home Management Management - Vikhanskiy OS

Management - Vikhanskiy OS

2.2. Leadership Concepts

The study of patterns of behavior inherent in leaders began on the eve of World War II and continued actively until the mid-1960s. The general with the concept of leadership qualities considered was that once again the search for one single true path began, but in another direction: leadership behavior. An important difference from the concept of innate qualities was that this concept presupposed the possibility of training leaders on specially designed programs.

The focus in research has shifted from answering the question of who is the leader, to the answer to the question of what and how leaders do. The most famous concepts of this type are the following:

• Three styles of leadership;

• Studies at Ohio State University;

• Studies at the University of Michigan;

• management systems (Likert);

• management grid (Blake and Mouton);

• The concept of reward and punishment;

• leadership substitutes.

The difference between the political systems of the US and Germany before the Second World War led to a study of leadership conducted in the laboratory by the well-known American behaviorist scientist Kurt Levin [11]. The study consisted of comparing the effect of using three leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic and passive. The results of this study led astonishing researchers who expected the highest satisfaction and productivity from the democratic leadership style. Kurt Levin emigrated to the United States from Germany just before the outbreak of the war and believed that the repressive, authoritarian regime in Germany was less effective than a democratic society. He expected that the results of more than four months of experiment in three groups of 10-year-old boys, where each group was directed by appropriately trained students, would confirm his hypothesis. It turned out that although the children preferred a democratic leader, they were more productive when they were authoritarian. Details of each style are shown in Table. 11.3.

Later studies also confirmed the fact that democratic style is not always the most productive. For example, a study of 1000 workers found that those who often interacted with the boss by occupation were preferred and were satisfied with working with an authoritarian leader. Workers such professions, like firefighters, police officers, administrative assistants, showed a similar attitude to autocracy. In the end, there was no direct link to any style with effective leadership.

Studies of Ohio State University are considered the most significant among those that were undertaken in the post-war period in the field of leadership behavior [5]. Their goal was to develop a two-factor theory of leadership. Two variables were taken as a basis: the structure of relations and relations within the framework of this structure. The first variable includes patterns of behavior through which the leader organizes and determines the structure of the relationships in the group: the definition of roles, the establishment of communication flows, rules and procedures of work, the expected results. The second variable includes patterns of behavior reflecting the level or quality of the relationship between the leader and the followers: friendliness, mutual trust and respect, sympathy and harmony, sensitivity to each other, the desire to do good to each other.

Table 11.3.

Contents of the three styles of leadership

In the course of the study, a relationship was established between the two variables and the various effectiveness criteria. Thus, in the beginning it was possible to establish that leaders whose behavior is characterized simultaneously by the presence of two variables are more effective in their activities than those whose behavior was characterized by only one of them. Later data were received that showed that the chief attention to the structure of relations made the indicators of the professional skills of subordinates higher and reduced the number of complaints from them, and with a focus on relations in the structure, there were relatively low indicators of professionalism and absenteeism. For a long time, the hypothesis that the highest levels of the two variables (the upper right quadrant in Figure 11.6) form the best leadership style was recognized as true. However, subsequent numerous tests produced very different results. At the same time, it was not possible to establish the only true style of effective leadership applicable in any conditions. At the same time, the conducted studies have made two important conclusions. First, the more attention is paid to the structure of relations and all that is related to work, the greater the effect is achieved under the following conditions:

• Strong pressure exerted by someone (except the leader) in order to obtain relevant results;

• the task satisfies the employees;

• employees depend on the leader to obtain information and instructions on how to do the work;

• workers are psychologically prepared to be a fully instructed leader;

• The effective scale of controllability is observed.

Fig.11.6. Four leadership styles according to the results of a study by Ohio State University

Increased attention to relations in the structure and all that corresponds to the needs and desires of workers, gives an effect when:

• tasks are routine and unattractive for employees;

• employees are predisposed and ready to participate in management;

• Workers themselves must learn something;

• Employees feel that their participation in decision-making influences the level of performance of work;

• There are no significant differences in status between the leader and employees.

Secondly, it was noted that the effectiveness of leadership also depends on a number of other factors:

• organizational culture;

• the technology used;

• Expectations from using a specific leadership style;

• Moral satisfaction from working with a manager of a certain style.

The study of the University of Michigan aimed to determine the differences in the behavior of effective and ineffective leaders. As a basis, two variables in the leader's behavior were taken: concentration of the leader's attention at work and on employees. Apparently, these variables are similar in content to those used in the studies of Ohio State University. The results of studies at the University of Michigan led to the following conclusions about an effective leader:

• tends to support workers and develop good relations with them;

• uses a group, rather than an individual approach to employee management;

• sets an extremely high level of work performance and stressful tasks.

Later, these conclusions were put in the basis of the concept developed by Rens Lickert and entitled "Control Systems 1, 2, 3 and 4" [12]. Not setting the ideal for all cases of style, a study by the University of Michigan nevertheless led to the conclusion that the condition for effective leadership is to support workers and involve them in decision-making.

