Disadvantages of an authoritarian management style. Management styles. Small-scale personnel management

How do you communicate with employees? Do you control every step imperiously, let everything take its course, practice an individual approach? Well, how does it work? Today we will talk about management styles of the leader. Get comfortable, let's get started!

Or maybe you have not thought about leadership style at all? Business is going on, the online store is developing, why complicate something? Let's Let's look at the main management styles, as well as the pros and cons of each. This will help you understand the strengths and weaknesses of your leadership and determine what style to follow in the future.

Authoritarian style, or "As I said, so be it"

Gennady Pavlovich P. has been leading the team for many years. As he got into the managers back in Soviet times, he manages. It is clear that for so many years his style has already been formed and is not subject to change. And it would be necessary: Gennady Pavlovich is one of those bosses who firmly believe in the instructions from the joke: “Point 1. The boss is always right. Point 2. If the boss is wrong - see point 1”. Yes, yes, there are still. No wonder that in the team he has a turnover: young people come, brought up in a new society, who are not afraid to offer their ideas and are very surprised when they encounter the principles of the boss. They are surprised and leave - to more loyal leaders. Only the main backbone is retained in the team - people who have been working for more than a dozen years and have long been accustomed to the quirks of Gennady Pavlovich. And everything would be fine, only this backbone is almost entirely pensioners. alien to them - the company has no development, everything goes the old fashioned way. The company is not doing well.

Do you know such Gennadiev Pavlovich? They are also found among the younger generation of entrepreneurs. Usually, very authoritarian, harsh in judgments, recognize only their own opinion. They do not allow the slightest deviation from instructions, regulations, charters and the order established in the company. They tremblingly observe subordination - they do not allow liberties with the common people, this is not a master's business. Here is the paradox: they do not trust their own employees, but at the same time they want their work tasks to be performed flawlessly.

Disadvantages of an authoritarian style

Together with water, you can throw out a child: one who is used to not listening to opinions runs the risk of not hearing valuable ideas that will bring profit to the company. Someone who does not allow informal relationships with subordinates may not notice the love of their life or someone who can become a best friend. Human relationships sometimes go beyond subordination.
Stubbornness is not perseverance. Fanatical following instructions a step to the left - a step to the right is equal to execution - a disastrous position for the company. Read the biographies of great entrepreneurs: they all recognize the need to break the rules, think big, allow creativity.
Not everyone agrees to work with a dictator- In companies where the authoritarian style of management reigns, the percentage of layoffs is higher. And leave, as a rule, the most talented. In such a collective, opportunists or conservatives survive, who do not care.
Employees in such companies do not develop, do not offer ideas, do not learn new things. Maybe they would be happy - but why, because it will still be the way the local god ordered. And since the initiative is punishable - why show it at all?

Advantages of an authoritarian style

Iron discipline. You can't spoil a dictator: either you fulfill all his requirements, or the door to the street is open. As a rule, fines for the slightest violation bloom in such a team. Total subordination makes employees obedient and agreeable to any demand from management.
Clarity and transparency of all business processes. The boss-dictator knows exactly how and what happens in the company at each stage, what tasks are solved and who performs them.
The employees do not get confused, but they will clearly follow the orders of their superiors - they are no strangers. With a democratic or liberal leadership style, this is more difficult to implement: in the event of force majeure, both the bosses and employees can storm like a ship in bad weather. And this is fraught with hastily made and erroneous decisions.

Democratic style, or "Let's think together"

Aleksey K., a young manager, quit Gennady Pavlovich's company and founded his own business. He decided to learn from the mistakes of others and realized that he would not allow such a dictatorship that reigned in his former place of work. Alexey recruited young employees who were more like-minded than his subordinates. From the first days, he began to adhere to a democratic leadership style: he discussed the company's development strategy with employees, listened to their ideas and opinions, and trusted them to work on projects independently. For the workers, he was not a strict boss, but his own boyfriend Lekha. Once, this almost ruined the company: the employees relaxed and stopped taking Alexei seriously. Some people started to be late, miss the deadlines for completing tasks, and to the bewilderment of the boss he said: “What are you doing, don’t worry!”. When deals with profitable clients began to fail and the company lost profits, the young businessman realized that it was time to change something.

