The main directions in the study of leadership theory. Comparative analysis of leadership theories according to V.A. Mirzoyan. Charismatic leadership concepts

Is one of the first approaches in trying to learn and explain leadership. According to this theory, leaders do not become, they are born. Researchers believed that there is a stable set of qualities that distinguish "great people." Scientists have tried to learn how to measure these qualities to identify leaders. In an attempt to summarize hundreds of studies conducted, Ralph Stogdill in 1948 and Richard Mann in 1959 grouped leadership qualities. Strogdill identified five main ones:

self confidence,
knowledge of the matter,
intellectual abilities,
predominance over others,
activity, energy.

Mann identified seven qualities, among which the mind was decisive. Both scientists were disappointed, since only one set of enumerated qualities did not make a person a leader. Despite this, leadership qualities were studied until the mid-eighties. Warren Bennis, an American scientist, having studied a group of successful leaders of 90 people, obtained interesting results, dividing leadership qualities into groups:

value management - the ability to clearly convey the meaning of an idea
attention management - the ability to present goals, the essence of the result in an attractive light for followers
trust management - the ability to build such a consistent and consistent performance, generating the trust of subordinates.
self-management - knowing your strengths and weaknesses without fear of attracting the resources of other people to enhance their qualities.

Upon further study, four groups of leadership qualities were identified:

physiological: such as weight, height, physique, appearance, health, energy. There is no clear direct connection, as people with indicators below the average could become influential figures.
emotional: such as independence, courage, honesty, initiative, efficiency. They are manifested through the character of a person. The list is long, in practice it has not been confirmed.
intellectual: according to the results of numerous studies, the level of intellectual qualities among leaders is higher, but there is no direct connection. So, for example, if followers have a low intellectual level, then a leader with high indicators will have many difficulties.
personal business: these are the acquired skills to carry out their functions. The importance increases with the level of the organizational hierarchy. It has not been revealed to what extent they are decisive for a leader, since they are specific. That is, the qualities that helped one person to become a leader in the bank may not be useful for career growth in the theatre.

The trait theory has its drawbacks:

the list of leadership qualities is huge, there is no single image of a leader.
due to the lack of measures to measure qualities, it was not possible to determine a clear connection between leadership and the described qualities.

The approach is interesting, but in practice it hasn't been useful.

Charismatic leadership concepts

The modern concept, based on the work of Max Weber, is presented by the following authors:

B. Shamir,
V.M Bass,
M. Arthur,
R.Y Jose.

The essence of the theory is that the ideal employee is a reflection of a leader who can change his values. The employee believes in the leader, respects him, the leader is able to inspire the employee. Motivating influence through the mechanism of imitation, endowing the leader with charisma, acceptance of his values. Only a select few can influence the values of people. R.Y. Jose, B. Shamir saw leadership not through the influence of one person on another, but through the influence of a person on the group. This is based on the value for the employee that he belongs to a group. The leader enhances this identification by correlating the values of the individual with common values and interests. Group needs become higher than individual needs, which reinforces collective values.

Important in the charisma of a leader is his ability to change the view of reality among followers, which allows them to instill new values, while noting the importance of individual values, linking them to common goals. It is possible to count on the trust of the group only if the leader knows and respects the values, needs, and identification of the followers. Charisma can be enhanced by the leader's personal commitment to collective goals, his identification with the group.

Leaders through the moral aspect labor activity, increase motivation. The central link is belief in one's own competence, helps to increase individual productivity, perseverance in overcoming difficulties, is based on the collective expectation of high performance from each employee. Intrinsic motivation plays a primary role in such a group, rather than external stimuli. The leader gives hope for a real better future. A high salary in such a situation is only the ultimate goal.

Remark 1

The disadvantage of this concept is the clear dependence of the group's work on the leader, which leads to a failure in its activities in the event of the loss of the leader. This concept is more often used in groups with a low specification of labor functions, without clear strategies for the implementation of organizational tasks.

Factor-analytical and situational leadership theory

Represents the second wave in the development of the theory of traits. Individual qualities and characteristic behavior in achieving goals are highlighted, which may differ. For example soft and good person, being a leader in the army, develops self-confidence, severity, decisiveness. This concept introduces into the theory of leadership concepts such as tasks, goals, which are associated with a specific situation. The leader's behavior style is formed as a result of the interaction of his personal qualities and the tasks set, depends on social conditions. T. Hilton, R. Strogdill, A. Goldier wrote about this in a situational concept, considering that a leader is a function specific situation that under other conditions this leader may no longer be. That is, specific circumstances select a leader and determine his behavior.

In such a situation, leadership qualities are relative, but in general they are distinguished by confidence, purposefulness, competence, and a willingness to take responsibility. This theory has a drawback, it does not fully reflect the leader's activity, his ability to make decisions when conditions change, considering the role of the situation leading in the formation of leadership. E. Hartley supplemented the situational theory by revealing the nature of this phenomenon:

if a person has become a leader in one situation, this increases his ability to become a leader in other conditions;
a person gains authority by becoming a leader under certain conditions, which contributes to his election to a leading role and consolidation of leadership;
a person who has become a leader, due to stereotyped thinking, is perceived as a leader in principle;
the leaders are people who have the appropriate motivation.