Based on the approach of the University of Michigan, Rensys Lee-kert conducted an intensive study of the general patterns of management used by effective leaders. It was found that the latter pay the main attention to the human factor and try to develop a group approach to the performance of work to achieve the goals. They were divided into two categories of leaders (Figure 11.7):

• leaders focused on workers;

• Leaders focused on work.

Fig. 11.7. Leaders Orientation and Production Results

The continuation of the research made it possible to identify four prevailing management styles, called systems 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Table 11.4). System 1 is a task-oriented, highly structured authoritarian leadership style. In contrast, system 4 is a style that is oriented toward developing relations with subordinates and grouping, working together with them. Systems 2 and 3 are, as it were, intermediate stages between two extremes that are close to the main theories of the "X" theory and the "Y" theory of Douglas McGregor.

On the basis of his model, Likert developed a questionnaire that allows defining the styles of leadership and management culture. According to the results obtained on the basis of the questionnaire, effective leadership was often located closer to the system 4 and less often - to the system 1. However, in practice, following the style corresponding to the system 4 was not a simple matter. Not many organizations used this style. As it turned out, the transition to it is associated with the need for radical changes, mainly changes in the behavior of the leader himself and his followers at all levels, right up to the rank-and-file worker.

Table 11.4.

Examples of content management systems 1, 2, 3 And 4 Likert

The most popular among the concepts of the behavioral styles of the leader recently received a model of the management grid, which demonstrates that there is only one true style of leadership. Similar to the model of the University of Ohio, the Blake and Mouton management grid [2] is a matrix formed by the intersections of two variables or dimensions of leadership behavior: on the horizontal axis - interest in production and on the vertical axis - interest in people (Figure 11.8) . The variables of the management grid, in fact, are the nature of the location (to something or someone) and the look (on something) that predetermine the subsequent behavior, i.e. Both interests are connected both with the human consciousness, and with the action of man, and not only with anything. Scaling of each of the axes of the matrix from 1 to 9 makes it possible to outline the zones of the five main leadership styles (Figure 11.8).

Fig. 11.8. The management grid of Blake and Mouton

A survey of a significant number of managers confirmed the hypothesis of the founders of the model that regardless of the situation, style 9.9 is the best. The model considered has gained a high popularity among managers. It is used by them to develop better leadership behaviors through participation in training and training programs specifically designed to develop a style of 9.9. In case the manager of the style prevails, he should pay more attention to training in personnel development, motivation, communication and M. The predominance of style 1,9 can require training in such areas as decision making, planning, organization, control, work operations. With style 5.5, some degree of training may be required for most of these areas. Style 1,1 raises doubts about the ability to change the behavior of the manager, including through training.

The concept of "remuneration and punishment" of leadership behavior is based on the provisions of the theory on the consolidation of behavior, set out in Ch. 1 textbook. In this concept, the leader is seen as the person who manages the process of changing the behavior of subordinates in the desired direction. The concept identifies four types of leadership behavior, depending on the application of remuneration or punishment (Fig. 11.9).

Fig. 11.9. Four types of leadership behavior in dependence

From the application of remuneration or punishment

In practice, remuneration for the achieved level of performance of work leads to an excess of the worker's usual level of efforts made by him and to the excess of his satisfaction from work. Punishment for an inadequate level of performance of work, as well as compensation without taking into account the level of performance of work, affects differently both the efforts made and the satisfaction received from work. And finally, punishment without taking into account the level of performance of work most often negatively affects the quality of work and employee satisfaction.

Since the above concepts of leadership behavior somehow suggest the existence of formal leadership under any circumstances, many researchers have often wondered: can there be situations where leadership-type behavior is not required? Thus, S. Kerr and J. Jermeyer put forward the assumption of the existence of variables or so-called leadership substitutes [9], which have the property of negating the need for leadership influence on the level of work of subordinates and their satisfaction. For example, a subordinate with a wide experience of work, developed abilities and a high level of preparation, as it eliminates the need for policy guidance. The leader-structurizer will experience strong resistance from an independent and self-conceiving subordinate with a high level of qualification. Self-management for such employees will be more attractive than the instructions of their leader.

Various substitutes for leadership and their relationship to the need to use a particular leadership style are shown in Table. 11.5.

Table 11.5.

Leadership substitutes

These concepts once again quite clearly show that leaders are becoming, not born. Leadership behavior can be developed and improved through training and special training. Knowledge of this, in turn, helps to develop and conduct such training programs for managers who develop certain leadership skills.

At the same time, the behavioral concepts of leadership are based on a very wide range of measurements of leadership behavior, which receives numerous interpretations, which greatly complicates their practical approbation. For these reasons, in particular, the concepts of leadership behavior did not answer the question of the relationship of leadership with such important performance indicators as efficiency, productivity and satisfaction.