There are three main approaches to the study of leadership. First approach can be described as structural. He sets himself the task of identifying the universal personality structure of an effective manager, defining its characteristic traits or characteristics. Second approach can be called behavioral. It allows you to analyze leadership in the context of the leader’s behavior and highlight universal behavioral characteristics that ensure the leader’s success. And finally third situational approach attempts to synthesize structural and behavioral concepts in the context of specific situational variables.
More detailed classifications of leadership theories are also proposed, but the validity of such fragmentation is not always convincing 191 .
Structural theories. If you try to describe a leader based on general characteristics presented in the media, characteristics such as intelligence, charisma, determination, enthusiasm, courage, strength, integrity, self-confidence, etc. will undoubtedly be mentioned. Of course, such a set contains exclusively positive personal qualities and characteristics. Trying to present this list as completely as possible, one may ultimately come to the unexpected conclusion that their owner is more worthy of being a prime minister than a junior manager in industry.
And yet, numerous studies have been and are still being devoted to the search for the optimal set of personality traits of a successful leader.
If we remember the history of mankind or look at today's leaders in economics, culture, sports and, of course, in politics, the picture will turn out to be quite motley. Here is the mighty Peter the Great, and the “little” Napoleon, and the sick Roosevelt, and the “mediocre” Stalin, and the “unbalanced” Hitler, and the fussy Gorbachev. All these people, without a doubt, can be called leaders, but how different their roles in history are. How different they are from each other!
What personal, social, constitutional or intellectual characteristics distinguish them from other people, those whom we would never call leaders?
The problem of outstanding people - heroes opposed to the crowd - has long attracted the attention of thinkers and scientists. Reflecting on the role of outstanding personalities in history, ancient philosophers and historians, such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Suetonius, Titus of Livia, etc., were inclined to think that certain people become “heroes” solely due to their personal qualities. Therefore, their success did not depend on external conditions, and they, apparently, would have been heroes under any circumstances. The same views in the 19th century. adhered to by T. Carlyle, F. Galton and F. Nietzsche.
Carlyle acted as a herald of the “cult of heroes” - bearers of divine destiny and spiritual creators of the historical process, towering on the “gray” mass 192. He put forward the concept of a “hero” as a person possessing unique qualities that capture the universal imagination. In psychology and biology, the problem of outstanding personalities attracted Galton, who explained the phenomenon of leadership based on hereditary factors. He believed that the improvement of human nature could be achieved on the basis of the laws of heredity by breeding a race of especially gifted, mentally and physically strong people. These views, consonant with the hopes of modern producers of cloned sheep and rams, were called “eugenics” 193.
For Nietzsche, the desire for leadership is a manifestation of a person’s “creative instinct,” while the leader has the right to ignore morality - the delusion of the weak. In his myth of the “superman”, the cult of a strong personality was combined with the romantic idea of a “man of the future”, who had left modernity with its vices and imperfections far behind 194.
Following them, F. Woods, tracing the history of the royal dynasties of 14 nations, came to the conclusion that the form and manifestation of power in these states depended on the abilities of the rulers 195. The brothers of kings, also based on natural gifts, also became powerful and influential people. Woods concluded that the ruler defines the nation in accordance with his capabilities (“like the ruler, so are the people”) 196. A. Wiggan argued that the reproduction of leaders depends on the birth rate of the ruling classes. Their representatives, in his opinion, are biologically different from mere mortals due to the fact that their offspring were and are the result of healthy marriages between aristocratic families 197.
J. Dowd denied the very concept of “mass leadership” and believed that individuals in each society differ significantly from each other in their energy, abilities and moral strength. Whatever the influence of the masses, in his opinion, they are always led by several leaders 198.
All of these theories, studies and opinions lead directly or indirectly to the idea that if a leader is endowed with qualities that distinguish him from followers, then it should be possible to define or isolate these characteristics. This conclusion formed the basis of the theory of leadership traits, the authors of which explained the leadership process by the manifestation of certain character traits initially inherent in the individual.
The results of research by S. Klubek and B. Bass were important for the development of this approach, demonstrating that it is almost impossible to make people who are not naturally inclined to leadership into leaders. It is only possible through psychotherapy to slightly change some features of their character 199 .
In 1954, E. Borgatta and his collaborators put forward the concept of the “great man” theory. They studied groups of three people performing tasks of similar content and found that the individual with the highest intelligence scores tended to receive the highest ratings from group members. At the same time, leadership abilities, the degree of participation in solving a group task and the sociometric popularity of the person were taken into account. Having won the position of leader in the first of three experimental groups, the individual maintained this position in the next two groups, that is, he became a “great man” already on the basis of his first successful leadership experience. An important circumstance in this experiment was that in all cases only the composition of the participants changed, while the group tasks and external conditions largely remained the same 200 .
R. Cattell and G. Stice argued that leaders differ significantly from other group members in the following eight personality traits:
Moral maturity, or the strength of the “I”;
Influence on others, or dominance;
Integrity of character, or the strength of the “Super-I”;
Social competence, entrepreneurship;
Insight;
Independence from strong harmful impulses;
Willpower, control of your behavior;
The absence of unnecessary worries and nervous tension. At the same time, an individual with a low indicator of social competence
(timidity, passivity, lack of self-confidence) or one devoid of strong experiences and nervous tension can hardly become a leader at all 201.
Thus, these studies once again confirmed that not every person can be a leader, but only one who has a certain set of personal qualities or a set of certain psychological traits. It is no coincidence that the structural approach is sometimes called the “charismatic” theory, since it is based on the innateness of leadership qualities.
In American social psychology, these sets of traits were recorded with particular care: a clear and justified list of characteristics could become the basis for constructing a test system for the professional selection of leaders.
In the 40s, the first attempts were made to generalize the results of the structural approach. A number of researchers have analyzed numerous facts collected as a result of empirical studies about the relationship between personality traits or leadership qualities.
For the first time in 1940, such an attempt was made by S. Beard in the book “Social Psychology”. Generalization of the results led to the conclusion that compiling a scientifically based list of characteristics is hardly possible. Thus, the list of leadership traits mentioned by various researchers amounted to 79 characteristics. Among them were the following: initiative, sociability, sense of humor, enthusiasm, confidence, friendliness.
However, if you look at the “scatter” of these traits among different authors, then none of these traits occupied a stable position even in several lists: most of the named traits were mentioned only once, a fifth twice, 10% three times and only 5% the devils were named four times. There was discrepancy even regarding such traits as “willpower” and “intelligence,” which gave reason to generally doubt the possibility of compiling a more or less reliable list of traits necessary or inherent in a leader.
In 1948, R. Stogdill reviewed 124 studies and noted that the study of personality traits in leaders continued to produce conflicting results. Nevertheless, along with social status, he identified a number of the most characteristic traits of leaders:
Intelligence,
The pursuit of knowledge
Reliability,
Responsibility,
Activity,
Social participation.
At the same time, Stogdill also noted that in different situations, the leaders who acted most effectively showed different personal qualities, and concluded that “a person cannot become a leader only because he has a certain set of personal qualities” 202.
R. Mann 203 came to a similar conclusion, also made on the basis of an analysis of many studies. At the same time, among the personality traits that significantly influence a person’s behavior as a leader and determine the attitude of others towards him, he listed:
Intelligence;
Ability to adapt;
Extroversion;
Ability to influence people;
Lack of conservatism;
Sensitivity and empathy.
Mann found that the importance of these traits and the accuracy of their assessment depended on whether leadership was analyzed from the point of view of a group member, from the point of view of an observer (researcher), or from the point of view of the leader meeting certain criteria. Thus, the ability to adapt is much more accurately assessed by group members, and extroversion is easier to establish using the method of formal criteria. At the same time, if we focus on the opinions of group members, then extroverts and introverts have equal chances of becoming unofficial leaders. Thus, the role of individual character traits in leadership is ambiguous and largely depends on the research position and the context in which leadership is implemented.
In a more recent review of 20 structural studies of leadership, J. Geyer identified approximately 80 characteristics of effective leaders, but most of these characteristics were also found in only one or two studies, and only 5 of them were mentioned in four or more studies 204 .
Already after Stogdill’s publication, a fairly stable opinion began to form that the theory of traits was unproductive. Researchers who are interested in describing leadership traits risk overlooking other important factors of leadership, such as its social context.
According to S. Caussin, to become a good leader, an individual must have the following traits:
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 the goal;
Sociability, wide range of interests;
Honesty, directness, constructiveness in relations with followers;
Self-esteem, self-confidence;
Enthusiasm, high discipline;
The ability to “hold yourself well” under any circumstances and maintain internal balance” 205.
According to the results of studies conducted in a number of UK government agencies, R. Chapman names the following characteristics necessary for a leader: insight, wealth of ideas, common sense, prudence, ability to express one’s thoughts, expressiveness of oral speech, sociability, adequate level of self-esteem, perseverance, firmness , poise, maturity 206.
A. Lawton and E. Rose, on the contrary, argue that the necessary ten qualities of a leader are the following:
1) foresight - the ability to shape the appearance and objectives of the organization;
2) the ability to determine priorities - the ability to distinguish between what is necessary and what is simply important;
3) stimulating followers by expressing recognition and rewarding success;
4) mastery of the art of interpersonal relationships, i.e. the ability to listen, give advice, and be confident in one’s actions;
5) “political instinct” - the ability to understand the needs of one’s environment and those in power;
6) steadfastness - steadfastness in the face of an opponent;
7) charisma or charm - something that cannot be defined, but captivates and inspires people;
8) the ability to take risks in matters such as transferring part of the work or authority to followers;
9) flexibility - the ability to respond to new ideas and experiences;
10) determination, firmness when circumstances require it 207.
M. Gunter identified six main characteristics inherent in a charismatic leader: “energy exchange,” or suggestive abilities; ability to influence people; “radiate” energy and charge others with it; “bewitching appearance”; “independence of character”; “good rhetorical ability and some artistry” 208.
According to J. Kotter, people are more likely to be influenced by those who have character traits that they admire, who are their ideals, and whom they would like to imitate 209 .
So, there is still no consensus on what qualities a leader should have. The lists of leadership traits mentioned above say very little about the importance of each of them.
It is obvious that the ultimate goal of the structural approach - to find a universal set of characteristics of an effective manager for all occasions - is hardly feasible. Every time, every society, every group forms or requires its leaders, and in another time and in other conditions, a cruel tyrant could, at best, head a funeral service bureau in a quiet provincial town.
The disillusionment with the trait theory was so great that even the theory of a “leader without traits” was put forward in opposition to it. But it also did not give any answer to the question of where leaders come from and what is the origin of the phenomenon of leadership itself.
In general, the structural approach encountered a number of intractable problems:
Isolating an optimal set of characteristics turned out to be infeasible;
The approach completely ignored the group context in which leadership is exercised;
The approach could not reveal the cause-and-effect relationship between leadership and individual personal characteristics (whether certain traits characterize the leader or whether successful leadership forms specific traits, for example, self-confidence);
In the context of this approach, individual traits appear as static formations devoid of development;
The low correlation (in the range from +0.25 to +0.35) of personality traits with behavioral manifestations of leadership, strictly speaking, does not allow us to consider these characteristics as reliable predictors.
And yet, despite all the shortcomings, the structural approach invariably arouses the interest of practical management. Even non-ideal tests, built on the achievements of the structural approach, make it possible to carry out professional selection of leaders, improving the personnel composition of the organization. Testing is especially often aimed at identifying the following five characteristics, which have consistently demonstrated a high positive correlation with successful leadership:
1). intelligence;
2). dominance;
3). self confidence;
4). high activation (energy) level;
5). professional knowledge and skills relevant to the task being performed.