Remark 2

There is a concept of situational effective leadership that explains the use of different leadership styles depending on the situation. Has nothing to do with leadership.

Constituent theory and interactive analysis

The refinement and development of the situational concept is the theory of followers (constituents), which explains the phenomenon of a leader through the analogy that the retinue makes a king. It is his followers, according to F. Stanford, who perceive the situation, the leader, and decide whether to accept him or not. The role of this concept is decisive in the selection of informal leaders, as well as leaders in democratic organizations. Leadership, in the light of this theory, is a special relationship between a leader and a group, the leader's behavior can be predicted by studying his followers. Through constituents there is an impact on the leadership of the dominant culture, primarily value orientations, as well as the expectations of workers.

The considered theories partially explain why someone becomes a leader, but do not reflect why someone strives for leadership and someone does not, and whether it is possible to influence the formation of leadership.

Psychological theories of leadership

Psychological theories help explain the subjective mechanisms of leadership. Freud believed that a suppressed libido is at the heart of leadership, which, as a result of sublimation, manifests itself in the desire for leadership. T. Adorno, E. Fromm identified the types of individuals inclined to authoritarianism, striving for power. In their opinion, such a personality is formed in uncomfortable social conditions, a person has a desire to escape from instability into the sphere of domination.

For an authoritarian personality, power is a psychological need, a way to get rid of complexes, imposing one's will on others, which is a manifestation of weakness. Such leaders do not adopt a democratic style, more often they care about increasing their power than about the interests of the cause. Such leaders need constant monitoring. For many, power is not attractive, for some it is only a tool to achieve benefits. Instrumental leadership motivation is common in organizations.

Leadership is a social phenomenon, the study of which has interested many scientists from different historical eras, from hoary antiquity to the present day. The relevance of studying this issue has led to the emergence of various approaches and interpretations of understanding this phenomenon. The most popular leadership theories are developed within the framework of political psychology, which studies political leadership. Gradually, political leadership has become the subject of detailed analysis in political science, where many studies of scientists are related to this topic.

In addition to political psychology, leadership is studied by social psychology, management psychology, management, and other branches of social sciences. Let us consider in more detail the main theories and styles of leadership that modern science operates.

Leadership theories

The famous French political scientist Jean Blondel believed that the concept of political leadership emerged at the same time as the first associations of people arose. In his opinion, leadership qualities were the basis for assessments of political power, both by the authors of Antiquity and the cornerstone of all the main elite concepts of our time.

Classical leadership theories. It is rightfully considered classic personal leadership theory... The approach to the study of the qualities of a leader from the point of view of the characteristics of his personality can be traced already in the texts of ancient authors. They tend to define the portrait of the ideal ruler as a composite image of previous successful leaders. Early works were based on the fact that only one who possesses a set of certain character traits (qualities) can become a leader, studied them on the example of previous rulers and gave behavioral recommendations. The most ancient sources for the study of this theory can serve as the Indian "Arthashastra", Confucius's doctrine of government, the ancient Chinese treatise "Tao Te Ching"; the works of outstanding thinkers of Antiquity, especially Plato ("State", "Politician", "Laws") and Aristotle ("Politics"), stand apart.

In the 19th century, the theory of the personality of the "great man" was transformed into the theory developed by T. Carlisle theory of leadership qualities (Trait Leadership Theory), which, in fact, improved and completed the personality theory. In contrast to the beliefs of predecessors, who noted that a leader must be born, the authors of the new concept (Carlisle, Galton), while studying the character traits of famous personalities of the past, also focused on the external attributes of leadership, such as education, experience gained in the process of life. Read more about this theory.

Another one classical theory leadership grew out of criticism of trait theory. Contingency Theory explains leadership not as a set of personal characteristics, but as an environment, a situation that determines the leader and his actions. Developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, this approach was shared by Stogdill, Mann, and others. New concepts of leadership emerged from their developments, and behavioral and situational analysis of this phenomenon was applied. At the same time, environmental theory was the beginning of the emergence of an integrative approach to the study of leadership, which unites it and the theory of traits. The latter, by the way, is being developed by many scientists today.

Basic modern leadership theories. Modern leadership research builds on refined approaches to defining and studying leadership that have been developed over the past 50 years.

Behavioral Leadership Theory unlike the theory of qualities, it is more progressive, since it claims that leadership qualities can be acquired in the process of life, one can learn them, because they are not always inherent in a person from birth. As a result of research carried out at the universities of Ohio and Michigan, scientists have come to the conclusion that two behavioral categories prevail in leadership - task orientation and people orientation. Also, this approach explores leadership styles in detail, which forces many authors specializing in problems effective management, refer to this theory.

For more information on the behavioral approach in leadership, you can watch this video:

Situational Leadership Theory was developed in the late 1960s. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard. This approach also makes extensive use of leadership styles, but based on situations in which leadership qualities and skills are manifested.

