53
2.
Styles of management
One of the most studied questions in the sphere of management and leadership is the
problem of management style. Under
the management style
is
understood
a stable system of
means, methods and forms of a manger’s influence which created a peculiar handwriting of
managerial behavior
. The interest in the problem of management
style appeared considerably
late – in the beginning of last century.
The turn of the XIX and XX centuries was marked by a rapid development of science.
Close attention to managers of various levels in production sphere – to managers – is paid by not
only production practitioners, but also representatives of different directions in the science of
Human. A stimulating factor was the detecting of the following pattern: labor productivity is
explained to a great extent by those specific forms and methods
of management that are
professed by different executives. All this made psychologists to have a closer look at the whole
management system and at the place taken in it by managers of various levels.
The most fruitfully in this direction worked a well-known German psychologist K. Levin.
The main efforts were directed by his school’s psychologists at the research of social-and
psychological phenomena of group life. An important place in this research was taken by the
problem of the role and significance of a manager in various group processes.
The object of study by Levin were groups of teenage children (11 – 12 year-old boys)
who under the guidance of adults were making masks of papier-mâché. In accordance with the
logic of the experiment, they were divided into three groups. Each group was headed by an adult
who was demonstrating different styles of management named for simplicity as “authoritarian”,
“democratic”, and “laissez faire” (the last one is sometimes translated as “anarchical” which is
totally incorrect, though the “laissez faire” is also quite a free translation of the term offered by
Levin).
The names of the three styles are connected with Levin’s personal biography and
position. The experiments were carried out after his emigrating from
fascist Germany in the USA
during the World War II. Demonstrating his antifascist position, Levin used the terms
“authoritarian” and “democratic” as the ones having a certain political meaning. But these were a
sort of metaphors, and it would be naïve to think that in purely psychological experiments could
be seen the features of authoritarianism and democracy in their political meaning.
Basing on the conclusions and regularities discovered in the course of experiments, Levin
characterized each of these classical styles of management: the authoritarian, the democratic, and
the laissez-faire styles. In literature they are named differently: authoritative is called directive
style, laissez-fair – anarchical, neutral, formal, permissive, liberal style. Disclosing the meaning
of each of these styles we will use the following terms: “authoritative”, “democratic”, and
“liberal”.
So what conclusions did K. Levin come to on the basis of these experiments? He and his
co-workers determined that for that specific situation
the most rational style was
democratic
.
Firstly, this style creates a more favorable atmosphere, and enhances a more active group
54
members’ involvement in mutual activity. Secondly, under this style of management a group is
notable for the maximum satisfaction, a striving for growth.
And thirdly, this style ensures the
establishing the most favorable relations between the group and its members.
Under
authoritarian
style of management a group made more work than under
democratic style, but it had lower motivation, originality of action, and friendliness. Such groups
lacked group thinking, there was displayed more aggression which
was directed at both the
manager and other group members. There were observed signs of a greater despondency and
anxiety, dependent and obedient behavior.
In comparison with democratic style of management, under
liberal
style
the volume of
work decreased, its quality was lower, there was more game, and in the polls there was fixed the
preference of a democratic leader. On the basis of his research, K. Levin presented an
approximate characteristic of each style and expedience of its application.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