The structural approach had and has another extremely important meaning for management and the organization as a whole. Although research evidence has failed to support much of the theory's tenets, it has had extraordinary ideological implications for the development of management itself, requiring managers to have strong leadership skills and considerable potential, and implying that leadership is inextricably linked to extraordinary human qualities and abilities.
In organizations, the image of a sergeant-major manager, about whom one can say: “You can’t imagine a worse person, but the manager is a very good one,” has begun to enjoy less and less approval. With the development and growing popularity of the structural approach, a new image of the manager-leader was gradually established, i.e. a manager whose personal characteristics themselves allow him to lead without resorting to “traditional” sources of power in the organization. Such a leader is able to achieve his goals, relying solely on his personal influence, his knowledge and abilities.
The concept of leadership, thus, turned out to be directly related to the problem of the legitimacy of power, indirectly pointing to procedures and rules (legal and behavioral), adherence to which can provide a member of an organization with a path to gaining formal power in the organization. In a broader sense, the concept of manager-leader has become increasingly associated with the procedures and demands that society as a whole offers to the individual for gaining power.
Within the framework of the concept of leadership, the structural principles of the organization and the very concept of power were transformed into psychological phenomena. Power in an organization has largely become linked to the personality of the leader: only those individuals whose personal and professional characteristics exceed those of other members of the organization have legitimate the right to lead the latter. Of course, in practice this principle was, as it is now, far from being fully realized, but nevertheless its gradual introduction into people’s consciousness opened up opportunities for many talented people to join management.
Thus, even despite the inconsistency and shortcomings of the structural approach, the mentioned applied and ideological aspects of the leadership problem have provided and continue to provide sustainable interest in the personal characteristics of leaders and still fascinate not only ordinary readers, but also researchers.
Behavioral approach. This approach considers leadership in the context of the external behavior demonstrated by the leader and attempts to find some stable set of behavioral characteristics that ensure the success of the leader.
It was within the framework of this approach that the concept was formed leadership style, which is understood as “a set of techniques and methods used by a leader (also a manager) in order to influence people who depend on him or are subordinate to him” 210. It should be noted that the already mentioned ideological and normative aspect of the concept of leadership (i.e., the use of leadership as a means of legitimizing the power of management in the organization) is reflected in this approach. First of all, it was expressed in a mixture of the concepts of “leadership style” and “management style”, in a hidden form suggesting an equal sign between the manager and the leader. And although in some studies (especially in domestic ones) the concepts of “leadership style” and “management style” are separated, starting with the works of K. Levin, less and less attention is paid to these differences.
Experiments by K. Levin. Priority in the development of the behavioral approach belongs to K. Lewin, who on the eve of World War II, together with his colleagues, conducted an experiment that had a significant impact on the subsequent development of the concept of leadership 211. His experiment involved three groups of teenagers who, under the guidance of adults, sculpted papier-mâché masks. The group leaders were adults who demonstrated different management-leadership styles. The researchers were interested in how a leader's behavior style was related to the effectiveness of the three groups. The leadership styles demonstrated by adults received labels that have since become firmly entrenched in the social psychological literature: “authoritarian,” “democratic,” and “permissive.”
Authoritarian called a style in which the leader acts in an authoritative, directive manner towards his followers, rigidly distributing roles between group members, not allowing them to go beyond their limits, and carefully controlling their work in all details. An authoritarian leader concentrates almost all the main functions of management in his own hands, not allowing group members to discuss or challenge his actions and decisions.
Characteristics that are the opposite of an authoritarian leadership style has a democratic a style in which the leader seeks to manage the group together with his followers (subordinates), giving them sufficient freedom of action, allowing them to discuss their decisions, supporting the initiative they show in a variety of forms.
Conniving leadership style is a form of leadership in which the leader practically withdraws from the active management of the group and behaves as if he were an ordinary member of the group. It allows group members to do whatever they want, giving them complete freedom of action.
Apparently, the names of leadership styles proposed by Lewin were largely metaphors, but they undoubtedly began to play a normative role, indicating that a “democratic” leadership style was preferable. Subsequently, many researchers proposed to abandon this terminology altogether and introduce new designations in order to eliminate the value-normative connotation, which is poorly consistent with the principle of scientific objectivity.
For example, the following terms were proposed: “directive”, “collegial” and “permissive” (liberal) style, which much more successfully reveal the behavioral essence of the phenomena under consideration 212.
The value-laden nature of the concepts used by Levin really makes their objective interpretation difficult. According to G. Andreeva, clarification and specification of at least two aspects are needed: content solutions proposed by the leader to the group, and technology(techniques, ways) of implementing these decisions 213. This, in her opinion, allows us to consider each of the three leadership styles from the formal and substantive sides (Table 5. 1).
The research by Levin and his colleagues was not immediately appreciated by management and the scientific community. Only in the late 40s did researchers turn their attention to the study of behavioral styles as the main determinants of leadership. The structural approach implies the presence of “ready-made”, static traits of a leader, i.e. a leader must be born. And if an individual is not given the opportunity to be a leader, then nothing can be done about it.
The main pathos of the behavioral direction, in my opinion, is that leadership is considered not as a given set of personality characteristics and abilities, but as a form of behavior that can be mastered and which, accordingly, can be needs to be trained. If leadership is specific behavioral skills, then training programs can be developed and leadership taught to those who want to become effective leaders. This view opened up new opportunities not only for the individual, but also for the organization: you can not only look for leaders “on the side,” but also raise them yourself! In this context, Levin's metaphorical terminology, apparently, was not the most successful: it is hardly justified to formulate the task of increasing the effectiveness of leadership in terms of teaching “democracy.”
The most famous research in this direction was the work of the American Research Centers at Ohio University and the University of Michigan.
Table 5.1
Formal side Content side
Business, brief instructions Things in the group are planned
in advance (in their entirety).
Prohibitions without leniency, with threat are determined only
immediate targets, distant ones are unknown
Praise and blame are subjective
Emotions are not taken into account
Display of techniques - irregular
Leader position - outside the group
Democratic leadership style
Instructions in the form of proposals Events are planned
not in advance, but in a group
Not a dry speech, but a comradely tone For the implementation of proposals
everyone answers
Praise and blame - All sections of work not only
with advice offered, but also discussed
Orders and prohibitions -
with discussions
Leader position - within the group
Permissive leadership style
The tone is conventional. Things in the group go by themselves.
Lack of praise, blame The leader does not give instructions.
No cooperation Sections of work consist of
Leader's position - individual interests or come from
discreetly away from the group
new leader
Ohio University Research. In the late 1940s, Ohio State University researchers began intensive research into the behavioral skills and characteristics of leadership 214 . Researchers have attempted to identify independent factors in leader behavior. After starting to analyze more than a thousand variables, they were eventually able to distill them into two categories that described a significant portion of leadership behavior. These dimensions are called: structuring activities (initiating structure) and attentiveness to people (consideration).
Activity structuring relates to the extent to which a leader defines and structures his own role and the roles of others in achieving the group's goal. It includes a set of activities aimed at organizing work, forming relationships and defining goals. A leader with high scores on this factor clearly sets the task for each group member, requires the fulfillment of certain performance standards, and emphasizes the time parameters of work.
Attentiveness to people relates to the leader's relationships with other members of the organization. This factor emphasizes the importance of mutual trust and respect by the leader for the ideas and feelings of subordinates. A leader must take care of the physical and mental comfort of his subordinates, their self-esteem and job satisfaction. A leader who scores high on this factor helps subordinates solve their personal problems, is friendly, tactful, and treats them as equals.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that leaders who score high on both factors tend to elicit greater performance and job satisfaction from their subordinates than managers who score high on only one factor or low on both.
Researchers especially emphasize the importance of balancing both factors, since, for example, an emphasis on the first of them leads to an increase in complaints from subordinates, a decrease in job satisfaction, increased absenteeism and staff turnover. Increased concern for those repaired, in turn, often causes negative assessments of the manager’s performance by management 215 .
Research from the University of Michigan. The purpose of research undertaken by the Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Michigan in the late 1940s was to search for behavioral characteristics that correlate with effective work performance. A Michigan group of scientists identified two basic factors of leadership behavior, designated as employee orientation And production orientation. Employee-oriented leaders emphasized the importance of interpersonal relationships, showed a keen interest in their needs, and were sympathetic to the individual characteristics of employees. Production-oriented leaders, on the other hand, focused all their attention on the technical and organizational aspects of the work. Their main concern was the accomplishment of the goal, and people were only a means to achieve it 216.
Research from the University of Michigan strongly suggests that people-centered leadership leads to greater productivity and increased job satisfaction among employees.
Management grid by R. Blake and J. Mouton. As a further development of the two-factor model of leadership behavior, we can consider the “management grid” method of R. Blake and J. Mouton 217, presented in Fig. 5. 1.
Each of the two factors forming the lattice axes has nine gradations. In this way, a space of 81 cells is formed, each of which can characterize a particular leadership style. However, the task of the method is not so much to give an accurate quantitative assessment of leadership behavior, but to identify the dominant factors in the leader’s thinking in the context of the tasks assigned to him.
According to the authors themselves, the most effective for a leader is to follow the 9.9 style, which is largely inferior to both the authoritarian (9.1) and liberal (1.9) styles of behavior 218. This method is extremely popular in various programs for developing effective management skills, however, despite this, a number of studies question the universality of the 9. 9 style for all organizational situations 219 .
In line with the behavioral approach, other attempts have been made to explain the phenomenon of leadership based on the behavior demonstrated by the leader 220. However, a major limitation of this approach was the difficulty in identifying consistent relationships between leadership style and group performance.
Rice. 5. 1. Blake and Mouton management grid
The leader's behavior depended on many circumstances, which often predetermined his success or failure. The analysis of these situational variables became the focus of the situational approach.
Situational approach. Numerous studies of leadership have convincingly demonstrated that predicting its success is a much more complex task than isolating individual personality traits or behavioral complexes. The refusal to search for universal personal and behavioral invariants has led researchers to recognize that the most important determinants of effective leadership are related to the specific management situation. The inconsistency of these results has led scientists to take a closer look at situational factors and try to integrate structural and behavioral approaches in the context of specific situational variables. This conceptual framework argues that leadership is primarily a product of a specific situation.
It should be noted that the importance of situational variables in leadership has been noted by many researchers. Some of them even made attempts to highlight the most important ones. Thus, L. Carter and M. Nixon found that the type and style of a leader largely depends on the nature of the task. There were sharp differences in the type of leadership between groups solving different kinds of problems, and the leaders of groups with similar goals were generally similar to each other, differing from each other only in some personal characteristics 221 .
Factors such as the structure of the group and the model of communication in it are of great importance in the behavior of a leader. An important element is the duration of the group's existence and activities. In established groups, their established organization and structure largely determine both the behavior of the leader and the behavior of the entire group 222 . In a group that has been operating for quite a long time and has developed stable structures for streamlining the activities of its members, the stability of the leader’s behavior is explained not only by personal and situational reasons, but also by the influence of the existing structural elements 223 .
The structure of communication, having taken root, can lose all dependence on the specific task facing the group and its solutions. The structure that helped this group successfully solve similar problems will be acceptable for solving other problems, since it preserves order and subordination to the laws of interaction that have already been established in the group 224.
According to B. Bass's research, if an individual moves to a new group, his previous status, which he had in any social structure, has a significant impact on his leadership claims in the new group, as well as on the possible degree of success in the process of conquering him. leader position 225.
An individual's position in a group largely determines his ability to influence others. The higher the social status of any group member, the higher the influence 226.
Having once become a leader and thanks to this having won a central position in the communication system, and most importantly - in the hierarchy of statuses, which, in turn, strengthen the leader’s position, the individual develops leadership abilities that enhance his positive assessment from group members. In addition, access to organizational resources encourages him to look for any opportunities to maintain his position, while the leader’s efforts aimed at meeting the needs of the remaining group members contribute to a decrease in individual activity and the desire for leadership of each of them.