You can learn more about this approach in this video:

Leadership styles

J. Gardner is convinced that "leadership is the process of convincing followers in order to achieve the ideas carried out by the leader." Leadership style involves answering the questions: how to implement plans, how to motivate people to achieve their goals? Depending on the methods and means, today the following styles are distinguished, characteristic of leaders in political, business, religious and other spheres:

Democratic style. Provides for joint decision-making by the leader and group members, promoting the interests of all members of the group. It is characterized by a high level of freedom in the performance of assigned tasks by ordinary members, trust and participation of the leader.
Authoritarian style. An autocratic leader has enough power to make decisions on his own and impose them on his subordinates, using administrative methods of influence. An example of authoritarian communicative behavior can be considered a traffic controller or professor who determines the topics of students' essays.
Liberal or laissez-faire style. The leader sets only the general direction of work and does not accept active participation in the decision-making process, his followers have complete autonomy in actions and organize the process themselves.
Paternalistic style. The paternalistic leader acts like a father, a parent to his subordinates. The concern shown in this case for the followers results in complete trust in the leader's ideas on their part, a desire to work under his leadership.
Transactional leadership style. Most commonly used in management. This type of leader is designed to motivate employees by developing a system of rewards and incentives in order to maintain performance.

Leader trait theory. A leader is seen as a bearer of certain qualities and skills that contribute to influencing others (regardless of the situation, personality traits have a natural basis). That is, there is a list of characteristics (traits, abilities, skills) that are of paramount importance for the leadership influence and effectiveness of the leader. According to this theory, natural leaders have the most effective behaviors and leadership. The main types of leaders are charismatic, transformational. A charismatic leader wins people's trust and has a strong and extraordinary impact on them (acceptance of his goals, values, desire to imitate and follow him) through his bright personality and personal contact. Its influence is based on a certain “charisma” 1, which is difficult to formally measure and objectively describe. Usually, charismatic influence is associated with a set of extraordinary characteristics or behavior patterns of a leader. A transformational leader builds relationships with followers based on the transformation of underlying beliefs, values and needs. The means of a transformational leader are oratory (communication) skills that create an image of a confident and strong person, inspire trust in followers and a desire to follow him. Practical implications theory of "traits" is the appropriateness of the psychological selection of natural leaders for leadership positions, stimulation of effective models of behavior and leadership styles, honing "charisma", the development of communication skills and other leadership skills.

Interactive theory. A leader is a person who best meets the expectations of the group and who most consistently adheres to its ideals and values. The leader is diagnosed with maximum status and prestige.

Situational theory. Leadership is a function of the situation and depends on the situation. The main components of the situation are the composition and size of the group, the level of competence and the degree of statement of the group members, the presence of other leaders, the expectations of the group, its goals and objectives, confounding factors.

Probabilistic leadership theories. These theories are based on the assumption that there is no best model of behavior that the leader (leader) can resort to all the time. Adequate and effective behavior leader depends on some characteristics of the leader, subordinate to the situation. F. Fiedler's probabilistic theory focused on establishing a connection between leaders and situations in which they will succeed. The resulting probabilistic model states that a leader's performance depends on three variables.

Leadership theory. This theory considers different types of leadership depending on the content of the activity, style of leadership, stability, ways of influence and organization of the group. The success of each role-playing position of a leader presupposes the presence of certain skills and models of behavior in significant interaction situations. BD Parygin proposed to classify the types of leaders taking into account three reasons: content, style, nature of the leader's activity. In accordance with this, there are three stages of leadership differentiation.

inspiring leader, vividly demonstrating the program (model) of behavior;
leader, performer, organizer of the implementation of an already set program;
“Universal leader” is a leader who combines an inspirer and an organizer.

universal, constantly demonstrating his qualities of a leader;
a situational leader, showing the qualities of a leader only in a certain, specific situation.

R.L. Krichevsky identified the types of leadership roles depending on the dominant function in the process of interaction:

business leader;
instrumental leader;
communicative;
emotional leader.

In accordance with functional roles, the following types of leaders can also be distinguished:

organizer (business);
initiator;
generator of ideas (creative);
the leader of emotional attraction ("star");
master (knowledgeable and able).

The practical consequences of probabilistic leadership theories are the determination of the optimal ways of interaction between the leader and the followers, taking into account the situation, role positions, reward opportunities, etc.

Speaking about the typology of leadership, the following criteria stand out:

1. By the sphere of relationships:

Formal (official);

Mixed;

2. On the formation of interpersonal relations and the distribution of functions in the group:

Leader in identifying ways to achieve a group goal;

Leader in the optimal solution of technical problems;

Leader in establishing the psychological climate;

Leader in the content of the group atmosphere;

3. By the function carried out by the leaders:

Leader-initiator;

Leader-organizer (business leader);

Leader-erudite;

Leader-generator of emotional mood (emotional leader);

Craftsman Leader;

4. By type of group activity:

Instrumental leader (functional leader);

Emotional leader;

Universal (combines both types in certain proportions);

5. By the level of organization:

Leader-organizer (leader-creator);

Disruptor Leader (Destroyer Leader);

6. By the nature of the activity:

Universal leader (leader in any setting);

Situational leader;

Democratic;

Mixed.

