imply learning. a the ability of subordinates to make decisions. Those who believe they are weak T the events taking place around them, that these events are controlled by fate, or fortune, they prefer the authoritative R ny or instrumental style.

Achievement-oriented leadership style is considered more co- appropriate to situations where subordinates strive for a high level of performance and are confident that they are able to achieve that level. The style focused on the participation of subordinates in decision-making is more consistent with situations where subordinates seek to participate in the management process.

As with Fiedler's model, more research is needed to validate the path-to-goal approach. Researchers in these areas generally find the results to be encouraging. However, “theory is not a definitive answer to the question of leadership effectiveness. This management phenomenon is so important and complex that one can hardly expect a universal approach to leadership in the coming years, if such is possible at all. "

3.5 Life cycle theory

Paul Hersey and Ken Blanche developed a situational leadership theory, which they called life cycle theory, according to which the most effective To Leadership styles depend on the "maturity" of the performers. The maturity of individuals and groups implies the ability to be responsible n for their behavior, desire to achieve a set goal, as well as education and experience in relation to a specific task that needs to be performed l a thread.

Individuals and groups exhibit different levels of "maturity" depending on the task at hand. The leader determines this maturity by assessing the desire for achievement, the ability to take responsibility for behavior, as well as the level of education and experience of past work on the scientific tasks. Based on this subjective assessment, the leader determines the relative maturity of a particular person or group.

There are four leadership styles that correspond to a particular level of maturity of the performers: “give directions”, “sell”, “participate”, “delegate”. The first style requires the leader to combine a high degree of task orientation and a low degree of human relations. This style is called “giving directions”; it is suitable for subordinates with a low level of maturity. Here, this style is quite appropriate because subordinates are either unwilling or unable to take responsibility for a specific task and require appropriate instructions, guidance and strict control.

The second style - “sell” - implies that the leader's style is equally and highly focused on both the task and the relationship. In this situation, subordinates want to accept responsibility, but cannot, since the region a give an average level of maturity. Thus, the leader chooses the lead e task oriented to give specific instructions to a subordinate n about what to do and how to do it. At the same time, the head of d keeps their desire and enthusiasm to carry out the task under their responsibility T veracity.

The third style is characterized by a moderately high degree of maturity. In this situation, subordinates can, but do not want to be responsible for the task. For a leader who combines a low degree of focus on the task and in A high degree - for human relations, the most suitable style will be based on the participation of subordinates in decision-making, because subordinates know what and how to do, and they do not need specific instructions. However, they must also be willing and aware of their involvement in the task. Leaders can increase the motivation and involvement of their people by empowering them to participate in decision-making, as well as by providing them with assistance and without imposing any instructions. In essence, the leader and employees make decisions together, and this contributes to their greater participation and involvement.

The fourth style is characterized by a high degree of maturity. In this situation, subordinates can and want to be responsible. The delegation style is most suitable here, and the leader's behavior can combine a low degree of focus on the task and on human relations. This style is appropriate in situations with mature performers, as subordinates know what to do and how, and are aware of their high degree of involvement in the task. As a result, the manager allows his subordinates to act on their own: they do not need support or guidance, because they are able to do it all by themselves in relation to each other.

Like other situational models, the Hersey and Blanchard Life Cycle Model recommends a flexible, adaptive leadership style. But like other leadership models, it has not been universally accepted.

4. Conclusion

manager management leadership behavioral

Leadership, like management, is to some extent an art. Perhaps this is the reason why the researchers failed to develop or substantiate any theory. We share a situational approach to leadership and believe that with appropriate training, leaders can learn to choose a style appropriate to the situation. In some situations, leaders can be effective in their work by structuring tasks, planning and organizing tasks and roles, and showing concern and support. In other situations, the manager may consider it more correct, to exert influence, allowing subordinates to to some extent participate in decision-making, and not to structure the conditions for carrying out the work. Over time, these same leaders will find it necessary to change their style to accommodate the changing nature of the task, the challenges they face, pressure from senior management, and many other organizational factors.

Very few of those who choose a leadership career agree to stay in the same job for many years. Many actively seek to advance to positions with greater responsibility. A leader who has chosen a certain leadership style and adheres strictly to it, because this one has proven itself well in the past, may not be able to exercise effective leadership in another situation in a higher position, where all of his direct reports are focused on achievement.

A similar situation can arise, as is often the case, if a manager is transferred from a unit with highly structured tasks to a unit with unstructured, creative tasks. Of course, some people have a more structured personality than others, and they are less able to respond to various situations that require changes in behavior. While further research is needed in this area, previous research has shown that effective leaders respond flexibly to situations. changing styles.