However, only a few researchers have been able not only to identify important situational leadership variables, but also to present holistic theories and applied methods that make it possible to measure and change (optimize) leader behavior in specific organizational situations.
PM theory of leadership. One of these methods is the PM theory of leadership, developed by the Japanese psychologist D. Misumi 227 . Back in the mid-40s, inspired by his acquaintance with the research of K. Levin and his colleagues, he independently, independently of the studies of American universities we have already mentioned, began to develop his own theory of leadership. Misumi also comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to identify two basic factors that ensure the effectiveness of a leader, but considers them not as independent formations, but as a function of the interaction of specific leadership behavior with the group dynamics of a specific group.
Such dimensions of a leader’s behavior, according to Misumi, are a leadership style focused on achieving the goals of organizational activities (planning, control, coordination, pressure, etc.) and a focus on supporting and satisfying the individual and group needs of members of the organization and its preservation. as a whole organism. The initial letters of two English words denoting the considered behavioral categories of leadership: P(erfomance) - activity and M(intenance) - support, and gave the approach a name.
It is easy to see that the essence of these factors largely coincides with the two-factor behavioral models we have already considered. D. Misumi's discovery is that he demonstrated the difference between the leader's behavior itself and the function that this behavior performs when perceived by subordinates. The dominant emphasis of PM theory is to view leadership as a group-dynamic process expressed primarily by members of the group led by the leader.
In order for a manager to master the skill of successful leadership, he must have objective feedback about his influence on subordinates, be able to determine his actual leadership style, and also plan for its directed change. For this purpose, within the framework of his theory, D. Misumi developed a special questionnaire to determine PM factors in the behavior of a leader 228.
In addition to the two basic factors, the method allows you to diagnose eight auxiliary factors:
1) desire to work,
2) satisfaction with salary,
3) job satisfaction,
4) psychological climate,
5) joint activities,
6) holding meetings,
7) communication and interaction,
8) psychological standards of group activity.
To develop the PM questionnaire, the author used the nonparametric equivalent of multidimensional scaling 229 as well as factor analysis. The sample size is astonishing, seemingly unmatched by any other leadership study: in banking alone, 2,489 work groups were surveyed in 16 Japanese banks! 230 The method was used even more widely in industry, transport and government agencies in Japan. Factor analysis of this huge body of empirical data confirmed the adequacy of the questionnaire to the theoretical model: the two leading factors were invariably the P(erfomance) and M(aintenance) factors. Based on the varying degrees of actualization of both behavioral categories of leadership in group dynamics, Misumi proposed the following typology of manager behavior 231 (Fig. 5. 2):
Numerous studies over the course of 50 years have proven that in almost all types of organizations the PM style of leadership (both letters are capital letters), i.e. when both R- and M- functions are implemented to the maximum, it is the most effective. And vice versa, rm-leadership style (both letters are capital, small), i.e. when both functions are practically not implemented, it turns out to be minimally effective for the organization.
The questionnaire consists of 60 questions. The first 40, grouped into 8 groups (subfactors), are devoted to discussing various aspects of organizational activity. The last 20 questions are directly related to the main styles and management strategies: questions from 41 to 50 are devoted to the R-style, and from 51 to 60 to the M-style. Using the PM questionnaire, a leader can obtain objective information about his influence on people, can determine his current leadership style, track trends in its change towards an effective PM style, and can control the dynamics of his interaction with the group, choosing means to optimize this interaction.
Application of the method involves the following steps:
1. Filling out the PM questionnaire by members of groups headed by lower or middle level managers.
2. Conducting a training seminar for a group of lower and middle level managers with them filling out the PM questionnaire.
3. Repeated completion of the PM questionnaire by members of groups headed by lower-level managers after 3 months.
4. Repeated holding of a training seminar with managers. The questionnaire is processed by calculating the sum of the average values for two basic PM factors. The intersection point of factors on the RM-graph, the coordinate axes of which are RM-norms
Rice. 5.2. Typology of leader behavior based on the degree of implementation
two main management functions.
In modern political science, there are several theories of leadership.
Trait theory. Its essence is in explaining the phenomenon of leadership by outstanding:
Personality qualities. Among the traits inherent in a leader are usually called a sharp mind, the ability to attract attention, tact, a sense of humor,
Outstanding organizational skills and ability to please people
Willingness to take responsibility, competence and much more, including photogenicity and visual attractiveness.
Situational theory. Leadership is seen as a function of the situation. It is the current specific circumstances that determine the selection of a leader, as well as his behavior and the decisions he makes. The essence of a leader lies not in the individual, but in the role that a certain group needs.
The theory of the determining role of followers (constituents). A leader is a person who meets the expectations and demands of his followers. In such cases, the leader becomes the person who most successfully focuses on others. It is the group itself that chooses a leader who corresponds to its interests and orientation. The secret of a leader is not in himself, but in the psychology and needs of his followers. They turn the leader into a puppet acting on the needs of the crowd, and the leader strives to satisfy the crowd in order to maintain power.
3. Functions and types of political leader
Integrative– unification and coordination of various groups and interests on the basis of basic values and ideals recognized by society.
Orientation– development of a political course that reflects progress trends and the needs of population groups.
Instrumental– determination of ways and methods of implementing the tasks assigned to society.
Mobilization– initiating the necessary changes by creating developed incentives for the population.
Communicative– maintaining connections between the authorities and the masses in order to prevent the alienation of citizens from power.
In psychology, various classifications of leaders are accepted:
by the nature of the activity (universal leader and situational leader);
by area of activity (emotional leader and business leader), etc.
A leader may or may not be a group leader at the same time.
There are:
formal leadership is the process of influencing people from the position of their position;
informal leadership is the process of influencing people using one’s abilities, skills or other resources.
The functions performed by political leaders are largely determined by the goals they set and the situation and environment (economic and political) in which they have to act. The situation, as a rule, is a crisis, and the goal is a program of action and its implementation.
Each political leader has specific character traits, methods of interaction with followers and voters, ways of achieving goals, etc. Based on various criteria, we can distinguish different types of political leaders.
Based on the type of political image, M. Harmann identifies the following types of political leaders: “standard bearer”, “minister”, “merchant” and “fireman”.
Leaders are “standard bearers”– these are great people who have their own vision of reality, their own view of current events and ways of their development.
Leader is a “servant” » – acts as a spokesman for the interests of its supporters, voters, and acts on their behalf. In practice, these leaders tend to be populist; often they prefer to say what voters expect and hope to hear from them.
Leader "trader"- is likened to a seller of a product trying to convince the buyer to buy it. This type of leader must have the ability to convince the people who "buy" his ideas or plans to become involved in their implementation.
Leader - "firefighter"– “puts out fires,” that is, quickly responds to the problems that arise in society, responds to events and problems generated by situations and acts accordingly.
In practice, most political leaders combine all four images of leadership in different order and sequence, that is, they try not to overuse any one of them.
By style political leadership is distinguished between authoritarian-single-handed directing influence based on the threat of the use of force, And democratic – involving group members in managing activities.
The most common typology of political leadership in the West was developed by Max Weber(1864–1920). He identified three main types of leadership, emphasizing that in reality pure types are rarely found
Traditional Leadership– the right to leadership is determined by belonging to the Ruling Elite, belief in the holiness and immutability of traditions (One becomes a leader by virtue of traditions, for example, when the son of a tribal leader, a monarch, inherits his father’s post after his death)
Rational-legal leadership– the leader’s power is limited by law; Both leaders and masses are subject to the law. Established laws are changed only by statutory procedures
Charismatic Leadership- based on faith in the exceptional abilities of a leader who has charisma (from the Greek - divine gift, grace). The charismatic leader believes that he is on a historical “mission” and therefore demands unconditional obedience and support. He must constantly prove his exclusivity to the masses by performing extraordinary feats.
M. Weber considered the phenomenon of a charismatic leader to be the most interesting. “Devotion to the charisma of a prophet or a leader in war, or an outstanding demagogue” in a popular assembly or in parliament means, wrote M. Weber, that a person of this type is considered to be an internally “called” leader of people, that the latter do not obey him by virtue of custom or an institution, but because they believe in it” (M. Weber Selected Works of M., 1990 - P. 646).
A charismatic personality exercised power in different political systems: Yu. Caesar in the Roman Empire, Napoleon in France, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Lenin in Russia. Mao - in China, etc.
The historical experience of mankind shows that even outstanding political leaders could not “create” history according to their will. Churchill and Hitler, Lenin and Stalin and many others - they were all talented political leaders in their own way, possessed individual qualities, but their plans conflicted with social development.
However, the role of a political leader cannot be underestimated: he can have a significant impact on the course of social development. In each specific situation, personal activity and even subjectivity of decisions are manifested, that is, the leader’s behavior can be relatively independent. The role of a political leader is especially great during critical periods of development, when quick decision-making and the ability to correctly identify specific tasks are required.
There is an opinion that a leader can solve all problems. In fact, a cruel, demanding leader can significantly intensify the activity of the masses. But the main task of a leader is to evoke activity, eliminate passivity, and involve all members of society in managing it.
At the present stage, the following trends in modern leadership are distinguished:
distanced attitude towards the masses (communication is carried out through the team);
In many ways, a political leader is a symbolic figure; his image is created by his team;
the leader’s actions become predictable, he acts within certain limits and instructions;
The leader's image is created by the media. A political leader is formed in political struggle. For many decades in our country there was no great demand for it among political leaders. Therefore, political “handicraftsmen” with a low level of political culture often find themselves in the role of political leader. And this all the more requires a careful analysis of reality and the study of existing experience.
conclusions
So, the problems of political leadership in political science are of both theoretical and applied importance. The activities of a political leader can significantly contribute to, or, conversely, hinder social development. Therefore, to select leaders, there are various psychometric and sociometric tests and methods that are successfully used in practice in civilized countries.
Deviant behavior as a phenomenon of social life
Concept, forms and types of deviant behavior
In any society there are social norms, that is, rules by which this society lives. Deviating from norms is as natural as following them. At all times, humanity has struggled with all forms and types of deviant behavior, because sharp deviations from the norm, both positive and negative, threatened to disrupt the stability of society, and stability is always valued above all.
In order to find out the reasons for deviant behavior, you need to at least find out what deviant behavior actually is. There are two different definitions:
1) An act, a person’s actions, that does not correspond to the officially established or actually established norms in a given society. In this definition, deviant behavior is primarily a subject of psychology, pedagogy, and psychiatry.
2) A social phenomenon expressed in mass forms of human activity that do not correspond to socially established or actually established norms in a given society. In this sense, deviant behavior is a subject of sociology and social psychology.
Deviant behavior has become widespread in recent years due to the dynamism of social processes, crisis situations in many spheres of public life, and the growth of social vulnerability of citizens. Therefore, it has become the object of attention of many sociologists, social psychologists, doctors, and law enforcement officials. Consequently, the demand for scientific research into deviations, their forms, structure, dynamics of relationships, as well as for an explanation of the causes, conditions and factors contributing to their occurrence, has increased.
Deviant behavior has its own stages of gradual development, which the individual himself does not notice, but a psychologist observing him will always notice. Knowing the sequence of these stages, you can prevent each of them. Deviation begins with the inability to realize the set goal. This tension can manifest itself as aggression, anger, directed at others or at oneself. If a person does not get out of this state for a long time, then neurosis is formed - an illness that arises as a result of a collision of a person’s desires and sad reality. Then attempts are made to achieve their goal in other ways that deviate from the norm. In this situation, several stages are distinguished: formation, formation, development and resolution of the conflict, post-conflict development. If during the resolution of the conflict the goals are achieved, then the deviation stops. If not, then it continues in the forms of crime and illegal activities.