Leadership is the ability to influence people by directing their efforts to achieve their own goals. The functions of a leader are the main directions of his activities. Highlight the main functions of leadership:

1. Integrative - leadership unites people who have common interests, the same hobbies in one well-coordinated working group.

2. Disintegrative - by uniting people into one group, it thereby becomes a collective isolated from others.

3. Organizational - creation unified system management and favorable conditions for the coexistence of team members, planning various actions, events, distribution of roles and responsibilities, regulation of relations between group members.

4. Constructive - the expression in a specific program of the common interests of the members of the company. This program should satisfy all members of the group, take into account their interests and benefit all, without prejudice to the members of other groups.

5. Coordination - all decisions made must be consistent with the opinion of the public, the institution of power and the system of value that is adopted in a given society.

LEADERSHIP STYLES

Dictatorial style.

The dictatorial style is often the most ineffective. It is enough that it destroys the moral climate of the organization. And above all, flexibility suffers. If a leader makes maximalist decisions, not taking into account the opinions of subordinates, everything new dies in the bud. Seeing disrespect for themselves, people stop proposing new ideas to management, knowing that nothing good will come of it anyway. And in the same way, employees lose a sense of responsibility for the quality of their work: as soon as they are deprived of the opportunity to take initiative, they lose a sense of belonging and therefore work is no longer perceived as their own business.

Dictatorial leadership also negatively affects motivation. In addition to money, most professionals have an equally important motivation - satisfaction from a job well done. The dictatorial style hurts professional pride. Finally, it deprives the manager of one of the main levers of motivation - the ability to show subordinates that they are contributing to the overall achievement of the company. All this leads to the fact that employees become indifferent to everything that happens in the company. They think something like this: "What, in the end, do I care about all this!"

The dictatorial style can be applied very carefully and only in emergencies. It is absolutely necessary, for example, when restructuring an enterprise or when there is a threat of a hostile takeover. In such cases, the only way management can abandon unjustified methods and force people to work in a new way. But if a company leader relies solely on a dictatorial style, his disregard for employee morale and feelings will prove disastrous in the long run.

Employees are especially committed to the goals and strategy of an organization when it is led by an authoritative leader. Showing each employee what a significant contribution he makes to the common cause, he sets a system of standards. When he assesses the work of an employee - whether negatively or positively - the main criterion is its compliance or non-compliance with these standards. What does it mean to work well or badly, for what employees receive remuneration - everyone is well aware of this. Finally, the authoritative style has a positive effect on flexibility: the leader announces the end goal and, as a rule, leaves subordinates enough freedom to take initiative.

An authoritative style is good in almost any situation, but especially when the business is floating, as they say, at the behest of the waves. It is then that an authoritative leader can pave a new route and lead people, opening up new radiant horizons for them.

However, for all their merits, a leader with an authoritative style does not always achieve the desired results. So, you should not count on success if his team employs people who are more sophisticated in a particular business than himself. Professionals will not respect a boss who knows nothing about the business he has taken on. On the other hand, if you go too far and try to curb your subordinates, the atmosphere of equality that holds effective work teams.

Affiliate style.

The motto of the “partner” leader is “People first!”. This management style is completely “tied” to people, and for its adherents, any employee is more important than any tasks and goals. The “partner” leader tries to keep his subordinates happy and in a state of harmony. He achieves these goals by forging strong emotional bonds between employees, and his reward is the passionate loyalty of his subordinates. Such a leader acts like the head of the family, who changes the rules of behavior as the children grow up: he does not dictate strict conditions for the performance of work, giving his subordinates the freedom to do everything in the most efficient way, in their opinion, on their own.

The “partner” leader necessarily expresses recognition and gratitude to the employees for their labor achievements. A positive response from a boss takes on a particular motivational value. Finally, “partner” leaders tend to be able to create a sense of belonging in their subordinates. They invite their direct reports to a bar or restaurant to have a heart-to-heart talk, bring a cake to work to celebrate someone's success. In a word, they are real creators of personal connections.

The partnership style of leadership is good in all cases, but especially when it is important to maintain peace and harmony, to raise morale in the team, to establish communication or restore undermined trust.

Despite all the advantages, we do not recommend relying entirely on the partner style. Its weak point is its emphasis on reward. It may happen that no one will redo bad work, and some even get the impression that the company is quite tolerant of mediocrity. Since “partner” managers rarely advise on how to do something better, employees have to figure out everything for themselves. And when people need to be clearly told how to get out of a difficult situation, they actually leave them to their fate. Moreover, if you trust such a leader to the end, then the matter may end in failure. This is probably why the affiliate style is often used in combination with the authoritative one. Authoritative leaders formulate objectives and explain how to accomplish them. But only when they call the chiefs-"partners" into their allies with their sensitivity and care for each employee, the set goal will definitely be achieved.

Democratic style.

The leader is ready to give the opportunity to speak out to all interested parties, thus achieving their trust and respect. By listening to employees' views on decisions that affect their work, a “democrat” leader gives them responsibility and greater flexibility. After learning about what worries his employees, he understands what needs to be done to maintain morale.