Democratic management style is a deceptive thing. Young and modern, it seems the only acceptable and in line with the spirit of the times (well, don’t work the old fashioned way!), but it’s worth loosening the reins a little - and it will turn out like in the example above. So that democracy does not turn into anarchy and permissiveness, the leader must have managerial experience.

In general, the democratic style is really a priority in young modern companies. The leader does not make decisions alone - he consults with the team, arranges brainstorming sessions, tries to ensure that each employee reveals his potential. He himself works on an equal footing or assigns himself the role of a consultant, mentor. If the Democrat boss is wrong, he does not blame the staff for everything, but draws conclusions. At the same time, he remains a leader - he does not remove himself from the main role, he does not emphasize that "we are all equal here, guys." That is, a team is a team, but the hierarchy must be built clearly.

Cons of democratic style

The possibility of anarchy, belittling the role of the leader, the emergence of opposition in the team. In general, everything that is described on the example of Alexei K.
Decisions can take a long time. The more people involved in the discussion, the longer the process can take. The case will be saved by clear deadlines for setting tasks. For example, 3 days are given for discussion and introduction of rationalization proposals - and not a second longer. This disciplines employees and speeds up business processes.

Advantages of democratic style

If no mistakes are made, a democratic style can become the basis for creating.

Strengthens team spirit makes employees real like-minded people united by one goal. Well, if the company has worked out - the mission and values, the main tasks for the coming years, the common Big Idea.
Reduces the number of errors in the work. The more people involved in solving the problem, the greater the chance that the best option will be found. Just remember, the discussion should not be delayed.
Minimum staff turnover. Why leave the team if you share its values and tasks, feel involved in one common goal? That's right, no need. Employees rarely leave companies with a democratic management style (unless, of course, they join the team and share common values).

Person-centered style, or "Don't be afraid, I'm with you"

Olga B. worked with both Gennady Pavlovich and Alexei. The woman realized that both authoritarian and democratic styles have their pros and cons, and decided to act differently. Actually, she did not come up with anything new - she used a completely individual approach. Olga realized that each employee needs to work in their own way, and what is suitable for one is categorically unacceptable for another. For example, a quiet person may be shy at general planning meetings and brainstorming sessions, but in a personal conversation, she will begin to gush with creative ideas. It is difficult for an owl man to come to the office by 9 am - his head does not understand, things are not being done, but in the evening the most fruitful time comes. Olga organized a free schedule for several comrades, she allowed introverts not to speak at the planning meeting in front of everyone. The employees appreciated the good attitude and began to call the boss “our mommy”. But without a fly in the ointment, there was a group of people who quickly found a good attitude as a weakness and began to openly score on work. Olga was worried, held soul-saving conversations, and only when the team filed a collective request for the dismissal of the offenders, she decided to take a bold step.

Practicing an individual approach is the right thing to do. Typically, bosses of this type (usually women) like to conduct psychological tests, arrange corporate parties and joint gatherings in order to get to know their employees better. However, you should not overprotect workers: you are not a hen, and they are not helpless chickens. Trust, but verify, be not a mom, but a boss - this is the moral of this fable.

Cons of a person-centered approach

As a rule, bosses of this type are soft, sensitive people. Good relations are more important to them than the profit of the company and its development. Therefore, as sad as it is, a soft boss can quickly be “eaten” his more resourceful colleagues or one of the number of subordinates.
Absence . Instead of giving clear instructions and controlling the process of completing tasks, such leaders either do everything themselves or forgive endless delays. Wake up guys, this is business! Here you need to make difficult decisions and take big risks, otherwise there is a risk of burnout and.

Advantages of an individual approach

Good relations in the team. Human relations are almost the main thing for half of the employees. If you are lucky enough to find an understanding boss, many will hold on to this place with their hands and teeth, even despite the low salary and small career prospects.
In a crisis situation employees will stand behind the boss with a mountain and will not let the company fall apart. “One for all and all for one” - this slogan still works.

So how should you?