The first question that should be answered when studying deviant behavior is the question of the concept of “norm”. After all, if we don’t know what the norm is, we will never know what a deviation from it is. By definition, a social norm is a necessary and stable element of social practice that serves as an instrument of social regulation and control. A social norm determines the historically established limit, measure, and interval of acceptable behavior in the activities of people, social groups, and social organizations in a particular society. A social norm is embodied in laws, traditions, customs, that is, in everything that has become a habit, entered into everyday life, into the way of life of the majority of the population, is supported by public opinion, and plays the role of a “natural regulator” of social and interpersonal relations. The biggest problems associated with norms arise in a reformed society, where some norms have been destroyed and others have not been created, the old worldview has disappeared and a new one has not appeared.
When studying deviations in behavior, it is important to remember that they can be both positive and negative, and accordingly have different meanings for society. Positive ones are social creativity, self-sacrifice, super-hard work, the highest devotion, an outstanding scientific discovery, invention. Such deviations develop people and help them overcome conservative standards of behavior. A person who has the status of a leader, chosen one of the people, hero, genius in society is an example of a positive deviation, an approved deviation. At the same time, the emphasis of social support is always changing. If, for example, there is a need to protect the country, then military commanders come first, at other times - political leaders, cultural figures or scientists.
But it should be noted that norms and deviations change historically and depend on the social norms that have developed at a given moment and in a given society. Deviations in other historical conditions or in another country may become the norm, for example, when the social system changes. Alcohol consumption was banned in the United States in 1919, and bars were opened in 1933. In Russia, abortion was banned in 1933, and allowed again in 1955. Incest is illegal in most countries, but is allowed in some. Most countries now have monogamous marriages, and some have polygamous ones. A wandering monk is considered a saint in one country, but simply a slacker in another.
A person who follows deviant behavior is called a deviant. But there is also such a thing as an asocial personality, this is an irresponsible person who does not feel guilty about anything, blames other people for everything, does everything out of spite and to cause harm, conflicts with others, shows intolerance and does not learn from his mistakes . His behavior indicates insufficient socialization of the individual. Such people are alienated from family, educational institutions, public organizations and move into the so-called risk groups or asocial groups.
Deviant behavior has many types, types and forms. In order not to get confused in them, special classifications were invented. But there were too many classifications, so we present the simplest and most understandable:
1) By type of violation of the norm (law, morality, etiquette).
2) By purpose and motive (selfish, aggressive).
3) By subject (individuals, groups, social organizations).
4) By age (children, mature people, elderly).
Our ultimate goal is to study the causes of deviant behavior. But it is impossible to name just a few reasons for such a large number of types of deviant behavior, because for each type and for each form they are different. Therefore, to begin with, let us briefly describe the types and forms of deviant behavior. So, the types:
1) Violence - the use by a subject of various forms of coercion in relation to other subjects in order to acquire or maintain economic and political dominance, gain rights and privileges, and achieve other goals. Violence is a form of aggression - behavior the purpose of which is to cause damage, harm, in an effort to humiliate, destroy, or force someone to take any action. The subject's readiness for aggressive behavior is called aggressiveness.
Types of aggression (classification number 1):
a) Reactive - anger, hatred, hostility.
b) Instrumental - purposeful and pre-planned.
Types of aggression (classification number 2):
a) Physical violence - causing physical harm.
b) Mental violence - mental impact leading to breakdowns and other negative consequences.
c) Sexual violence - involvement in sexual activities.
Types of aggression (classification number 3):
a) Sadism - violence directed at someone, the desire for cruelty, enjoying the suffering of others.
b) Masochism - violence directed at oneself, self-flagellation, causing oneself suffering.
2) Drug addiction is a mental and sometimes physical condition that arises as a result of the interaction between a living organism and a drug, characterized by behavioral characteristics and other reactions that always include the need for constant or periodically renewed use of this drug in order to experience its mental effects or avoid the discomfort associated with its absence.
3) Substance abuse is a disease caused by the consumption of toxic substances, that is, the use of tranquilizer tablets, caffeine obtained from strong tea - chifir, inhalation of aromatic substances of household appliances.
4) Drunkenness - excessive consumption of alcohol, which, along with a threat to the health of the individual, disrupts its social adaptation. Alcoholism is characterized by a pathological attraction to alcohol, accompanied by social and moral degradation of the individual. Alcohol addiction develops gradually and is determined by complex changes that occur in the body of a drinker and become irreversible: alcohol becomes necessary to maintain metabolic processes.
Types of alcoholism:
a) Household - a person is still able to control the amount of alcohol.
b) Chronic - a person cannot help drinking alcohol.
5) Prostitution is the practice of sexual relations outside of marriage, carried out for remuneration in one form or another, which serves as the main or significant additional source of funds for the chosen lifestyle.
Signs of prostitution:
a) Occupation - satisfying the sexual needs of clients.
b) The nature of the activities is systematic sexual relations with different persons without sensual attraction and aimed at satisfying the client’s sexual passion in any form.
c) The motive for occupation is a pre-agreed reward in the form of money or material assets, which are the main or additional sources of existence.
Types of prostitution:
a) Male
b) Women's
c) Children's room
6) Suicide - intentionally taking one's own life.
Types of suicide (classification number 1):
a) Completed suicide.
b) Suicidal attempts.
c) Intentions.
Types of suicide (classification number 2):
a) Individual.
b) Mass.
7) Offense - legal factors that contradict the rules of law and violate the established order in the country.
Types of offenses:
a) Crime is a socially dangerous act provided for by criminal law, committed guilty by a sane person who has reached the age of criminal responsibility. For example, murder, rape, theft.
b) Misdemeanor - an unlawful and guilty act that does not pose a great public danger and is regulated by the norms of various branches of law. For example, defiant behavior, foul language, drunkenness, vagrancy.
Forms of deviant behavior:
1) Deviation in the sphere of morality - a violation of a moral norm in terms of dignity, honor, duty, responsibility. A moral norm is a model of a person’s actions, his certain ideal traits. In different historical conditions, the concept of a moral norm is different. During the entire historical development, the following moral principles were developed: love for the Motherland, Fatherland, one’s people; intolerance of national and racial hostility; conscientious work; humane relations and mutual respect between people; mutual understanding in the family; honesty and truthfulness; moral purity, simplicity and modesty.
a) Begging.
b) Use of state property.
c) Prostitution.
d) Gambling.
3) Bureaucracy - anomalies in the activities of the administrative apparatus, expressed in various abuses committed by officials.
Types of bureaucracy:
a) Office work.
b) Red tape.
c) Neglect of the essence of the matter for the sake of observing formalities.
d) Unsatisfactory organization of the case.
e) Adherence to old management methods.
When distinguishing forms and types of deviant behavior, one must keep in mind that there are no pure types; almost all deviants have several varieties at once. For example, prostitution and crime are almost always combined with alcoholism and drug addiction.
All of the above gives an approximate idea of deviant behavior, which in the future will help to reveal its causes and study the social conditions of its occurrence.
Introduction
Public leadership is inherent in human nature itself and is the oldest form of organizing people’s lives, an effective means of resolving pressing issues.
Already at the first stages of human development, an order of social life was chosen in which more experienced, intelligent, and strong people played the leading role. They received recognition, trust, authority among their fellow tribesmen, and became leaders. As social life developed, the leadership system became more complex. From personal leadership, society moved to more complex forms.
There is an objective need for leadership in society, and it cannot but be realized. Leadership is one of the mechanisms for unifying group activities.
The main task of a leader is to evoke activity, eliminate passivity, and involve all members of the group in its management.
“Leadership is a mysterious, elusive quality. Its existence is easy to recognize, difficult to describe, even more difficult to use in practice, and it is no longer possible to create this quality in others,” wrote the famous American management specialist D. Campbell.
Indeed, perhaps no other topic related to the organizational behavior of people has aroused and continues to arouse such great interest among sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and other specialists in the field of humanities. And this is not surprising: the behavior of leaders, their decisions (especially in the field of politics) affect the fate of many millions of people, which gives the problem of understanding and explaining the phenomenon of leadership a truly global, philosophical character.
Definitions of leadership and leader
The concept of leadership and its various concepts arose for the first time in Western social psychology on the basis of empirical studies of small groups. Many researchers have studied leadership as a socio-psychological phenomenon from different points of view, highlighting one or another aspect of it.
Leadership is a natural socio-psychological process in a group, built on the influence of the individual’s personal authority on the behavior of group members.
Leadership is one of the manifestations of power. A prerequisite for leadership is the possession of power in specific formal and informal organizations of various levels and scales.
A leader is a member of a group whose authority is unconditionally recognized by other members who are willing to follow him. This is a person for whom others are ready to recognize and recognize the qualities of excellence, i.e. qualities that inspire faith in him and encourage people to recognize his influence on themselves.
After analyzing various approaches, the American psychologist R. Stogdill found that most often leadership is viewed either as a focus of group interests, or as the art of achieving agreement, or as role differentiation in positions of power.
Leadership theories
The most widespread theories are:
1) Personality Trait Theory
The direction in the study of leadership from the perspective of trait theory arose under the influence of the English psychologist and anthropologist F. Galton, who put forward the idea of heredity in the nature of leadership. The main idea of this approach was the belief that if a leader has qualities that are inherited and distinguish him from others, then these qualities can be distinguished. However, it was not possible to compile such a list. For the first time, a list of 79 traits mentioned by various researchers as “leadership” was compiled by the American psychologist K. Baird in 1940. The results turned out to be discouraging. The position of the theory did not stand up to criticism either in scientific or applied terms. First, it was not possible to identify any universal set of leadership traits, since approximately only 5% of the total were common to four or more studies. Secondly, attempts to predict the real behavior of people using psychological tests, which had their ideological basis in the “trait theory,” failed.
Thus, trait theory has failed to provide a meaningful scientific interpretation of the reasons that explain the success of individual leaders. However, she outlined the starting points for research into this phenomenon. Its applied significance was expressed in the development of procedures for selecting candidates for leadership positions. To do this, the main features that a leader must have were highlighted:
Foresight is the ability to formulate the image and objectives of the organization.
The ability to distinguish between what is necessary and what is simply important.
Incentivize followers with recognition and rewards for success.
Mastery of the art of interpersonal relationships, that is, the ability to listen, give advice, and be confident in one’s actions.
“Political instinct” is the ability to understand the needs of one’s environment and those in power.
Fortitude is steadfastness in the face of an opponent.
The ability to take risks in issues such as transferring part of the work and authority to followers.
Flexibility - the ability to respond to new ideas and experiences.
Decisiveness, firmness when circumstances require it.
2) Situational leadership theory
According to this theory, the emergence of a leader is seen as the result of a meeting between subject, place, time and circumstances. This means that in various specific situations of group life, individual members of the group stand out who are superior to others in at least one quality, but since it is precisely this quality that turns out to be necessary in the current situation, the person who possesses it becomes a leader. Interestingly, the situational theory of leadership emphasizes the relativity of the traits inherent in a leader and suggests that qualitatively different circumstances may require qualitatively different personality traits of certain individuals who become leaders.
This concept did not seem convincing enough to researchers. There was even an attempt to see in her the personality of the leader as a puppet. An American leadership scientist decided to overcome this limitation. He formulated a number of noteworthy assumptions, in particular:
E. Hartley, who proposed a modification of the situational theory:
· if a person becomes a leader in one situation, then it is possible that he can become one in another;
· as a result of stereotypical perception, leaders in one situation are considered by the group as “leaders in general”;
· having become a leader in one situation, an individual acquires authority, which contributes to his election as a leader in another situation;
· a person who is motivated to achieve this status is more often chosen as a leader.
Despite the fact that Hartley's concept of leadership was more flexible than its predecessors, it still failed to acquire clarity and rigor as a scientific theory of leadership.