But the democratic style also has its drawbacks. The most unpleasant consequence of it is endless meetings at which the same ideas are discussed ten times. Sometimes executives use this style when they need to delay making important decisions. They hope that, given the respite from the endless debate, they will eventually understand exactly what to do. But the subordinates of the "Democratic" leaders are often confused - they feel that no one is leading them. Moreover, this approach can even exacerbate conflicts.

Under what conditions is a democratic style most effective? When the manager does not know which way is the best, and needs the advice of professional employees.

Democratic management is much less successful when employees are not competent or informed enough to help their boss with good advice. And it is not at all good if you need to reach agreement on controversial issues during a crisis.

Exemplary style.

The hallmarks of exemplary style: the leader sets the highest standards of work and own example proves that they can be observed. With almost manic tenacity, he strives to do everything faster and better and demands the same from his subordinates, always finds those who are lagging behind and, if they do not correct, replaces them with other employees. It would seem that all this should lead to impressive results.

But in reality, such a leader only destroys the moral climate in the company. Often, because of his high demands, workers lose heart. He believes that he gives clear instructions (although often this is not at all the case), and he is sure that everyone knows what to do and how to do it, and if someone needs to explain something, then this employee is unfit for professionalism. As a result, instead of moving in a given direction and doing their job as best as possible, subordinates have to guess the wishes of the boss. In addition, they often feel that their superiors simply do not trust them and do not want them to take the initiative. As a result, work becomes routine and deadly boring.

As for the evaluation of the work of subordinates, the "exemplary" leader either does not evaluate it in any way, or attacks his employees if it seems to him that they are not doing well. The subordinates of such a boss do not have a sense of involvement in the common cause - no one explains to them how their work affects the overall results.

An exemplary style does not always lead to a dead end. On the contrary, this approach is quite appropriate in situations where all employees are well motivated, highly qualified and not very much in need of leadership. In particular, this style would suit leaders who lead qualified and motivated professionals - academics or lawyers. With a talented team, they will easily achieve their goal - they will complete the work on time or even earlier. However, as with all other cases, this style should not be used alone.

Mentoring style.

Leaders-mentors ”help subordinates to see their strengths and weaknesses and adequately assess their prospects - personal and career. They encourage employees to set long-term goals for themselves and help them achieve them. “Mentor” leaders have a remarkable ability to delegate authority, to give their subordinates interesting, growth-enhancing tasks, even when they know that the result will be work done more slowly than usual. In other words, they are willing to fail in the short term for the sake of positive experiences to be gained in the long term.

Research has shown that the mentoring style is the rarest. Many managers admit that the job simply does not leave them time to train subordinates, although sometimes a few “mentoring” conversations are enough. Leaders who ignore this style refuse to powerful tool positive impact on both the company's climate and productivity.

Although the mentoring style is focused primarily on the development of the individual abilities of workers, and not on fastest solution production tasks nevertheless, “mentor” leaders do well. Mainly because they maintain a constant dialogue with employees and thus have a positive impact on the climate. Subordinates are not afraid to experiment when they are confident that the boss is watching how they are doing and will surely evaluate their work on time and constructively.

The mentoring style is especially effective when, for example, subordinates, knowing their weak points, want to learn how to work better or, having developed new abilities, move forward. This is the best way to manage people who want to be helped.

Conversely, this leadership style is unlikely to achieve much if employees - no matter why - resist change and are unwilling to learn. It is not suitable even when the manager does not have enough experience as a “mentor”, but it is necessary to constantly discuss his results with the employee and try to motivate him, and not cause fear and apathy. Some companies have appreciated the positive aspects of the mentoring style and are trying to instill it in themselves. However, many organizations have yet to master a mentoring style that, while not promising quick and clear results, is nevertheless very effective.

The most successful leaders are able to shift from one style to another almost imperceptibly, depending on the situation. Of course, none of them choose a management style from some list, mechanically. On the contrary, they are very sensitive to their impact on others and achieve better results, moving from style to style smoothly. These leaders in the first few minutes of the conversation understand who they are dealing with. For example, if this is a talented employee who does not cope with the work because he is demoralized by a manager with dictatorial habits, then he can be inspired to work achievements, simply by reminding him of the importance of his contribution to the common cause. And sometimes the manager realizes from the very first minute that he must deliver an ultimatum to the employee: either work better or quit.

There are various classifications of the phenomenon of leadership.

In accordance with the teachings of M. Weber on the methods of legitimizing the authorities, leaders are divided into:

Traditional leaders, usually tribal leaders, monarchs, etc. Their authority is based on tradition, custom;

Rationally legal or routine are democratically elected leaders;

Charismatic - leaders, endowed, in the opinion of the masses, with special grace, outstanding qualities, an extraordinary ability to lead. Charisma is made up of the real abilities of a leader and the qualities that followers endow him with. Lenin, Stalin, Kim Il Sung, F. Castro were examples of charismatic leaders.

The first type of leadership is based on habit, the second - reason, the third - faith and emotion.