In each of the three styles, we found our flaws. So what management style to choose, how to behave with subordinates? Much, of course, depends on your personality and type of character. A dictator by nature will never “deliver snot” and take care of the personality of each employee. And a quiet, intelligent woman is simply not able to crack her fist on the table and force her subordinates to work.

What to do? Combine management styles depending on the situation. This is called situational management. For example, if a force majeure event occurs, you need to turn on the dictator mode and give clear instructions that can save the situation. If you see that an employee is not coping with work, use an individual approach, talk to the person personally, find out what worries him. If you need to solve a new problem - stick to a democratic style, get the opinions of all employees and solve the problem together. Moreover - even in interaction with the same person it is possible to apply different management styles - again, depending on the situation. Somewhere to be a tough leader, somewhere - a wise mentor, sometimes to provide the necessary paternal support. Here is a table to help you skillfully navigate between several management styles.

Of course, for this you need to be an experienced leader and a fairly flexible person. All this comes with time. Good luck to you, let everything work out!

It will be as I say!

Authoritarian style of influence - interaction with people in a vertical pattern "I say, you obey" with the subtext "your task is not to discuss, but to do what is said." Authoritarian leadership style - a style when the leader decides everything himself, without discussion with employees or guided by their opinion to a small extent.

Point 1: The leader makes the decision and issues the order. Such extreme authoritarianism is quite effective in the army. Point 2: The leader makes a decision and sells it to his subordinates, that is, he explains why this decision is good. Simply explains, but does not consult with them. Point 3: The leader asks the opinion of subordinates, collects information, and then makes his own decision, which can be 180 degrees different from what they advised, and this is known in advance. This is the military council model. Point 4: The manager asks the opinion of the employees and makes a decision that takes into account their opinion. Point 5: The manager can speak to the employees, but the decision is made by a majority vote in the general voting process. Point 6: The decision is made by the Team, which the leader may not even be a member of. People can do everything without him. If this is a real team, this can also be a very effective option.

Correct, reasonable democracy requires a very serious education of people,
otherwise they will unanimously vote for the wrong thing. The crowd easily votes for the dictator.

A person prone to authoritarianism is an authoritarian person. It is important to note that an authoritarian person may well use other styles of leadership and, when necessary, practice a completely democratic style. Moreover, it is quite authoritarian to demand that subordinates turn on their heads and begin to discuss and consider the intentions of the leader when he needs it.

The most common way to ensure unquestioning obedience is through punitive sanctions, the development of fear of punishment, and negative reinforcement of defiant behavior. A less common option is when the manager's orders are carried out implicitly due to respect for him, recognition of his experience and authority, and also in the case of the effective use of positive reinforcement by the manager of the desired behavior of employees.

Authoritarianism in itself is neither good nor bad. Appropriate authoritarianism is determined primarily by the personality of the leader: in whose hands it is, who demonstrates it. In the performance of a person of low intellectual, cultural and personal level, authoritarianism is a disaster. As an instrument of a developed and wise person, a leader by nature - joy and salvation. The second important factor is the urgency of the decision. If decisions must be made urgently, especially instantly - authoritarianism is the only way out. If there is an opportunity to discuss and to eat with someone, we need not authoritarianism, but discussion. The third circumstance is the ability of employees to solve a specific problem, more broadly - to think and discuss in principle. If there are children or wild people nearby, it is better to resolve the issue yourself, and just tell them what they need to do. If the team (or a specific employee) is wiser than the leader in this matter, then it is more appropriate to consult with them and discuss everything. In addition, the existing culture and traditions determine a lot. If people are accustomed to authoritarianism, they do not need "democracy" and are perceived as a manifestation of the leader's weakness. If people are accustomed to being consulted and having their opinions taken into account, authoritarianism will cause them to protest and be perceived as a manifestation of disrespect for them.