Leaders who do not work in their home country need to be especially aware of the cultural limitations of a particular leadership style. Research shows huge differences between the styles of leadership that are preferred in different countries. It provides food for thought, which is especially important in today's world of multinational corporations. Europeans are usually influenced by tradition, and they are more susceptible to autocratic leadership than Americans. On the other hand, although the Japanese culture places a high value on tradition and loyalty, the Japanese make extensive and effective use of employee participation in decision-making.

A leader who wants to work as efficiently as possible, get everything he can from his subordinates, cannot afford to apply one style of leadership throughout his career. Rather, the leader must learn to use all the styles, methods, and types of influence that are most appropriate for a particular situation. If someone were asked to name one, “best” leadership style, it would be “adaptive,” or, as Arjiris aptly put it, “reality-oriented” style. In describing this reality-oriented style, Arjiris notes that it: “is evolving in many directions. In addition, decision rules are being developed that can serve as guidelines for how and when to change leadership styles.

If you analyze the relevant literature, you can replace that the considered "effective" leadership style varies depending on the situation ... no one leadership style can be considered the most effective ... Therefore, effective leaders are those who can behave differently depending on the requirements of reality ".

5. References

1. Vikhansky O.S. , Naumov A.I. Management. M., 2001.

3. Grove E.S. Highly efficient management. M., 2003.

4. Duncan W.D. Fundamental ideas in management. M., 2000.

6. Karlof B. Challenge leaders. M., 2003.

7. Land P.E. Management is the art of managing. M., 2001.

8.Mescon M., Albert M., Hedouri F. Fundamentals of Management M. 2003.

10. Francis D., Woodcock M. Liberated manager. M., 2004.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Behavioral Approaches to Leadership Problems (Leadership Styles)

Behavioral approaches to the problem of leadership emerged almost simultaneously with the descriptive ones (more precisely, immediately after them) and represented, to a certain extent, an alternative aimed at overcoming the costs of the latter. The founders of this direction proceeded from the fact that, firstly, behavioral features, in contrast to personal qualities, manifest themselves directly in the process of activity and interpersonal interaction, and therefore, it is much easier and more reliable to be recorded by relatively simple methods (such as included and external observation), suitable to use (which is important) both in laboratory and in the field, and, secondly, the relationship between specific types of behavioral activity and the actual results achieved seems to be more direct, and therefore, again, quite easily, objectively and reliably recorded by compared with the relationship between the results and the personal qualities of the subject of activity.

The first studies of behavioral approaches are traditionally associated with a series of experiments carried out in 1939 by K. Levin, R. Lippit and R. White. Note that these studies were directly aimed at studying the interaction between adults and younger schoolchildren (strictly speaking, even at studying the manifestations of aggressiveness in 10-year-old boys, depending on the style of behavior of the adult group leader). However, the results obtained almost immediately attracted the attention of organizational psychologists. As part of the experiment carried out by K. Levin and his colleagues, in one of the children's groups, the leader made all decisions individually, demanded unswerving fulfillment of instructions, strict adherence to existing norms, built a system of influence on the wards in the rigid logic of "carrot and stick", that is ... purposefully implemented an authoritarian model of behavior. In another group, the leader tried to organize a broad discussion of the tasks facing the group and ways to solve them, to involve all participants in the management of activities and its regulation, focused on the successes of the group members, and not on mistakes and failures, i.e. implemented a democratic behavioral model. Later, in the experiment, a third behavioral model was tested - liberal, or permissive - the leader withdrew himself from managing the group and intervened only when the participants asked him directly.

As a result, it turned out that under an authoritarian leadership, the group effectively solves the assigned tasks in the presence of the leader and turns out to be completely incompetent in his absence. At the same time, the majority of the group members developed a persistently negative attitude towards the leader. At the same time, the group, in which the leader adhered to a democratic style, worked effectively both with his direct participation and in his absence. The absolute majority of the members of the group have formed a consistently positive attitude towards the leader. In the group with a liberal leadership style, the performance results were significantly lower than in the two previous ones. At the same time, the attitude towards the leader was moderately positive.

The ideas of K. Levin and his colleagues were further developed in a series of studies carried out in the 1950s. at the universities of Ohio and Michigan already directly in the organizational context (note that one of the leaders of the study at the University of Ohio was the above-mentioned R. Stogdill). In both cases, on the basis of a preliminary analysis, detailed questionnaires were developed, aimed at identifying preferred behavioral reactions in various situations related to managerial activity. These questionnaires were sent by mail to managers of various levels, which made it possible to obtain an extremely large array of primary data for subsequent analysis. As a result, in both cases, two predominant type of behavior.

First type behavior is mainly focused on the organization's personnel, attention to the needs of employees, the creation of a positive psychological climate, effective interpersonal interaction, relationships of mutual trust and support.
Second type behavior is focused on performing work assignments, achieving targets, creating a detailed control system and neutralizing management.