"Charisma" should be called the quality of a person, recognized as extraordinary, thanks to which she is assessed as gifted with superhuman, or specific special powers that are inaccessible to other people. Initially, this quality is due to magic and is inherent in both soothsayers and sages. No matter how “objectively” the corresponding quality is correctly assessed from an ethical point of view, it is completely unimportant in the abstract. One thing is important, how it is actually evaluated by subordinates of charisma, "adherents"

J. McGregor Burns divides leaders into two categories: converters and dealers. Leaders - reformers, who have certain views on society, begin to do something in the name of realizing their views. Business leaders, on the other hand, operate in the here and now, focusing their attention on details, without forming a global view of what society should be in the end.

Earlier, Pareto divided the leaders along roughly the same lines as Burns, into "lions" and "foxes."

Burns' analysis represents a significant step forward in the demarcation between leaders, but it remains limited because it is clear that reality is much richer and cannot be “comfortably placed” in two categories.

There is also a division of leaders into ordinary (“real”) and great (both great “heroes” and great “villains”). Real leaders do not leave a trace in history, do not change the usual course of events. It is believed that only leaders - heroes (or villains) determine the course of history.

On the basis of their character, leaders are divided into “active - positive” and “active - negative”, as well as “passive - positive” and “passive - negative”.

In modern political science, four collective images of a leader are often called:

1. The leader - the standard-bearer is distinguished by his own vision of reality, the presence of an idea that captivates the masses.

2. A servant leader strives to act as a spokesman for the interests of his supporters, is guided by their opinion and acts on their behalf.

3. Leader - a merchant is able to present his ideas in an attractive way and convince people of their advantage.

4. Leader - firefighter focuses on solving the most pressing problems in society, the urgent requirements of the moment.

Leader types

There are various types of leadership. In relation to subordinates, authoritarian and democratic leaders are distinguished; in scale, national, class, party. In modern political science, there are several collective types of leaders:

§ standard-bearer leader, which is distinguished by a special vision of reality, an attractive ideal, a dream that can inspire broad masses;

§ servant leader, which in its activities is guided by the needs and needs of its adherents and voters and acts on their behalf;

§ merchant leader, who is able to present his ideas in an attractive way, to competently convince citizens of the advantage of his ideas over the ideas of others;

§ firefighter leader, which focuses on the most pressing, burning problems and whose actions depend on the specific situation.

Leaders can be typologized as leaders as “pairs of antagonists”:

§ ideologists and pragmatists;

§ reformers and revolutionaries;

§ agents-guards and non-conformist destroyers;

§ realists and adventurers;

The difference between the concepts of "leader" and "leader":

The leader regulates interpersonal relationships, and the leader regulates the formal ones. Leadership in a microenvironment, a leader in a macroenvironment. Leadership arises spontaneously, the leader is elected. The phenomenon of leadership is less stable. Leadership of subordinates is more durable than leadership of a leader. The decision-making process by a manager is more complex. The leader's sphere of activity is a small group, and the leader's sphere of activity is wider. But both of them deal with problems of the same order.

Leadership is a psychological characteristic of behavior, leadership is a social one.

A leader is a person who is promoted as a result of the interaction of group members to organize a group when solving a specific problem in a specific situation, taking on certain functions. The rest of the participants accept this type of relationship that they will be led and they will be led.

Leadership is a small group dynamic process. There can be problems when the level of the leader's aspirations does not match and the readiness of other group members is. Leader = authority, but not every authority is a leader. The leader must organize the solution of some problem; authority does not.

Theories of the origin of leadership:

1. Trait theory (charismatic)

A leader is a person with certain traits.

Everyone started trying to highlight these traits. The range of them among different authors was large, they chose either their own traits or the traits of a certain ideal leader. Pervin and John identified 5 blocks of basic personal qualities of a leader: extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, benevolence, and openness. The first four traits are common in leaders. The theory turned out to be of little value.

2. "Situational theory"

A leader is one who possesses those traits that are needed to solve a given problem. The main moment of the emergence of a leader was considered to be his nomination by a group, since he was expected to display a trait in this situation.

Hartley, disagreeing with this, proposed four "models" of why people become leaders and why it is not only the situation that determines the promotion.

1) if someone in one situation became a leader, then there is a high probability that he will become one in another situation

2) Leaders in one situation are considered "leaders" in general

3) A person, having become a leader in one situation, gains authority, and he is chosen another time

4) some people are looking for "posts" and behave in such a way that they are "given posts"

3. "System theory leadership "(more complete than the previous ones)

Leadership is the process of organizing interpersonal relationships. the subject leader of this process. Leadership is the function of the group. Leaders of two types can exist simultaneously:

1.Instrumental (business) - ensuring the success of the task

2. Emotional - providing atmosphere in the group

In different situations, one of the leaders may be in demand more.

Fiedler's "Probabilistic Model of Leadership Effectiveness". He has a task-oriented leader and an interpersonal leader.

What type is the leader? You can find out using the NPS methodology (attitude towards the least preferred employee). The task-oriented person sees only negative features in it, the interpersonal-oriented person sees not only them. Further, the groups differ in the level of social control of the SC (the degree of the leader's ownership of the situation). A probabilistic model is built to identify the most effective leader in groups of various types. With a high and low level of SK, a task-oriented leader is more effective, and with an average SK, an interpersonal leader is more effective.