How does authoritarian parenting affect the upbringing of children? It can be confidently asserted that authoritarian parents can grow both downtrodden, weak-willed, and very confident, courageous and independent children, largely copying their parents. It seems that the image of parents is decisive: if authoritarian parents inspire respect and admiration in children, as strong and self-confident people, then children copy the parental style and reproduce it where possible. If children with authoritarian parents are in a long-term conflict (or parents are in constant dissatisfaction with their children), then clashes between parents and children will either suppress the will of the child, or, on the contrary, train it, but in the mode of negative authoritarianism. Authoritarian parents can have wonderful, thinking, strong-willed and independent children, and most often this happens if the parents love and care for children, inspire respect in children and confidently insist step by step, in accordance with age, so that children begin to show independence and personal strength. Authoritarian parenting is a necessary step in

"Style is the person." In influencing subordinates, communicating with partners, clients, the personality traits of any boss are manifested. The concept of leadership style is directly related to the essence of management. How do adherents of radically opposite methods solve various managerial issues? Read our review.

Three Methods of Leadership

Management methods are diverse, but for scientific purposes they are divided into three main groups:

administrative-organizational, or command methods;
economic;
psychological methods.

An experienced manager, taking into account the situation and the characteristics of the team, selects a set of the most effective measures from each group.

The choice of methods and the frequency of their application are influenced not only by objective reasons, but also by the personal preferences of the manager. “Favorite” skills in general leave an imprint on all business communication with colleagues. Team leadership styles are a set of methods and measures implemented by a manager.

Typology of styles

The typology of Kurt Lewin is in demand and relevant today. The psychologist identified three management styles: autocratic, democratic and neutral. Styles differ in management methods, control systems, the presence or absence of delegation of authority.

The authoritarian leadership style is based to a greater extent on organizational and administrative methods, sanctions and rationing. Collegiate - social, psychological and economic. The liberal style does not require a clear methodological system.

Authoritarian leadership style

It is common for an autocrat to concentrate all work processes under his close attention: “Where it is not yourself, there is a grave!” He always relies only on his own strength. Usually, the autocrat believes that subordinates do not like to work, like "little children" they need to be forced. Gives orders and orders, insisting on complete obedience. Violation of its requirements is punishable by sanctions. "Minimum democracy, maximum control." All actions of the personnel are clearly regulated by instructions, regulations and require the constant participation of the authorities.

This style of leadership in the organization is aimed more at improving the efficiency of the work process. It gives such results as: high productivity, profitability, overfulfillment of the plan. On the other hand, the leader chooses a position outside the group, and the socio-psychological climate and collective interests are not always taken into account. The subordinate ceases to be a person, but turns into a "bolt" of the bureaucratic system.

The advantage of a strong control function sometimes translates into a 25-hour workload for a manager! The strengthening of bureaucracy with the growth of the organization deprives management decisions of efficiency.

The authoritarian style of leadership is not for every manager. For an adherent of this style, it is important to "maintain authority", not sinking to permissiveness, arbitrariness. Planning tactics, strategies, results orientation, and not blind observance of prescriptions and instructions will help to avoid traps. The authoritarian style of leadership is characterized by maintaining discipline at a high level, therefore, in a crisis, it is simply necessary in a crisis.

Pros and cons of the autocratic style

Weaknesses

unity of command;
focus on results;
good discipline;
efficiency, quick response;
minimum time and material costs;
efficiency in difficult periods: crisis, formation of the organization and others.

high dependence of working groups on the leader;
great volitional pressure and control from the authorities;
suppression of initiative employees, stagnation, lack of opportunity to apply creative potential;
inefficient motivation, poor social and psychological climate, staff dissatisfaction;
sole control, requiring a significant investment of time and effort;
the probability of error in individual decisions.

Thus, the authoritarian leadership style has many disadvantages, and therefore is effective only with experienced, skillful leadership. Let's apply in certain production, crisis situations connected with debts, the termination of deliveries, possible bankruptcy. But on the condition that subordinates agree to such methods and forgive the "king" of the dictator's manners for the results achieved.

Democratic style

The democratic style of leadership is effective in terms of productivity and is not inferior to the autocratic one. Employees under the leadership of a democrat form a close-knit team, are satisfied with their work and labor relations, are active and enterprising.

The leader-democrat always organizes the discussion of the problem. As the saying goes, "one head thinks well, but two or more thinks better." The collective method of making managerial decisions increases the likelihood of their correctness.