3) Situational personality theory
A more or less compromise version of leadership theory was proposed in 1952 by G. Gert and S. Mills. They identified five factors that must be considered when considering the phenomenon of leadership:
· traits of a leader as a person;
· his motives;
· images of the leader and motives that exist in the minds of his followers and encourage them to follow him;
· personal characteristics of the leader as a social role;
· institutional context, i.e. those official and legitimate parameters within which the leader and his followers operate.
More recently, there have been proposals to study leadership in terms of the status, interactions, perceptions and behavior of individuals in relation to other group members. Thus, leadership came to be seen as an interpersonal relationship rather than a characteristic of an individual.
Following this tradition, the famous psychologist and diagnostician R. Cattell proposed to consider leadership as a dynamic interaction between the goals and needs of the leader and the goals and needs of followers, where the leader’s function is reduced to choosing and achieving group goals. Within the framework of this tradition, the theory of leadership was developed by E. Hollander and J. Julian.
4) Expectancy-interaction theory
It was developed by many American researchers - J. Homans, J. Hemphill, R. Stogdill, S. Evans, F. Fiedler. Within the framework of this school, operational models of leadership were created, and F. Fiedler proposed his own version - a probabilistic model of leadership effectiveness. It emphasizes the integration of leader influence, personality traits, and situational variables, particularly the relationship between leader and followers. Fiedler identifies two possible leadership styles:
· task orientation (“instrumental leadership”);
· focus on interpersonal relationships (“emotional leadership”).
According to Fiedler, leadership style is related to situational variables such that the most favorable situation for a leader includes a good relationship with followers, a carefully designed task, and a strong leadership position.
Fiedler concludes that a task-oriented leader is more effective when the situation is either very favorable or very unfavorable to him. And an interpersonally oriented leader is more effective in situations that are either moderately favorable or moderately unfavorable.
5) The theory of humanistic direction
This concept states that the human being is by nature a complex, motivated organism, and that an organization is, in principle, always controllable. Therefore, the leader must transform the organization in such a way that the individual is provided with the freedom to achieve his own goals and needs, and at the same time in such a way as to contribute to the achievement of the goals and needs of the organization. The idea was developed by American psychologists R. Blake, J. McGregor and others.
6) Motivational theory
Representatives of this version are S. Mitchell, S. Evans and others. It states that the effectiveness of a leader depends on his impact on the motivation of followers, on their ability to perform a task productively and on the satisfaction experienced in the process of work.
The idea presupposes a certain structure of the leadership process and determines the types of leadership behavior:
· supportive leadership;
Directive leadership
· success-oriented leadership, etc.
When studying the phenomenon of leadership, it is considered necessary to take into account:
· attitudes and behavior of followers;
· satisfaction or dissatisfaction with work;
approval or disapproval of the leader;
· motivation of behavior;
· situational factors: individual traits of followers and environmental factors (tasks, power system in the group).
7) Attribution theory
Views the leader as a kind of “puppet”: the leader receives direct instructions and power from his followers. The latter set the leader in motion, “like a puppeteer - a doll.”
There are many other approaches and perspectives that have been developed at the general framework level, without careful operational analysis. Research in this area continues intensively.
"I" - concept of leader
Some people have an unusually strong need for power or other personal values, such as respect, as a means of compensating for damaged or inadequate self-esteem.
Personal values or needs of this kind can be considered ego motives, since they are part of the ego system of the personality. Ego is one of the components of the personality structure in the theory of S. Freud.
Social psychologists have found that all leaders can be divided into three groups depending on their self-esteem:
1) A leader with low self-esteem turns out to be more dependent on other people. The lower a leader’s self-esteem, the worse he reacts to the situation, the higher his reactivity. He is more sensitive to feedback and changes his self-esteem depending on the approval or disapproval of others.
A leader with low self-esteem experiences constant dissatisfaction with himself, and this may be the force that pushes him to take on more and more new barriers. It’s as if he is constantly proving to himself that he is worth something, but the barriers he has taken no longer please him. And he strives for new ones in order to reaffirm his own importance. Low self-esteem pushes the leader to make “great” conquests and make extravagant decisions unexpected by those around him. Often, politics for such leaders turns out to be an area where they manage to assert themselves and compensate for low self-esteem. The desire for power of such a leader is often one of the possible compensations for his low self-esteem.
Low self-esteem can be composed of five subjective negative feelings about oneself in various combinations:
· feeling of one's own insignificance;
· feeling of moral inferiority;
· feeling of weakness;
· feeling of mediocrity;
· feeling of intellectual inadequacy.
2) A leader with high self-esteem is less dependent on external circumstances. He has more stable internal standards on which he bases his self-esteem.
A leader with high self-esteem overestimates his own qualities and often does not notice external and internal reactions to his behavior. He revels in his own success and treats criticism as attacks on him by his envious people. He has clearly broken the feedback between himself and his activities and behavior.
3) A leader with adequate self-esteem is the best option for such a social role. His activities and behavior are not motivated by the desire for self-affirmation. The feedback between the consequences of his activities and behavior and himself works reliably. Such a leader tends to be respectful and highly appreciative of other leaders. He is not afraid that he will be humiliated or bypassed. He firmly knows his own worth, considers himself no worse than others with whom he has to interact. In joint activities, he chooses a strategy that gives him mutual benefit and allows him to achieve his goals by optimal means.
A leader in any situation, with rare exceptions, behaves in accordance with his own self-concept. A leader's behavior depends on who and how he perceives himself to be, and how he compares himself to those with whom he interacts.
The value and subjective significance of personal qualities and their reflection in the self-image and self-esteem can be masked by the action of defense mechanisms.
The self-image more or less clearly accumulates the leader’s perceptions, thoughts and feelings towards himself. His self-image, according to American researchers D. Offer and C. Strozaer, is divided into six different parts that closely interact:
1) The physical self represents the leader’s thoughts about his state of health and physical strength or weakness. The leader must be healthy enough and physically strong enough so that nothing interferes with his activities and appropriate behavior.
2) The sexual self, being the most intimate part of the leader’s personality, manifests itself quite relevantly regardless of whether it is free and healthy or constrained and sick. The lack of statistical data on how sexual behavior is related to leadership abilities does not reduce the relevance of the hypothesis of such a connection.
3) The social self reflects the highly relevant ability of the individual to collaborate with others. Is there any need to prove how important this is for a leader? It is extremely important for him to be able to negotiate and stimulate his associates and colleagues to show their best qualities.
4) Family Self is a very important element of the leader’s personality. It is well known what a huge influence the relationships in the parental family have on the behavior of any adult, and the leader is no exception. Some people overcome early traumas and conflicts, others do not and, becoming leaders, transfer frustrations from their childhood to their environment.
5) The psychological self provides the leader’s ideas about his picture of the world, his inner world, fantasies and dreams, desires, illusions, fears, etc. Whether the leader suffers from awareness of his own fears or treats this calmly and even with humor is manifested in his behavior , especially during periods of weakening self-control.
6) Overcoming conflicts I - the leader’s ideas about his ability to creatively overcome conflicts. Like ordinary people, leaders do not have innate immunity from external and internal conflicts, including neurotic ones. A leader is faced with the challenge of finding new solutions to old problems. He must have sufficient knowledge and intelligence to perceive the problem. It is important for him to be confident enough in himself when making decisions in order to be able to convey this confidence to others. Another significant aspect of the conflict-overcoming self is the leader’s awareness of his ability to overcome the stresses associated with this very social role. It is known that stress leads to severe enough symptoms that can seriously limit the intellectual and behavioral capabilities of a leader.
The listed components of the Self-concept do not exhaust its entire essence. Like any other individual, the complexity of a leader’s self-concept can vary - from the lowest to the highest. The complexity of the self-concept is associated with the perception of similarity with other people, and the more complex the self-concept, the more likely it is that the leader will perceive information from others. Leaders with high self-concept complexity more easily than leaders with low self-concept complexity assimilate both positive and negative information and thus respond to situations based on feedback.
Psychological needs and motives of a leader
The behavior of any leader is almost always purposeful and motivated. There are many different personal needs that are in one way or another related to the activities of a leader. Nevertheless, social psychologists from different schools have identified the following basic needs that motivate leader behavior:
1) The need for power.
Currently, there are many different concepts of the need for power. In Western social psychology, the concept of G. Lasswell and A. George appeared earlier than others, who considered the need for power as a means of compensating for damaged or inadequate self-esteem. The need for power, which arose as a compensatory mechanism, manifests itself in a leader in different ways, depending on the conditions. This need may be reinforced by other needs or, on the contrary, come into conflict with them.
In order to compensate, the leader tries to find a field of activity where he can demonstrate his competence and dignity. The leader receives a social space in which he can function quite productively and autonomously, sometimes even aggressively and arrogantly, to achieve personal balance, since this space is free from the interference of others. The process of creating a sphere of competence is characterized by a tendency towards a shift from one pole of subjective feelings to another, namely, from a lack of self-confidence to high self-esteem and self-confidence in one’s actions. The importance of such motivation for people suffering from low self-esteem hardly requires deep argumentation.
Subsequently, A. George went a little further and proposed a more expanded version of the interpretation of the need for power: he began to consider power as a self-sufficient highest value, which made it possible to better understand the leader’s motivation. In this approach, power acts not so much as a phenomenon of compensation, but as a tool that allows one to obtain satisfaction of many other personal needs, such as the need for achievement, respect, approval, security, personal freedom, understood as the absence of someone else’s domination over the leader.
Another point of view on the need for power was proposed by D. Winter. He considers it from the position of sociality; an indicator of the need for power within the framework of his concept is the occupation of a position that gives formal social power. Here the need for prestige, in a prestigious material world and a prestigious social environment, is satisfied, although confrontation with others who have a high social status often arises.
Closely related to the need for power are such leader traits as the desire to dominate in interpersonal relationships, the desire to manipulate people (Machiavellianism), persuasiveness - and each implements its own set of behavior patterns.
2) The need for control over events and people. This need manifests itself in the leader's activities and behavior as a basic human need to control external forces and events that affect people's lives. Sphere of control is the breadth of life space and activity that a leader seeks to exercise his influence.
3) The need for achievement.
This is one of the main properties of the psychological structure of the individual, responsible for the choice of goals, values, methods and means of existence. The most characteristic thing for him is the desire to improve results, persistence in achieving his goals, and the ability to achieve his goal. A close connection has been established between the level of achievement motivation and real success in a person’s life. It has been proven that people with high levels of achievement needs seek achievement situations as well as information to judge their success. They are confident in the successful outcome of the case, are ready to take responsibility, are decisive in uncertain situations, enjoy solving interesting problems, do not get lost in situations of competition, competition or struggle, show great persistence when meeting obstacles, and are result-oriented.
This need manifests itself in a concern for perfection, mastery, and success. It is usually clearly visible in entrepreneurial activity and behavior. The risk factor inherent in this field of activity gives this need a special charm. The need for achievement, according to American sociopsychologists D. McClelland and J. Atkinson, is related to competence, professionalism, organization of the physical and social environment, manipulation, overcoming obstacles, establishing high work standards, competition, and victory over someone. For a leader with a strong pragmatic orientation, a high need for achievement can be combined with dishonesty and violation of the law - another side of Machiavellianism: the end justifies the means.
The need for achievement is closely related to the leader's level of aspirations. D. Winter and L. Carlson found that this need is brought up largely by parents, who are a high standard for the future leader.
4) The need for affiliation, i.e. in belonging to a group, in receiving approval. It manifests itself in the leader’s concern for close relationships with others and implies friendly, socially desirable relationships that are realized, as a rule, in conditions of “safety,” i.e. with your own kind. A leader with a dominant need for affiliation prefers group relationships rather than dyadic ones (relationships between two people). Such leaders are usually hypersensitive to risk or competition.
One important aspect of the need for affiliation is seeking approval from others.