This model finds practical application and is based on leadership matching training.

The difference between a leader and another member of the group is not in the presence of traits, but in the presence of influence.

Example: Krichevsky's concept of "the concept of value exchange" as a mechanism for nominating leaders. The leader is the one in which the qualities that are especially significant for group activities are presented in the most complete form, i.e. are the value of the group. The group with the leader is identified.

Leadership styles:

Leadership Style Experiment. Conducted on a group of 11-12 year old children sculpting papier-mâché maxi under the guidance of adults (they are leaders). The leaders demonstrated different styles, and the experimenters compared the effectiveness of 3 groups. Leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, permissive.

Authoritarian... FS - business, short orders, prohibitions with a threat, an inhospitable tone, praise and censure are subjective, showing examples outside the system. SS - things in the group are planned in advance, only immediate goals are determined. The voice is decisive.

Democratic... FS - instructions in the form of proposals, friendly tone, praise and censure with advice, orders and prohibitions with discussions, the position of the leader - within the group. CC - events are not planned in advance, but in a group. Everyone is responsible for the implementation of the proposals. All sections of the work are discussed.

Permissive... FS - tone - concentrated. Absence of both praise and censure. No collaboration. The leader's position is invisible. SS - things in the group go by themselves. The leader gives no direction. Sections of work are made up of individual interests.

Not all leader techniques are suitable for leader techniques.

Leadership is the ability to influence both the individual and the group, directing everyone's efforts to achieve the goals of the organization.

Leadership is a natural social psychological process in a group, built on the influence of a person's personal authority on the behavior of group members. At the same time, the influence is understood as such a person's behavior that makes changes in the behavior, attitudes, feelings of another person. Influence can be exerted through ideas, spoken and written word, through suggestion, persuasion, emotional contamination, coercion, personal authority, and example.

A group that solves a significant problem always nominates a leader to solve it. No group can exist without a leader. A leader can be defined as a person capable of uniting people in order to achieve a goal.

The concept of "leader" acquires meaning only together with the concept of "goal". Indeed, a leader without a goal would look ridiculous. But having a goal and achieving it on your own, alone is not enough to call yourself a leader. An integral part of a leader is the presence of at least one follower. The role of a leader lies in the ability to lead people along with him, to ensure the existence of such connections between people in the system that would facilitate the solution of specific tasks within the framework of a single goal. In other words, a leader is an element of ordering the system of people. This is the kind of person who, in relation to the group, can be seen as its mirror. A leader can only be one who bears the traits that are welcomed and expected in this particular group. That is why "transplanting" a leader into another group or appointing him from above as a leader is ineffective.

General leadership in a group consists of the following components: emotional, business, informational. "The heart of the group" - emotional leader, to which each member of the group can turn for sympathy, "cry in the vest." "Hands of the group" - business leader, he works well with him, he can organize a business, establish the necessary business relationships, and ensure the success of the enterprise. "The brain of the group" - information leader, everyone turns to him with questions, because he is erudite, knows everything, can explain and help find necessary information... The best is a universal leader who combines all three components, but such a leader is rare.

Leadership theories are diverse.

* The concept of physical qualities (height, weight, strength) has not been confirmed. On the contrary, the leader is often small in stature, low in physical strength.

* The concept of intelligence assumes that leadership qualities are associated with the verbal and evaluative abilities of the individual. On this basis, it is concluded that the presence of the indicated personal qualities predicts managerial success.

* According to the concept of traits, a leader has certain properties, traits, thanks to which he is promoted to leaders. He is characterized by such psychological qualities as self-confidence, a sharp and flexible mind, competence (thorough knowledge of his craft), strong will, the ability to understand the peculiarities of human psychology, organizational skills. However, the analysis of real groups showed that, on the one hand, a person who does not possess the listed qualities sometimes becomes a leader; on the other hand, a person may have these qualities, but not be a leader.

* Charismatic concept views the leader as a person who has been deigned from above charisma(Greek charisma - divine gift, mercy), grace, exceptional qualities, the ability to influence people, giving him superiority over others, insight from above, where and how to lead people. The charismatic leader is the concentrated and most vivid embodiment of the group's values, which he places above his own interests. The attitude towards a charismatic leader is based on faith in him, reverence for the leading person. Along with this, there is also an excessive dependence of the activities of the group on the personality of the leader: without the leader, the group turns out to be practically incapacitated.

* Situational leadership theory assumes that the leader becomes the person who, when a situation arises in a group, has the qualities, properties, abilities, experience necessary for the optimal resolution of this situation in this group. In different situations, the group puts forward specific requirements for the leader, so leadership can pass from one person to another (an emotional leader replaces a business leader, etc.).

E. Hartley identified a number of patterns:

1) if you become a leader in one situation, your chances of becoming such a leader in another situation increase;
2) if you have proven yourself as a leader, you have acquired an authority that can help you to appoint you to leadership position and thereby consolidating your leadership;
3) the perception of the group is stereotyped, and if you become a leader in one situation, she perceives you as such in another;
4) the leader is the one who strives for it.