The study authors at the University of Michigan labeled these types as employee-centered and work-centered behaviors, and their Ohio University counterparts as attentive and initiatory behaviors. We emphasize that the meaningfully relevant types of behavior described in both studies practically coincide, which confirms the relevance of the data obtained.

The key difference between the two proposed schemes is that researchers at the University of Michigan viewed these two types of behavior as two rigidly opposing alternatives, while their colleagues at Ohio University concluded that, firstly, depending on the situation, one and the same leader can implement both the first and the second behavioral model and, secondly, there are options in which, to one degree or another, both types of behavior are realized simultaneously.

A kind of logical result of this line of leadership research was the development by R. Blake and D. Moughton in 1966 of the so-called leadership grid, which is an attempt at a dialectical approach to the problem of the relationship between the two types of behavior identified in the described studies.

(in the Russian-language literature there are variants of the name "management grid", "management grid") is a two-dimensional matrix shown in the figure.

The ordinate represents the degree of the manager's orientation toward solving production problems (attention to production), the abscissa represents the degree of the orientation toward personnel (attention to people). In both cases, the variable under study is described in terms of significance from low to high in a coordinate system from 1 to 9. The latter is of significant practical importance due to the fact that the authors of the "grid" have developed a standardized questionnaire (there is a Russian-language adapted version), allowing you to accurately position a specific leader or organization in a given coordinate system. At the same time, R. Blake and D. Moughton identified and substantively characterized five main management styles, which are a kind of "reference" points in the assessment of a particular leader. Let's consider each of them sequentially.

Weak management characterized by a lack of attention equally to both production and personnel (see figure), with a sufficient degree of obviousness states not just the ineffectiveness of management, but a very real threat of the collapse of the organization. Note that such a position is by no means speculative, necessary from the point of view of formal logic within the framework of the approach under consideration, but it is often found in practice in cases where the manager considers current activities as temporary and insignificant in terms of solving real personal and career problems. Note that this kind of attitudes are characteristic of members of bureaucratized, nomenclature systems, in which the priority condition for personal and professional success is not the result of the individual's real activity, but his place in the system of official and informal relations within the authoritarian hierarchy.

Power management represents the quintessence of an authoritarian management style. At the same time, all attention is focused on the indicators of current activities. The main task is to ensure that everything works "like clockwork". If we talk about the real relationship between the functions of leadership and leadership in the organization, then this management style is most adequate for the effective solution of operational management problems. At the same time, he is extremely conservative and not only does not contribute, but also creates serious resistance to the development and implementation of innovations, quite obviously leads to emotional burnout of employees, reduces the quality of management due to excessive control, and contributes to the bureaucratization of the organization.

Center Management, or midway style, characterized by the desire for harmony and stability. The manager constantly pays attention to both production and personnel. He seeks to support the already established approaches to ensuring the effectiveness of current activities, the system of formal and informal relationships both between individual employees and between departments. With this leadership style, an organization can justify its existence for a long time, but strategic breakthroughs are unlikely. This management style is most typical for organizations in the stages of dominance and survival. Note that the authors of the leadership grid identified this management style along with team management as the most preferable.

Country club management. Note that the "country club" in this context means closed institutions designed to organize a pleasant pastime for wealthy people. This definition fully reveals the essence of this management style, which is focused on creating an atmosphere of increased emotional comfort in the organization, mutual unconditional acceptance, trust, as well as belonging to the "elite". In these conditions, the overriding task of the organization is to maintain the status quo by any means. The process and results of production activities on the part of employees are paid attention, the minimum necessary in the framework of its solution.

Team management - a dialectical management style based on the understanding that the tasks aimed at production and the personnel of the organization are interrelated. This style is the closest in its content to the democratic style of management. It involves a wide delegation of authority (and, consequently, responsibility), taking into account the individual needs of employees within the framework of solving a general organizational problem, widespread use of teamwork methods, minimization of formal control and bureaucratic burden on production. Most adequate for the development and implementation of large-scale innovations. Most often found in organizations that are in the stage of active growth.

The leadership grid and the associated questionnaire are actively used in the practice of organizational psychology and organizational consulting to this day due to its simplicity, clarity, and a fairly wide range of applications. It should be especially noted that this approach makes it possible to practically separate the behavioral styles that are most adequate for performing the functions of leadership and leadership. However, it is not devoid of some serious drawbacks. First of all, R. Blake and D. Moughton were unable to answer the question, to what extent the revealed behavioral styles are stable, whether they are core personal attitudes or vary (and if so, within what limits) depending on the circumstances. In the latter case, another fundamentally important question arises - how arbitrary is this kind of variability? In other words, the leader, depending on the specific situational context, deliberately chooses the leadership style that seems to him most preferable in the given conditions, or is it largely forced under the influence of external factors? The lack of answers to these questions significantly limits the possibilities of using the leadership grid for predictive purposes, as well as in the development of coaching and other programs aimed at developing leadership potential and increasing the effectiveness of management activities.