With a collegial style, much time is not lost in the control process, because the manager's attention is drawn to the results of work, and not the entire course of work, as in autocratic management. Powers are actively delegated to employees who monitor the results of work. For a Democrat, the personnel is the main resource and source of information.

Motivation in the team is increased due to interest in the personality of the employee. People feel their involvement in a common cause. This style of leadership in the organization allows you to implement well-functioning feedback.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the democratic style?

This style is applicable in the conditions of formation, growth of an enterprise with a fairly stable team. It is very useful in situations of crisis in the internal environment of the company, in case of problems in relationships, work processes.

Authoritarian-democratic style

The presence of indisputable advantages of collegial management does not mean "writing off" the authoritarian style. In management practice, a combined leadership style is actively used - "authoritarian-democratic", combining the advantages of two styles.

A complex approach containing contradictions at the core. What to prioritize: creativity (democratic methods) or discipline (organizational methods)? The selection of the main parameter for a particular situation is carried out by ranking factors or a combination of methods. For example, maintaining democracy in the decision-making process and authoritarianism at the stage of their implementation.

Conclusion

Basic leadership styles should be applied according to the situation. An experienced manager has different approaches. But it is impossible to radically change styles because of the psychological inclination towards certain management methods. An autocrat is not able to turn into a democrat overnight, but he can adjust his own management style to suit the circumstances.

A diverse arsenal of methods and methods of personnel management contributes to successful activities in the field of management. The development of these skills cannot occur by itself, just as managerial talent does not arise spontaneously, it must be developed and trained.

Leadership style- a method, a system of methods for influencing a leader on subordinates. One of the most important factors in the effective operation of the organization, the full realization of the potential of people and the team. Most researchers distinguish the following leadership styles:

Democratic style (collegiate);

Liberal style (permissive or anarchist).

Authoritarian management style characterized by a high centralization of leadership, the dominance of one-man management. The leader demands that all cases be reported to him, single-handedly makes decisions or cancels them. He does not listen to the opinion of the team, he decides everything for the team himself. The prevailing methods of management are orders, punishments, remarks, reprimands, deprivation of various benefits. Control is very strict, detailed, depriving subordinates of initiative. The interests of the cause are placed much higher than the interests of people; harshness and rudeness prevail in communication. The authoritarian leadership style has a negative effect on the moral and psychological climate, leads to a significant decrease in initiative, self-control and responsibility of employees.

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

the average person is lazy and, as far as possible, shirks from work;

workers 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. The average person has an inborn aversion to work and will seek to avoid it if possible.

2. Therefore, the majority of people must be forced to work, controlled and led under the threat of punishment, so that they can do their best to contribute to the goal.

3. The worker tends 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 dislike for work. Work is natural, as is rest.

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

3. Duty to goal setting is a reward function.

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

5. Resourcefulness and creativity 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 a person. McGregor believed that every leader bases his leadership style on the adoption of one of these theories. At the same time, "X" is typical for autocrats, and "Y" for democrats.

The MacGregor model itself is not a pure theory of management styles, but it was she who made it possible to more fully and accurately understand the classifications that existed at that time and analyze them.

In this style of management, the motivation of subordinates is often limited because the leader separates socially, transfers, 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 get information because of the information barriers set by the head in unofficial ways.

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

Management style is the way in which a leader manages subordinate employees, as well as a pattern of behavior of a leader that is independent of a specific management situation. Through an established management style, job satisfaction can be achieved and employee productivity is encouraged. At the same time, there is no optimal management style, and it is possible to speak about the advantage of one or another management style only for a certain management situation.

There are different management styles.

Task-oriented management style

The leader's efforts are focused on the task to be completed, while, according to Bisany, the leader:

condemns insufficient work;

encourages slow-working employees to put in more effort;

emphasizes the volume of work;

guides with an iron hand;

draws attention to the fact that its employees work with full dedication;

encourages employees through pressure and manipulation to even greater efforts;

requires more performance from low-performing employees.

Research by Halpin-Wiener and Peltz shows that such leaders:

are often more positively characterized by their superiors than personality-oriented leaders;

are positively evaluated by their employees if the managers have influence “at the top”.