* Systems theory of leadership considers leadership as a process of organizing interpersonal relations in a group, and a leader as a subject of managing this process. With this approach, leadership is interpreted as a function of the group, and therefore it must be studied from the point of view of the goals and objectives of the group, although the structure of the leader's personality cannot be ignored either.

* The concept of an authoritarian personality(T. Adorno) argues that people with an authoritarian personality type strive for leadership and power. Such a person is dualistic. She shows, on the one hand, a kind of sadistic inclinations (possession of unlimited power gives special pleasure, the weakness of other people causes contempt and a desire to humiliate them), on the other hand, masochistic (when faced with a superior force, such a person subservience to her bearer, admires and worships him ).

* The concept of game motivation states that a person can perceive the leadership process as a fun, exciting game. The content itself becomes the leader's motive. management activities: solving complex and socially significant problems in the process of organizing interaction and communication with people.

* The concept of instrumental motivation reveals that for a certain type of leaders, power is only a tool, a mechanism for obtaining various kinds of benefits, it acts as a means of achieving other goals: material (high income, prestige, beneficial connections, privileges) or spiritual and moral (achieving success, responsibility for common cause, establishment of friendly relations, protection of common interests).

* The theory of constituents (followers) proves that followers create a leader.

* Psychoanalytic theory believes that leadership is based on suppressed libido - psychic energy, mainly an unconscious attraction of a sexual nature, which is sublimated into creative and leadership abilities.

3. Freud understood leadership as a two-pronged psychological process: on the one hand, a group process, on the other, an individual one. These processes are based on the ability of leaders to attract people to themselves, to unconsciously evoke feelings of admiration, adoration, and love. People worshiping the same person can make that person a leader. Psychoanalysts distinguish ten types of leadership:
1. "Sovereign"(or "patriarchal overlord"). The leader in the image of a strict but beloved father. He is able to suppress or suppress negative emotions and instill confidence in people. He is promoted on the basis of love and revered.
2. "Leader". In it, people see the expression, the concentration of their desires, corresponding to a certain group standard. The personality of the leader is the bearer of these standards. They try to imitate him in the group.
3. "Tyrant". He becomes a leader because he inspires others with a sense of obedience and unaccountable fear, he is considered the strongest himself. This is a dominant, authoritarian personality. Usually they fear him and obey him humbly.
4. "Organizer". For the members of the group, it acts as a force to maintain the "I-concept" and satisfy the needs of everyone, relieves feelings of guilt and anxiety. Such a leader unites people, he is respected.
5. "Seducer". Such a person becomes a leader by playing on the weaknesses of others. He acts as a "magical force", giving an outlet to the suppressed emotions of others, prevents conflicts, relieves tension. Such a leader is adored and often overlooked for his shortcomings.
6. "Hero". He sacrifices himself for others. This type of leader is especially manifested in situations of group protest: thanks to his courage, others are guided by him, see in him a standard of justice. He carries people along with him.
7. "Bad example". He acts as a source of contagion for a conflict-free person, emotionally infects others.
8. "Idol". Such a leader attracts, attracts, positively infects the environment, he is loved, idolized, idealized.
9. "Outcast".
10. "Scapegoat".

The last two types are essentially anti-leaders, they are the object of aggressive tendencies, thanks to which group emotions develop. Often the group unites to fight the anti-leader, but as soon as he disappears, the group begins to disintegrate, since the general group incentive disappears.

* The concept of leadership depending on psychosocial types states that, depending on his innate psychosocial type, a person is inclined to a certain type of leadership (Table 2).

Depending on the prevailing functions, the following types of leaders are distinguished:

1. Leader-organizer. His main difference is that he perceives the needs of the team as his own and actively acts. This leader is optimistic and confident that most of the problems can be solved. They follow him, knowing that he will not offer an empty deal. He knows how to convince, is inclined to encourage, and if he has to express his disapproval, he does it without hurting someone else's dignity; as a result, people try to do better.
2. Leader-creator. He attracts him first of all by the ability to see new things, to tackle problems that may seem insoluble and even dangerous. He does not command, but only invites to discussion. Can set the task in such a way that it will interest and attract people.
3. Leader-fighter. Strong-willed, self-confident person. Goes first to danger or uncertainty

without hesitation enters the fight. I am ready to defend what I believe in, and I am not inclined to make concessions. However, such a leader sometimes does not have enough time to think over all his actions and foresee everything. "Frenzy of the Brave" is his style.

4. Leader-diplomat. If he used his abilities for evil, then he could well be called a master of intrigue. He relies on an excellent knowledge of the situation and its hidden details, is aware of gossip and gossip, and therefore knows well who and how to influence.
5. Comforter Leader. People are drawn to him because he is ready to support in difficult times. Respects people, treats them kindly. Polite, helpful, empathetic.

According to the power of influence on group members, two types of leaders are distinguished:

a) unquestioning leader - his instructions are followed even when they are at odds with the interests of the group members;
b) not unquestioning leader - submission is possible as long as there is no conflict between the leader's own interests and the needs of the group members.

Leadership can be:

1) constructive (contributes to the implementation of the goals of the organization);
2) destructive (formed on the basis of aspirations that damage the organization);
3) neutral (does not directly affect performance).