Power is one of the fundamental principles of society, of all its structural levels. It exists wherever there are stable associations of people: in the family, organizations and institutions, throughout the state and international coalitions.
There are many definitions of power, which indicates the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon. The following most important directions in the interpretation of power can be identified.
Teleological (from the point of view of the goal): power is considered as a stable ability to achieve set goals and obtain intended results.
Confrontational: power as a clash, confrontation of forces, dominance of a certain will despite the resistance of others.
Behaviorist: power is interpreted as a special type of behavior when some people command and others obey. This approach individualizes the understanding of power, reduces it to the interaction of real individuals, paying attention to the subjective motivation of power.
Psychological: the desire for power and especially its possession perform the function of subjective compensation for physical or spiritual inferiority. Power arises as the interaction of the will of some and the readiness to subordinate others.
Psychoanalytic: the desire for power as a manifestation, sublimation of suppressed libido, which is an attraction of a predominantly sexual nature or psychic energy in general subject to transformation. Libido is a certain type of energy, most often biochemical, which underlies human needs and actions.
Systemic: power is interpreted as a derivative not of individual relationships, but of the social system.
Communication: power is considered as a means of social communication (communication), allowing to regulate conflicts and ensure the integration of society. Power is a specific type of communication, i.e. interactions associated with the transfer of information.
Structural - functionalist: power is interpreted as a property of social organization, as a way of self-organization of the human community, based on the expediency of separating the functions of management and execution. Power is a property of social statuses and roles that allows one to differentiate managerial and executive functions.
Relationist: power is understood as a relationship between two partners - individual or collective, between two agents, one of whom has a determining influence on the other.
Any power has certain properties, the most characteristic are the following.
1) Social character. Power is not a personal, personal property or attribute of any person; it exists only in relations between people. Power acts as a social relationship.
2) Asymmetry. Power represents the relationship and interaction of different people and is therefore uneven, asymmetrical in terms of influence: it is directed from the holder of power to the subordinate.
3) Target determination. Power is built on the basis of certain goals.
4) Influence of power resources. Power, with its resources (rewards and sanctions), influences the behavior of subordinates.
5) The faith of the performers in the ability of the bearer of power to influence them. Such faith is one of the sources of sustainable submission.
6) Possibility of resistance and even insubordination. Power is never absolute, since a person has freedom of choice.
7) The causal nature of power. The power of one person is the cause of the behavior of another, which is a consequence of the power influence of the first.
8) Limitations of the power determination of behavior. The authorities cannot control all the reasons for the behavior of subordinates. It does not apply to their personal life and, in part, to their freedom.
Power as a relationship between people has a certain structure with many components. Here are the main ones:
· Subject - a person who embodies the active principle of power. Endowed with rights, powers, resources, privileges.
· An object is an executor of the instructions of a leader endowed with power, a subordinate, he has an obligation or need to obey the orders of the leader. Power without subordination is impossible: there is no subordination, there is no power.
· Means (resources) - those means the use of which ensures the influence of the subject on the object of power. Power is both the ability and the opportunity to transform one’s resources into sustainable influence within the framework of the system of relationship between the subject and the object of power. The resources of power are varied, just as the means of satisfying the different needs and interests of people are varied.
· Sphere (radius) of distribution - the territory in which this power operates, as well as the number of people - objects of power.
The magnitude (strength) of power is a function of three variables: the number of causes, their direction (positive, neutral, negative), and the strength of each cause.
Temporal duration is the time of functioning of a given power.
Costs associated with ensuring the functioning of power are material and other resources necessary for the administration of power.
Methods and procedures of power - orders, instructions, instructions, instruction, consultation, reinforcement, delegation of authority.
Counteracting influences and behavioral alternatives are a certain reality as the possibility of non-fulfillment of orders by objects of power.
Authority (from the Latin auctoritas - power, influence) in a broad sense - the generally recognized influence of a person or organization in various spheres of public life, based on knowledge, moral virtues, experience; in a narrow sense - one of the forms of exercising power.
This is an extremely unstable, short-lived and changeable form of influence. Such influence is possible provided that you do not threaten the life or social status of another person, but provide him with some beneficial service.
Authority is the recognition of an individual’s right to make decisions in joint activities. In this meaning, the concept of “authority” may not coincide with the concept of “power”. In this case, authority can be enjoyed by an individual who is not endowed with the appropriate powers, but who has a high degree of reference for others. The authority of such an individual is determined by his ideal representation in the eyes of others and the significance of his activities.
Authority is a highly valued quality that subordinates impart to a leader and that determines their obedience without persuasion or threat of punishment. It is based on agreement and means respect for the leading person and trust in her.
scientific (quality of scholarship);
· business (competence, experience);
· moral (moral qualities);
· religious (holiness);
· status (official).
Types and mechanism of leader power
The power of a leader is conventionally divided into two types:
1) Positional power is based on business authority, control over various resources used for rewards and sanctions, information and working conditions.
2) Personalized power is based on the competence, friendship, loyalty, and charisma of the leader.
In modern socio-psychological literature, the following types of leader power with the mechanisms of their influence are considered:
1) Reward. It can appear in various forms in each of two types: material and moral. Reward is the basis of the leader's power, since it is associated with the main goal of the individual - obtaining funds to satisfy his most important needs and serves as the main motive for the subordination of followers. Personal interest encourages followers to voluntarily carry out orders, making control and the application of sanctions unnecessary. Interest contributes to the development in people of other types of positive motivation for obedience - obedience based on conviction, authority and identification. Power through reward is most effective, especially when the reward is perceived as deserved and fair. Thus, the success of leadership depends on the leader’s ability to distribute rewards among subordinates depending on the results of their activities: the leader must influence the subordinates’ understanding and perception of the task, as well as determine the path to achieving the goal.
2) Sanctions. Punishment usually acts as a potential threat or possibility of its application. The strength of power based on fear of sanctions is directly proportional to the severity of the punishment and inversely proportional to the likelihood of avoiding it in case of disobedience. Such power tends to weaken due to the natural desire of people to get rid of this unpleasant emotional state. Work motivated by possible punishment provides only minimal labor efficiency and results sufficient only to avoid sanctions.
Punishment is effective when it is perceived as fair and is based on the authority of generally accepted norms and values. In leadership practice, it is effective to use punishment in combination with reward, showing the opposite consequences of desired and undesirable behavior.
3) Business authority of the leader. Power based on business authority is expert power. It means that the leader, in the opinion of his followers, has the competence, knowledge, experience, and skills necessary to solve certain problems in the absence of such abilities in other group members. Expert power presupposes superiority not only in knowledge and information, but also in skills and the ability to use them. According to social psychologists, the use of expert power is one of the leading factors of effective leadership.
4) Information. Expert power is often identified with information power, based on control over knowledge, information and the means of its dissemination. These two types of power are, of course, related, especially at the personal level, since the holder of expert power is more knowledgeable in solving certain problems. Information power, however, can be not only personal, but also positional in nature, i.e. may be associated both with individual possession of certain knowledge and with control over the means of obtaining and transmitting it, over the information flow as a whole due to the position occupied by the leader. In the case of information power, the basis for subordination is not only business authority, but also the beliefs and value orientations of followers based on the information they receive, as well as their own decisions, determined by the volume and nature of the knowledge they have. Information power serves to disseminate objective information, but at the same time it is capable of manipulation, i.e. to control the consciousness and behavior of people contrary to their interests (and often their will) through the use of special methods of deception.
5) Legitimization. Power through legitimization is based on official authority, recognition of the norms and values of a given organization, as well as the leader’s right to order and the duty of subordinates to obey. The legitimacy of power as such is transferred to its representatives. Power through legitimization is not always rigidly secured institutionally.
6) Conviction. Power through persuasion partially coincides with power through legitimization and informational power. However, in general, this type of power has broader bases.
Submission by conviction is associated with the motivational influence of fairly deep layers of consciousness: mentality, value orientations and attitudes, etc. The conviction of the need to obey the leader does not necessarily follow from the latter’s legitimacy, but may be the result of persuasive influence, awareness of social benefit, or other motives. Power through persuasion is more often used in extreme situations, when followers are required to exert greater effort, often going beyond normal norms.
7) Identification. Power through followers' identification with the leader often grows out of power based on interests, conviction and authority. Identification is primarily an emotional connection between the subject and the object of power. It manifests itself in the formation of a sense of unity in them, in the desire of followers to please the leader, take an example from him, and imitate him. In this case, maximum power is achieved. The leader is perceived by followers as their representative and protector, and his orders are perceived as a common matter that is important for everyone. Subjective identification of followers with the leader can be explained by several reasons:
· the real duality of people’s position in relation to power, when they simultaneously act as its subject and its object. In this case, both agents of power coincide, although not completely;
· the commonality of interests and values of the leader and his follower and the emergence in the latter of a feeling of unity with the former;
· charisma of the leader, his unusually high, in the opinion of followers, personal qualities;
· the educational influence and influence of culture characteristic of a given group and focused on the formation of its members’ loyalty to the group, corporate identity, and a sense of the collective “we”.
8) The habit of submission. Many other types of power rely on power through habit. The habit of subordination has its deepest roots in traditional societies, where the leader was likened to the head of the family, and the subordinates obeyed him as his children. Most of all, power through habit is manifested in stable groups with a long history with a long history of leadership of the same person. Habit is a reliable factor in the stability of power as long as this power does not come into conflict with new demands.
9) Organizational ecology. Environmental power is power through changing the work environment. The basis of this power is the interests of the people. Its essence lies in the leader’s conscious formation of the conditions for joint activity in such a way as to exclude undesirable behavior of followers and influence them as a whole. Environmental power manifests itself in the form of control over the work situation and, through this, influence on the consciousness and behavior of followers. This power is characterized by an indirect, mediated by the conditions of joint activity, nature of influence. Power through changes in the work environment differs from power through rewards or sanctions in that it is of a so-called preventive nature, not expected by followers.
The mechanism of power is the interaction of agents of power within the framework of: a special institutional process that stabilizes and regulates the functioning of power.
The power mechanism includes:
· organizational structures of power;
· regulatory framework (codes, charters, instructions, norms, regulations, rules).
Leader behavior in groups
Psychological types of leaders
The behavior of a leader in groups, as a rule, is determined by his psychological type.
Social psychologists (R. Ziller et al.) have developed the following psychological typology of the personality of leaders based on a study of self-esteem and the complexity of the self-concept:
1) Apolitical leaders are those with high self-esteem and high complexity of self-concepts who assimilate new information concerning them without threatening their self-concept.
2) Leaders are pragmatists. These are leaders with low self-esteem and high self-complexity - concepts that are able to listen to the opinions of other people and modify their behavior based on feedback.
3) Leaders-ideologists. Leaders with high self-esteem and low self-complexity are concepts that are weakly responsive or unresponsive to the opinions of others. Their cognitive processes and behavior are very rigid, and their self-esteem is extremely stable (“stubborn”).
4) Indeterministic leaders are figures with low self-esteem and low complexity of the self - concepts that react intensively to a narrow range of social stimuli.
D. Keirsich's approach to understanding psychological types is widely known and actively used in psychological practice. Based on his knowledge of the characteristics of temperament, he identifies the following four types of leaders:
1) Intuitive-emotional type
Its main feature is its focus on interpersonal relationships and stimulation of the individual and professional growth of each person with whom he collaborates. This is the most democratic of leaders. He is attentive to the personal problems and interests of employees and is primarily concerned with solving these problems, realizing the potential of each team member, and only then thinks about the documentation and architecture of the system. In the organization he heads there is an atmosphere of freedom, independence and initiative, which he constantly cultivates and supports. He is flexible in communication, transformation and succeeds in creating an atmosphere of mutual understanding. He is an optimist by nature, tireless in his desire to develop and improve the abilities of his employees, knows how to note the best aspects of their professional and personal qualities, and evaluate them according to their merits. At the same time, he is very sensitive to misunderstanding, reacts painfully to the lack of feedback, and is discouraged and upset about this. He is unable to understand why his “too free” or undisciplined employees do not perform their duties properly. He takes negative feedback about the work of the entire system personally, which leads him to disappointment and a feeling of disintegration. His strength lies in his ability to persuade and collaborate. His weakness lies in his excessive personal approach to problems and sometimes in his reluctance to meet people halfway.