Concluding the review of behavioral approaches, one cannot but dwell on one more point. In the domestic literature, the most common is the classification of management styles, based on the original classification of K. Levin. At the same time, a mixed style has been added to the traditional - democratic, authoritarian, permissive (liberal). The latter assumes the use of all three previous ones, depending on the specific situation and is considered as the most effective. However, the studies carried out in the logic of this classification do not allow us to give a satisfactory answer to questions similar to those that arise in relation to the leadership grid concept, which in turn limits the use of this classification and the methodological tools developed on its basis in real organizational practice.

In general, behavioral approaches to the problem of leadership can be rightfully considered as a step forward in comparison with classical theories of traits, which made it possible to identify a number of significant socio-psychological phenomena in the context of the manager-subordinate relationship and develop a really effective toolkit for solving practical problems of a diagnostic and ascertaining nature. At the same time, they turned out to be insufficiently heuristic for solving a number of fundamental problems associated, in particular, with assessing the influence of the environment and situational factors on the leader and his behavioral activity.

Leadership is the ability to influence individuals and groups of people to motivate them to work towards goals. There are many means by which you can influence others and lead people with you. Effective leadership and effective leadership are not the same thing.

Leadership theory attempts to identify and predict which characteristics of leadership are most effective and why. Behavioral scientists have applied three approaches to identifying significant factors in effective leadership: the personality approach, the behavioral approach, and the situational approach.

Personality Approach:

Leadership, leadership became the object of research when, at the beginning of the twentieth century, they began to study management for the first time. According to the personal theory of leadership, the best leaders have a certain set of personal qualities common to all. Developing this idea, it can be argued that if these qualities could be identified, people could learn to educate them in themselves and thereby become effective leaders. Some of these traits learned are intelligence and knowledge, impressive physical appearance, honesty, common sense, initiative, social and economic education, and a high degree of self-confidence.

In the 40s, scientists began to study the collected facts about the relationship between personal qualities and leadership. Unfortunately, despite hundreds of studies conducted, they have not come to a consensus on the set of qualities that certainly distinguish a great leader.

Behavioral approach:

The behavioral approach has created a framework for classifying leadership styles or behaviors. It has become a significant contribution and a useful tool for understanding the complexities of leadership.

According to the behavioral approach to leadership, effectiveness is determined not by the personal qualities of the leader, but rather by his demeanor towards subordinates. Therefore, in the next section, we analyze the concept of "leadership style" and describe such important categories as autocratic style, democratic style, work-oriented style and human-oriented style.

Its main flaw was its tendency to assume that there was one optimal leadership style.

Situational approach:

Modern leadership theory has turned to a situational approach. Modern scholars are trying to determine which behaviors and personality traits are most appropriate for certain situations. Their research indicates that just as different situations require different organizational structures, so should different ways of leadership be chosen depending on the nature of the particular situation. This means that the leader-leader must be able to behave differently in different situations.

A Behavioral Approach to Leadership

An important contribution of the behavioral approach to leadership theory is that it helped to analyze and classify leadership styles, i.e. how the leader behaves with his subordinates. Leadership style in the context of management is the habitual manner in which a leader behaves towards subordinates in order to influence and motivate them to achieve the goals of the organization. The extent to which a manager delegates authority, the types of power he uses, and his concern primarily for human relationships or, above all, for the performance of a task all reflect the leadership style that characterizes a given leader.

The behavioral approach focuses on the leadership style, which is understood as a set of characteristic techniques and methods used by the leader in the management process.

Leadership style reflects:

1.degree of delegation of authority by the head to his subordinates

2.the type of power used

3.methods of working with the external environment

4. ways of influencing personnel

5. the usual demeanor of the leader in relation to subordinates.

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

Major leadership theories distinguish between two possible leader behaviors:

Human relations-oriented behavior (respect for the needs of employees, concern for personnel development);

Behavior focused on performing production tasks at any cost (while ignoring the needs and interests of subordinates, underestimating the need for personnel development).

In general, behavioral leadership theories have contributed to an increased focus on teaching effective forms of behavior. The task of the organization was presented not only to recognize an effective leader in the selection process, but also to teach him the skills of successful people management.

The behavioral approach laid the foundations for the classification of leadership styles, directed the efforts of managers to find the optimal style, but already in the early 1960s. began to be regarded 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.

Similar information.