Person-Centered Management Style

With this management style, the focus is on employees with their needs and expectations. According to Bisany, Head:

pays attention to the health of employees; takes care of good relations with his subordinates; treats his subordinates as equals;

supports its employees in what they do or should do;

stands up for his employees.

A leader who manages on the basis of personality cannot, however, immediately count on the full satisfaction of his employees. For this, the influence and respect of the manager “at the top” are important, on the basis of which he is able to protect the interests of employees.

Management style has three problems:

The results to be achieved with a management style have several components that cannot be put together.
The absolutization of the management style is considered as a way by which labor productivity is increased.
The management situation is regarded as unchanged, while over time it can change and the manager must accordingly change his attitude towards individual employees.

Control styles can be single or multidimensional. The management style is one-dimensional if one evaluation criterion is considered. One-dimensional are authoritarian, corporate and other styles of management, and the first and second styles are polarly different from each other.

Authoritarian management style

With this style of management, all production activities are organized by the head without the participation of subordinates. This style of management can be applied in solving current problems and implies a greater distance in education between the leader and the subordinate, as well as the material motivation of employees.

The leader, by virtue of his legitimate authority, controls his subordinates and expects obedience from them. He makes decisions without justifying them to his subordinates, while proceeding from the fact that, unlike his subordinates, he has a great understanding and knowledge of the matter, which, of course, should not be. The decisions of the head have the character of orders that must be unconditionally carried out by subordinates, otherwise they may expect sanctions in relation to themselves;

The leader keeps a distance in relations with subordinates, informs them of the facts that they must know in order to fulfill their tasks. He controls whether his orders are followed and to what extent. Signs that emphasize the position of a person in the eyes of the people around him (for example, a car) support the reputation of a leader with power.

high awareness;

high self-control;

foresight;

good decision making ability;

penetration ability.

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

the average person is lazy and, as far as possible, shirks from work;

workers 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.

recognition of the head by the sole authority;

recognition and implementation of orders of the head;

lack of desire to possess the right to control.

The advantages of an authoritarian management style are perhaps a greater speed of decision-making, success in everyday, ordinary work.

Corporate management style

With a corporate style of management, production activities are organized in the interaction of a manager and a subordinate. This style of management can be used when the creative content of the work prevails and assumes an approximately equal level of education of the manager and subordinates, as well as non-material incentives for the employee.

Typical signs of a corporate management style:

The leader manages subordinates, including them in the decision-making process for which he is responsible. He expects concrete help from his subordinates, makes decisions taking into account their suggestions and objections. He delegates his powers as far as possible, and orders only when necessary. At the same time, he recognizes the abilities of subordinates and realizes that he cannot know everything and foresee everything. Only the result of the work is controlled, self-control is allowed.

The manager not only informs in detail about the actual state of affairs, which must be known to complete the tasks, but also provides other information about the enterprise. Information serves as a means of control. The leader does not need signs that emphasize his position in the eyes of the people around him.

Requirements for a corporate managing director, according to Shtopp:

openness;

trust in employees;

waiver of individual privileges;

ability and willingness to delegate authority;

official supervision;

results control.

Subordinates are seen as partners who are able to carry out "daily tasks" relatively independently. When evaluating subordinates with this leadership style, they most often proceed from the “theory y theory xy”, according to which:

the unwillingness to work is not inherent in nature, but the result of poor working conditions, which reduce the natural desire to work;

employees take into account the target settings, have self-discipline and self-control;

the goals of the enterprise are achieved in the shortest possible way through monetary incentives and the provision of opportunities for individual development;

with a favorable experience, employees are not afraid of responsibility.

The active position of subordinates increases their motivation, which leads to improved work results.

Requirements for corporately managed subordinates, according to Shtopp:

desire and ability to bear personal responsibility;

self-control;

use of control rights.

The advantage of corporate style is the adoption of appropriate decisions, high motivation of employees and unloading of the manager. In addition, the development of employees is supported. Disadvantage - corporate management style can slow down decision making.