2) Intuitive-logical type
This leader is characterized by the desire to develop concepts for the development of the organization he leads: to outline the main provisions of the project, draw up the ideological skeleton of the upcoming program of action, show ingenuity in the field of intellectual creativity and predict the effective use of resources. All this gives him great pleasure. Difficulties do not frighten him; he is always ready to defend the fidelity of the principles of his system against opponents of any rank. He has the ability to plan the future of his organization (but without going into unnecessary details) and moves forward so quickly that his followers literally cannot keep up with him. The ability to dispassionately change the existing order of things, abandoning routine and relying on one’s own intellectual abilities is a guarantee of his success.
At the same time, he is unable and fundamentally unwilling to communicate and cooperate with intellectually unexpressive people. He is not attentive enough to the feelings of others and is overly immersed in work. Unable to relax. He quickly loses interest in a project that has already been created in conceptual terms and least of all wants to spend his time putting it into practice. His strength lies in his ability to reason logically and strategically. His weakness is imagining things to be more complicated than they really are, as well as being intolerant of incompetence. He is not afraid to be “alone against the crowd.”
3) Sensory-decision type
An exceptionally tough and reliable partner. His word is law, and all actions will be carried out exactly on time, as planned by prior agreement. He is able to take into account numerous significant details and details of an operation or technology, and takes extremely seriously the preservation of material resources, as well as the traditions and customs established in his system. The proven order at the enterprise that has been established over many years is of independent value to him, especially in comparison with the dubious and always risky prospects for changes and reforms. He is the guarantor of the stability of the enterprise. It fits perfectly into the activities of law enforcement agencies, the education and medical systems, production, and the service sector.
This type of leader can become a stumbling block for a developing organization, when every innovation introduced will encounter stiff resistance. His advantage is a strong sense of responsibility. His weakness is his rigidity and narrow view of following rules and regulations.
4) Sensory-perceptive type
The most striking feature of this type of leader is the ability to live, guided by the principle of “here and now.” Such a leader is indispensable in a situation where it is necessary to instantly respond to changes one after another; at a time of risk and danger, when the success of an enterprise hangs by a thread and everything depends on the impeccable precision of actions; in an atmosphere of increasingly complex interpersonal relationships that make it difficult to work effectively. Devoid of sentimental romanticism, practical, sensible leaders of this type are guided by the criterion of expediency and trust only their own impulses. Areas where they perfectly realize their abilities are law enforcement agencies, professional sports, search and rescue services.
At the same time, routine everyday activities are not for them, punctual adherence to a detailed plan is not their role. They may be inattentive to the letter of the law, no matter what this law relates to - nature or society. Being taciturn, focused on clear actions, they do not delve into the complex and often contradictory area of the spiritual life of their followers - they simply do not have time for this. Their strength lies in their ability to easily perform a variety of tasks; their weakness is that they are not interested in everyday work, that they do not know how to think broadly.
Leader behavior in groups is characterized by certain styles, some of which are considered classic. Thus, K. Lewin (1938) identified three leadership styles:
Authoritarian – characterized by rigidity, exactingness, unity of command, prevalence of power functions, strict control and discipline, focus on results, ignoring socio-psychological factors;
Liberal - characterized by low demands, connivance, lack of discipline and exactingness, passivity of the leader and loss of control over subordinates, giving them complete freedom of action;
Democratic - relies on collegiality, trust, informing subordinates, initiative, creativity, self-discipline, consciousness, responsibility, encouragement, transparency, orientation not only to results, but also to ways of achieving them.
It can be seen that a democratic leader proceeds from the idea that people are motivated by higher-level needs - for social interaction, for success, for self-expression. He tries to create a situation in which people could self-actualize themselves, and work as such would be a motivator for them, i.e. provide internal motivation for activity.
The differences between the three styles are manifested in all the main components of the organization of management activities.
K. Levin showed that authoritarian leadership leads, as a rule, to completing more work than democratic leadership. At the same time, however, motivation decreases, the quality and especially the originality of performance decreases; tension and aggressive forms of behavior arise (both between the leader and the performers, and between the performers themselves). Under liberal leadership, both the volume and quality of work are significantly reduced compared to democratic leadership. The performers themselves, as a rule, begin to express dissatisfaction with this style.
Thus, K. Lewin's Study provided the basis for the search for a management style that can lead to high productivity and satisfaction of performers.
Conclusion
Leadership issues occupy an important place in modern psychology. A large number of studies and publications are devoted to this topic.
A person’s entire life takes place in a social context, he lives and acts as part of various groups and, therefore, throughout his life he experiences the influence of all kinds of formal and informal leaders. They can be people of different personal qualities and social status
At the same time, everyone knows that a person who wants to become a leader can acquire all the necessary qualities to achieve success. A person with leadership qualities gains authority in society and in the professional sphere.
The main problems that a leader may encounter in the process of work are the approval and development of a certain type of organizational culture, the formation and management of working groups, problems of communication due to the large difference in the levels of intellectual and creative development, conflict management, development of partnerships, timely response to changes in the external environment.
Effective management is associated with the ability to adequately meet the demands of the near future (with a focus on new achievements) and with the reasonable use of the organization's resources in the case of solving pressing problems.
Management ensures the effective functioning of the organization without taking into account leadership relationships. However, in the case of an unstable situation, which requires the company to be constantly ready to change in accordance with new demands, the effectiveness of organizational activities directly depends on leadership potential.
Leadership psychology is one of the most relevant disciplines of psychology, which is addressed by modern researchers.
Shalaginova, L. V. Psychology of leadership / L. V. Shalaginova. – St. Petersburg. : Speech, 2007. – P.5
Morozov, A.V. Business psychology: textbook / A.V. Morozov.- St. Petersburg Union, 2007.- P. 548
Mokshantsev, R. Social psychology: textbook. allowance / R. Mokshantsev, A. Mokshantseva. - M.: Siberian Agreement, Infra-M, 2007. – P. 162
4 Shalaginova, L. V. Psychology of leadership / L. V. Shalaginova. – St. Petersburg. : Speech, 2007. – P. 12
Mokshantsev R. Social psychology: textbook. allowance / R. Mokshantsev, A. Mokshantseva. - M.: Siberian Agreement, Infra-M, 2007. – P. 164
Mokshantsev R. Social psychology: textbook. allowance / R. Mokshantsev, A. Mokshantseva. - M.: Siberian Agreement, Infra-M, 2007. – P. 166
Morozov, A.V. Business psychology: textbook / A.V. Morozov.- St. Petersburg Union, 2007.- P. 567
Morozov, A.V. Business psychology: textbook / A.V. Morozov. - St. Petersburg Union, 2007. - P. 470
Mokshantsev R. Social psychology: textbook. allowance / R. Mokshantsev, A. Mokshantseva. - M.: Siberian Agreement, Infra-M, 2007. – P.166-168
Mokshantsev R. Social psychology: textbook. allowance / R. Mokshantsev, A. Mokshantseva. - M.: Siberian Agreement, Infra-M, 2007. – P. 169-171
Morozov, A.V. Business psychology: textbook / A.V. Morozov.- St. Petersburg Union, 2007.- P.548
Leadership. Psychological problems in business / V. A. Khashchenko [etc.]. - Dubna: Phoenix, 2006. - P. 49
Kravchenko, A.I.M.: Academic Project, 2005. – P. 530
Kravchenko, A.I. Sociology of management: fundamental course: textbook. allowance / A. I. Kravchenko, I. O. Tyurina. -M.: Academic Project, 2005. – P. 559
Mokshantsev, R. Social psychology: textbook. allowance / R. Mokshantsev, A. Mokshantseva. - M.: Siberian Agreement, Infra-M, 2007. – P. 175-177
Http://azps.ru/polpsy/lib/image.html
Mokshantsev, R. Social psychology: textbook. allowance / R. Mokshantsev, A. Mokshantseva. - M.: Siberian Agreement, Infra-M, 2007. - P. 178-179
Karpov, A.V. Psychology of management: textbook. allowance / A. V. Karpov. - M.: Gardariki,
2005. – P. 509
Zakharova, T.I. . Organizational behavior: educational and methodological complex / T. I. Zakharova - M.: EAOI center, 2008. - P. 148
Zakharova T.I. . Organizational behavior: educational and methodological complex / T. I. Zakharova - M.: EAOI center, 2008. - p. 138
Introduction Public leadership is inherent in human nature itself and is the oldest form of organizing people’s lives, an effective means of resolving pressing issues. Already at the first stages of human development, such an order was chosenLeadership phenomenon interested more than one generation of thinkers, scientists, and researchers. And there have never been common views among them on the definition, essence and nature of this phenomenon. However, the development of ideas about leadership and experimental developments served to ensure that leadership theories Four main approaches to understanding leadership emerged one after another. Moreover, each of the subsequent ones already represented a more mature position, based on the developments of its predecessors. So, what leadership theories exist?
There are four approaches to leadership theory:
1) from the perspective of personal qualities;
2) behavioral;
3) situational;
4) leadership based on emotional intelligence.
The personality approach (1930-1950)
According to personality trait theory or great man theory, outstanding leaders have a certain set of personality traits, such as level of intelligence, bright appearance, common sense, initiative, self-confidence, reliability, activity, etc.However, research has shown that leaders differed in the qualities they identified and performed differently depending on the situation (Stogdill, 1948)
Behavioral approach
Proponents of the behavioral approach believed that a leader's effectiveness is determined by his leadership style, i.e. the usual manner of behavior of a leader in relation to subordinates in order to influence them and contribute to the achievement of their goals.Kurt Lewin first describes 3 leadership styles (leader behavior): authoritarian, democratic, liberal.
Democratic leadership characterized by the division of power and participation of workers in management; responsibility is not concentrated, but distributed.
Liberal guidelines o is characterized by minimal participation of the manager; the group has complete freedom to make independent decisions.
In his research, Lewin found that authoritarian leadership got more work done than democratic leadership. However, on the other side of the scale were low motivation, less originality, less friendliness in groups, lack of groupthink, greater aggression towards both the leader and other group members, greater repressed anxiety, and simultaneously more dependent and submissive behavior.
Compared to a democratic one, under a liberal leadership the amount of work decreases, its quality decreases, more play appears, and in surveys preference is given to a democratic leader.
Douglas McGregor develops theory X and theory Y, also known to us as the “Carrot and Stick” theory.
According to theory “X”: 1. People initially do not like to work and avoid work whenever possible.
2. People have no ambition, and they try to get rid of responsibility, preferring to be led.
3. What people want most is security.
4. To force people to work, it is necessary to use coercion, control and the threat of punishment.
According to theory “Y”: 1. Labor is a natural process. If conditions are favorable, people will not only accept responsibility, they will strive for it.
2. If people are committed to organizational goals, they will use self-management and self-control.
3. Inclusion is a function of the reward associated with goal achievement.
4. Creative problem solving ability is common and the average person's intellectual potential is only partially utilized.
Ranis Likert and his colleagues at the University of Michigan develop a leadership model in which there are two leader orientations: either work-oriented or people-oriented. He further identified 4 leadership styles:
1) exploitative-authoritarian (task-oriented, tough and authoritarian leader);
2) benevolent-authoritarian (the relationship is authoritarian, but there is also limited participation of subordinates in decision making);
3) consultative-democratic (the relationship between the manager and the subordinate is largely trusting and open);
4) based on participation (subordinates take part in decision making).
According to Likert, participative leadership is most effective, however, as further research has shown, this is not always the case.
A group of scientists from Ohio State University , developing the ideas of McGregor and Likert, conducted a number of studies and made significant additions. The previous division of managers into subjects oriented only to work, and only on people, it turns out unfaithful! It was found that a manager can show varying degrees of attention to a subordinate and the structuring of problems.
Blake-Mouton management grid was developed based on the ideas of scientists from Ohio State. Two axes were taken as a basis: “care for people” and “care for production”, the different ratios of coordinates of which determined one of 5 leadership styles:
1. Fear of poverty. Only minimal effort is required on the part of the manager to achieve the quality of work that will avoid dismissal.
2. Holiday home. The leader focuses on good, warm human relationships, but cares little about the efficiency of completing tasks.
3. Authority – submission. The manager cares about the efficiency of the work performed, but pays little attention to the morale of his subordinates.
4. Organization. The manager achieves acceptable quality of task performance by striking a balance between efficiency and good morale.
5. Team. Through increased attention to subordinates and efficiency, the leader ensures that subordinates consciously join the goals of the organization. This ensures both high morale and high efficiency.
The most effective leadership style from the authors' point of view was the behavior of the leader in position 5.
Situational approach
Reflects the fact that the effectiveness of a leader is influenced not only by personal qualities and leadership style, but also by various situational factors, such as the needs and personal qualities of subordinates, the nature of the task, the influence of the environment, and the availability of information to the leader. In other words, a leader must be able to behave differently in different situations. This approach turned out to be the most effective from the point of view of management practice. It is represented by four situational models:– Fiedler’s situational leadership model;
– Mitchell and House’s “path-goal” approach;
– Hersey and Blanchard’s life cycle theory;
– Vroom-Yetton model of managerial decision-making.
Fiedler's situational model of leadership
Fiedler believes that each situation has its own best leadership style, but a leader cannot change his style depending on the situation. In his model, Fiedler develops the ideas of the task-oriented leader and the relationship leader, but he introduces 3 factors that influence the situation:
1. Relations between the manager and subordinates: good (loyalty, trust, sympathy) and bad.
2. Structure of the task: structured task (clarity of formulation, familiarity for the subordinate) and unstructured.
3. The manager’s official powers: strong (the manager has a lot of formal power, authority, and can reward a subordinate) and weak.
Thus, Fiedler identifies 8 situations, in each of which one of the most effective leadership styles is task-oriented (i.e., clear decision-making, goal setting, tight control over subordinates), or one focused on human relations (i.e. .by motivating and supporting employees). In practice, this model can be used effectively, for example, in personnel placement.
Mitchell and House's path-goal approach
According to this model, a leader can influence subordinates in the process of their path to achieving a goal. At different stages of the path to the goal, depending on the situation and the needs of subordinates, the leader applies one of four leadership styles.
1. Instrumental style(similar to the work-oriented or task-oriented style) is manifested in the fact that subordinates are told what is wanted from them, they are given specific instructions on what and how to do, thereby making the role of the team leader clear to everyone. The manager draws up work schedules, maintains certain performance standards, and asks subordinates to adhere to rules and procedures. The style is used when subordinates are ready to complete a task and are only waiting for an instruction to “start,” as well as in cases in which the nature of the task is not entirely clear.
2. Support style(similar to the people-oriented or human relations style) is characterized by the leader's concern for the needs and well-being of subordinates. The manager maintains a pleasant atmosphere, cares about working conditions, and is democratic and open. Even in small things, such a leader tries to make the work of employees more enjoyable, communication takes place on equal terms. The style is effective when subordinates need self-respect and involvement in the interests of the company.
3. Participative 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. There is a strong emphasis on consultation. It is effective when the company's goals are important to subordinates and they strive to participate in the management process.
4. Achievement-oriented style, is characterized by setting rather labor-intensive goals for subordinates and the expectation that they will work to the fullest of their capabilities. The manager stimulates the subordinate to constantly improve individual results, while at the same time maintaining confidence in the ability to work extremely effectively. The style is effective when subordinates strive for a high level of achievement and are confident that they are capable of achieving this level.
Vroom-Yetton model of executive decision making
The Vroom-Yetton model focuses less on leadership style and more on decision-making, while it emphasizes the lack of a universal way to influence subordinates. The choice of style depends on the changing variables of the decision situation.
According to this model, the manager chooses one of five leadership styles, focusing on the decision tree and 7 questions that help him in this: 5 decision-making styles according to Vroom-Yetton:
A1. You solve the problem yourself or make a decision using the information you currently have.
AII. You get the necessary information from your subordinates and then solve the problem yourself. When receiving information, you may or may not tell your subordinates what the problem is. The role of your subordinates in decision making is to provide the necessary information, and not to search for or evaluate alternative solutions.
CI. You present the problem individually to those subordinates who are concerned and listen to their ideas and suggestions, but do not gather them together in one group. Then you make a decision that does or does not reflect the influence of your subordinates.
CII. You present a problem to a group of your subordinates, and the entire team listens to all ideas and suggestions. Then you make a decision that does or does not reflect the influence of your subordinates.
GII. You present a problem to a group of your subordinates. Together you find and evaluate alternatives and try to reach agreement (consensus) regarding the choice of alternative. Your role is similar to that of the chairman. You are not trying to influence the group to make “Your” decision, but you want to accept and implement whatever decision the whole group finds most acceptable.
Leadership based on the emotional intelligence model
This concept is considered the youngest; it was developed by D. Goleman, a professor at the University of Chicago in 1980-90. 20th century. According to this concept, effective leadership means managing the emotions of other people.A leader with high emotional intelligence has the ability to recognize and manage their own feelings and the feelings of others.
Skills and competencies of a leader with high emotional intelligence:
Awareness of your own feelings – the ability to notice and realize your feelings, to subtly differentiate them.Managing your own feelings - the ability to cope with destructive impulses and control negative emotions; flexibly adapt to the situation, “tune” yourself in the right way - to win, win, etc.
Understanding another person's feelings – the ability to show empathy (sympathy with the feelings of other people), understanding and being sympathetic.
Managing other people's feelings – the ability to have an emotional impact in various situations of interaction with subordinates, influence and inspire, resolve conflicts, create a team and strengthen team spirit, strengthen and maintain personal relationships with employees, help others in self-improvement, initiate changes and lead employees in a new direction.
From the point of view of leadership theory, the emotional intelligence model suggests that a leader pay attention to the development and improvement of all four abilities associated with the awareness and management of emotions and feelings. This theory is confirmed by a number of practical studies.
| - | ||
.jpg) |
- | What is it like to manage people, to lead, to be a leader? How to lead people so that others implement your idea and idea, enjoy their work and bring profit to the common cause? The people you have to manage are so different - they have different characters and values, different levels of professionalism and desire to grow and develop professionally, how to find an individual approach? How to work with everyone and work with a team - motivate, find effective solutions, achieve high results? Our Situational Leadership training will answer these questions! You can take it at any convenient time, |
For a long time, people have been trying to find an answer to the question of what set of specific qualities a leader should have in order to effectively manage his subordinates. In ancient times, there was a parable that in the beginning God endowed man with three main qualities: talent, will and decency. And then, for some reason unknown to us, he changed his mind and left only two qualities for each representative of the human race. They say that they have been walking the Earth ever since: decent and strong-willed, but mediocre; talented and decent, but weak-willed; strong-willed and talented, but dishonest. Each leader, by virtue of his professional activity, is obliged to have organizational talent, developed will, and impeccable integrity. How can we achieve harmony in the combination of these “originally given” qualities? What are their components?
He who cannot govern himself cannot govern others.
English proverb
Various scholars have tried to identify the necessary traits or characteristics that a particular leader should possess. This problem is given close attention, first of all, in foreign management psychology. Initially, scientific research found its embodiment in the so-called “trait theory” (sometimes it is called “charismatic” theory, from the word “charisma”, that is, something descended on a person from God).
In accordance with this theory, a leader cannot be any person, but only one who has a certain set of innate personal qualities, a set or combination of certain psychological traits. Management is not a science, but a kind of art, say supporters of this theory. A manager is a kind of artist whose activities are based on his innate talent. “No one can learn to lead, and we do not believe that this can be taught,” said the American psychologist D. Boyd. - The art of leadership is not something that can be learned from the outside; it comes from your heart and your own strength.” A similar position was taken by E. Schumacher, who noted that actions to implement leadership “belong more to the realm of poetry than to the exact sciences.”
A leader's success should be measured not only by the outcome of the activity, but also by the ways in which success was achieved.
Based on the above views, theories of the “elite and the crowd” are later formed. According to them, a prerequisite for the life of any society is its differentiation into two layers - into the “elite”, the privileged ruling group, whose members are called upon to lead, and the “crowd”, the rest of the people who blindly follow the leaders.
To agree with this point of view means to recognize as unnecessary attempts to identify the patterns of effective management and the qualities that a leader should have. However, the study of practice shows that certain patterns exist, there are typical features. That is why later behavioral psychologists substantiate the position that leadership traits cannot be considered entirely innate. Some of them can be acquired through training and experience. Numerous studies are being conducted in this direction, aimed at identifying universal traits that must necessarily be characteristic of leaders.
Sets of traits were developed especially carefully in the United States, because they were supposed to become the basis for constructing a system of tests for selecting individuals “suitable” for leadership. However, it soon became clear that this problem was difficult to solve. Starting with several fundamental qualities, a number of scientists in the process of research increased their number to two hundred or more. In 1940, American psychologist C. Baird compiled a list of 79 traits and qualities referred to by various researchers as “leadership.”
Do something and you will gain strength.
Emerson, American philosopher
However, he was confused by the “scatter” of these traits among different authors: 65% of the named traits were mentioned only once, 16-20% - twice, 4-5% - three times, and only 5% of the traits were named four times. In addition, one could not discount the following observation from the practice of leadership: there were many cases when persons who did not possess the “most important traits” successfully coped with all the functions of a leader. On the contrary, the presence of these traits did not always make a person an effective leader. All this led to the emergence of other points of view.
The “situational theory” is quite common in foreign psychology. In it, the emphasis shifted from the leader’s traits to the analysis of the situation and the object of management, that is, leadership arises as a response to the demands of the situation. In other words, in this approach the role of personality activity and its traits is downplayed and circumstances are elevated to the rank of a higher power.
Traits are viewed as just one of the “situational” variables. Others include: the size and structure of the organization, the type of activity performed, the individual characteristics of the organization’s members (in particular, their expectations), the time of decision-making, the psychological climate of the organization, etc. In some conditions, one line of behavior is required from the leader, in others - not at all. different. Therefore, a child can be a leader in the yard, but a follower in the classroom, and a leader can be a leader at work, but not in the family.
However, there are often people whose competence fully satisfies the requirements of the situation; they are good professionals, but are not capable of leadership. In addition, in practice, when the tasks facing the organization change, and therefore when the situation changes, leaders do not change too frequently. Despite all the obvious shortcomings of the “situational theory,” it is progressive to recognize that not only certain personality traits are important for leadership, but also other factors.
Currently, the dominant concept in Western social psychology is the “synthetic concept of leadership.” According to this theory, leadership is the process of organizing interpersonal relationships in a group, and the leader is the subject of managing this process. With this approach, leadership is a function of the group, and therefore it is necessary to study it, first of all, from the point of view of the goals and objectives of the group. At the same time, the leader’s personality and qualities should not be discounted.
Consequently, this theory is characterized by an integrated approach to the entire management process. The nature of the leadership role is influenced by the interrelation of three variables: the quality of the leader, the quality of the followers or followers and the nature of the situation in which leadership is exercised. On the one hand, the leader influences the followers and the situation, on the other hand, their influence on the leader is equally significant.