Managing the Delegation Method

Such management is a technique in which competences and responsibility for actions are transferred, as far as possible, to employees who make and implement decisions. Delegation can be directed to any field of activity of the enterprise. However, one should refuse to delegate typically managerial functions of leadership, as well as tasks with far-reaching consequences. When delegating authority, the burden is removed from the manager, the employees' own initiative is supported, their labor motivation and readiness to bear responsibility are strengthened. In addition, employees must be given the confidence to make decisions on their own responsibility.

In order to successfully apply delegation management, you must:

delegation of tasks to employees;

delegation of competencies to employees;

delegation of responsibility for actions to employees;

exclusion of the possibility of recalling delegated powers or transferring them from one employee to another;

establishing the procedure for regulating exceptional cases;

exclusion of the possibility of intervention by the manager with the correct actions of the employee;

obligatory intervention of the head in case of an error and obtaining results, settled in a special manner;

acceptance by the manager of responsibility for leadership;

creation of an appropriate information system.

The transferred tasks should correspond to the abilities of the employees, be predominantly homogeneous, complete in form. Delegated competences and responsibility for actions should correspond to each other in scope.

Benefits of managing the delegation method:

leader unloading;

the ability to quickly make informed decisions; employees are transferred competences and responsibility for action;

promoting the development of one's own initiative, labor motivation among employees.

Disadvantages of managing the delegation method:

the leader delegates as few interesting tasks as possible;

hierarchical relationships can be asserted;

strong focus on tasks, not on employees;

establishment of hierarchical relations "horizontally".

Why do managers not delegate enough authority?

1. Fear that subordinates are not competent enough to carry out orders (make mistakes).
2. Distrust in relation to the competence of subordinates.
3. Fear that subordinates acquire high competence too quickly.
4. Fear of losing one's value and its attendant benefits.
5. Fear of losing one's own authority or status.
6. Fear that the manager himself will lose control over this issue.
7. Fear of risk.
8. Unwillingness to give away work that the manager himself is good at.
9. Inability to advise subordinates and manage them.
10. Lack of time to advise and manage subordinates.

Why are subordinates not ready to take responsibility?

1. Lack of self-confidence.
2. Lack of information.
3. Fear of possible criticism.
4. Insufficient positive response to successfully completed assignments.
5. Insufficient employee motivation.
6. Negative workplace atmosphere.

How to delegate?

1. Carefully select the tasks to be delegated.
2. Carefully choose the person to whom to delegate.
3. Delegate predominantly "final results" instead of the exact methods of completing the task.
4. Be prepared for the fact that mistakes will be made and that they need to be forgiven.
5. Give enough authority to complete the task to the end.
6. Inform others what is delegated and to whom.
7. Delegate gradually and complicate delegated tasks.

The application of a particular style, as well as its results, depend on many factors. This is, first of all, complete mastery of one of the leadership styles, the predisposition of the team to the perception of the style of management and leadership sometimes imposed on it from above. When mastering the science of management, it is very important to avoid mistakes. An analysis of the activities of managers at different levels and various enterprises allowed specialists to identify the most common mistakes made by managers. The ten main mistakes in personnel management in an enterprise can be formulated as follows;

1. The desire to do everything yourself.
2. The tendency to let things take their course.
3. Prejudice against certain workers.
4. Frozen, schematic or doctrinaire installations.
5. Excessive susceptibility to a different, including critical, opinion.
6. Self-satisfaction or arrogance.
7. Immunity to the suggestions of employees.
8. Obvious disrespect for the personality of the employee, for example, the permissibility of criticism in front of others.
9. Explicit distrust of employees.
10. Insufficient consistency in actions.

Conversely, the experience of successful enterprises has shown that the leaders of these enterprises to a much greater extent:

1. value knowledge of the matter;
2. treat people as equals;
3. reward fairly;
4. detect errors objectively;
5. reliable and loyal;
6. listen to opinions that differ from their own;
7. appreciate progress;
8. have the authority of experts in the field;
9. devoid of bias;
10. endure criticism;
11. are capable of change than the heads of low-success enterprises.

The style of management or leadership is the most important factor in the management of an enterprise. Correctly defined and successfully applied style allows the most successful use of the potential of all employees of the enterprise. That is why in recent years many firms have paid such significant attention to this issue.

It might be useful to read: