Characteristics of the theory of leadership. Study Guide: Leadership Theories

Introduction

Leadership theories are scientific theories that explain the phenomenon of leadership, its origin and functioning.

Leadership, like management, is to some extent an art. To this day, questions about leadership remain relevant, since no clear and definite answers have yet been given. But the various models and theories that this paper considers help to realize the need for an agile approach to leadership.

To accurately assess the situation, the leader must have a good idea of ​​the abilities of subordinates and his own, the nature of the task, needs, authority and the quality of information. The manager must always be ready to re-evaluate judgments and, if necessary, change the leadership style accordingly. Very few of those who have chosen a career in leadership are willing to stay in the same job for many years. Many actively seek promotion to positions of greater responsibility. A leader who has chosen a particular leadership style and adheres to it strictly because that style has worked well in the past may not be able to effectively lead in another situation in a higher position where all his direct reports are achievement-oriented.

A leader who wants to be as efficient as possible, to get the most out of his subordinates, cannot afford to adopt one style of leadership throughout his career. Rather, the manager must learn to use all the styles, methods and types of influence that are most suitable for specific situation.

This paper describes the generally accepted leadership theories that make up theoretical basis for practical application in various organizations, where one of important issues is effective leadership.

Basic Leadership Theories

The phenomenon of leadership occupies a special place in psychology due to its brightness and amusingness.

The phenomenon of leadership is one of the most studied problems modern psychology. It is here that the bulk of research, concepts and attempts at theoretical generalization has been accumulated. When studying this section of political psychology, the most productive is the constant appeal to the history of the problem, an in-depth historical digression into previous studies. In research on the phenomenon of leadership, there is as yet no “final diagnosis” that would allow one to briefly summarize and generalize achievements, discarding obviously wrong concepts.

Before late XIX- the beginning of XX centuries, the main approaches to the problem of leadership theory were purely descriptive. Analysis became the property of the 20th century. Various theories have come close to trying to explain the nature of leadership and to identify the factors influencing this phenomenon. In a generalized form, several groups of such theories can be distinguished.

Hero Theories and Trait Theories. Theories of this group are among the most ancient. Let us briefly mention only some of their origins. As you know, a significant part of the political and psychological traits and characteristics is determined by socio-cultural circumstances. So, the ancient Egyptians attributed to their emperor "divine features": "powerful statement" in the mouth, "understanding in the heart", but "his language is the tomb of justice." The Homeric Iliad revealed four necessary, according to the ancient Greeks, qualities of leaders: justice (Agamemnon), wisdom (Nestor), cunning (Odysseus) and valor (Achilles). Lists of such or similar qualities are found in a wide variety of cultures: True, the behavior patterns of leaders and the “sets” of leadership “features” have changed more than once over time. Nevertheless, the images of heroes were, are and always will be. In any case, supporters of the understanding of history as the creation of "heroes", great people, remain for the time being. This means that the lists of “heroic” traits will also multiply.

In the 20th century, well-known representatives of the "heroic" theory (T. Carlisle, E. Jennings, J. Dowd, and others) tried to study qualities that were "hereditary" and "contributing to the attraction of the masses." Then, following the “heroic”, already the “theory of traits” tried to answer the question of what properties a leader should have as a special subject of activity. Its supporters (L. Bernard, W. Bingham, O. Tad, S. Kilbourne, and others) believed that certain psychological qualities and properties (“features”) make a person a leader. The leader was considered by them through the prism of a number of factors. Firstly, such factors included his "abilities" - mental, verbal, etc. Secondly, "achievements" - education and physical development. Thirdly, "responsibility" - dependence, initiative, perseverance, desire, etc. Fourthly, "participation" - activity, cooperation, etc. Fifthly, "status" - socio-economic position, popularity. Sixth, the "situational traits" of the personality were recognized as important.

Let us single out the main qualities that the supporters of this theory considered necessary for a leader:

a strong desire for responsibility and completion of the case;

energy and perseverance in achieving the goal, riskiness and originality in solving problems;

initiative;

self-confidence;

the ability to influence the behavior of others, to structure social relationships;

the desire to take on all the consequences of actions and decisions;

ability to resist frustration and group breakup.

One can treat such views in different ways. However, let us pay attention to the curious results that a comprehensive study of leadership behavior, conducted for applied purposes, commissioned by the US State Department in 1979, brought. It showed that the most important features of a modern political leader are non-formalized organizational skills, avoidance of bureaucratic approaches, tolerance for frustration, directness of judgment, ability to listen to other people's opinions, energy, a resource for growth and humor. Let's agree that the years go by, and the qualities attributed to the leader remain unchanged. At the same time, it is funny that intellectual abilities are still not considered mandatory for a leader.

Passion in the sense of focusing on the essence of the matter, passionate dedication to the cause ... An eye that is able to succumb to the influence of realities with inner composure and calmness ... a distance is required in relation to things and people ... The problem is to squeeze into one and the same same soul and hot passion, and a cold eye ”(Selected Works, - M .: Progress, 1990. - P. 690-691.).

For all their entertainment, the theories of "heroes" and "devils" are not very productive in scientific terms. They allow you to beautifully describe a striking phenomenon, but do not bring closer the penetration into its essence. Despite the general recognition of this, theories of this kind continue to multiply the number of their supporters, create ever new lists of necessary leadership qualities. To a certain extent, this is the inertia of the previous, descriptive approaches. The scientific study of the phenomenon of leadership has gone further.

Theories of the environment. The main position of the group of theories united under this name says: leadership is a function of the environment, i.e. certain time, place and circumstances, including cultural ones. This approach ignored the individual differences of people, explaining their behavior solely by the requirements of the environment. So, according to E. Bogardus, the type of leadership in a group primarily depends on the nature of the group and the problems that it has to solve.

V. Hawking assumed that leadership is a function of the group, which is transferred to the leader only when the group wishes to follow the program put forward by him. In this regard, X. Person put forward two hypotheses: 1) each situation determines both the qualities of the leader and the leader himself; 2) the qualities of the individual, which are determined by the situation as leadership qualities, are the result of previous leadership situations. Without causing rejection, such conclusions, however, also clarified little.

At one time, J. Schneider was surprised to find that the number of generals in England in different times was directly proportional to the number of military conflicts in which the country participated. This was the most striking illustration of the validity of environmental theories. To assess their essence, let's use the statement of A. Murphy: the situation calls for a leader, who should become an instrument for solving the problem. That is, the situation is a situation, but the leader himself means something.

Personal-situational theories. This group of theories is, as it were, a symbiosis of the two previous ones. Within its framework, both the psychological traits of a leader and the conditions in which the leadership process takes place are simultaneously considered. In particular, according to S. Case, leadership is generated by three main factors: the personal qualities of the leader, the group of his followers and the current situation or "event" (for example, the problem that the group solves).

R. Stogdill and S. Shartl proposed to describe leadership through the concepts of "status", "interaction", "consciousness" and "behavior" of individuals in relation to other members of an organized group. Consequently, leadership is seen more as a system of human relations, and not as a characteristic of an isolated individual.

X. Gert and S. Mills believed that in order to understand the phenomenon of leadership, it is necessary to pay special attention to such factors as the traits and motives of the leader, his public image, the motives of his followers, the features of the leadership role, and also take into account the "institutional context" and "situation" .

Thus, in different versions of the theory of this group, they tried to expand the merits of previous approaches. However, the desired was not achieved in everything.

Interaction-expectation theories. According to the views of J. Homans and J. Hemfield, the theory of leadership should consider three main variables: action, interaction and mood. This suggests that increased interaction and participation in joint activities associated with increased feelings mutual sympathy, as well as with the introduction of greater certainty in group norms. The leader in this theory is defined as, first of all, the initiator of interaction.

For example, the theory "increasing expectations" R. Stogdilla is based on a simple statement. The members of the group, he believed, in the process of interaction increase the expectation that each of them will continue to act accordingly. The role of the individual is determined by mutual expectations, expectations, and if his actions coincide with the expectations of the group, he will be allowed to join it, that is, he will be admitted (“accepted”) into the group. A person's leadership potential depends on their ability to initiate the right interactions and expectations.

According to the theory "target behavior» (path-goal theory) M. Evans, the degree of manifestation of attention by the leader determines the awareness of the followers of the future encouragement, and the degree of initiation of the structure by the leader determines the awareness of the subordinates of what kind of behavior will be encouraged. The "motivational theory" close to it (R. Howe, B. Basse) understood leadership as an attempt to change the behavior of group members through a change in their motivation. F. Fiedler believed that "leadership behavior" depends on the requirements of a particular situation. For example, a "work-oriented" leader will be effective in extreme situations (too easy or too hard work). A relationship-oriented leader is usually effective in solving "moderate", as it were, "intermediate" problems.

"Humanistic" Leadership Theories . A group of leadership theories called "humanistic" focused on the development effective organization. According to representatives of this approach, a person by its very nature is a “motivated being”, and an organization by its nature is always structured and controlled. The main function of leadership is the modification of the organization in order to ensure the freedom of individuals to realize their motivational potential and satisfy their needs - however, while simultaneously achieving the goals of the organization.

D. McGregor developed two theories of organizing leadership. The first, the so-called Theory X, is based on the assumption that individuals are usually passive, resist the needs of the organization, and therefore need to be directed and "motivated." The second, Theory Y, is based on the assumption that people are already motivated and seek responsibility, so they need to be organized and directed in such a way that they simultaneously realize their own goals and the goals of the organization. These two theories reflected, in fact, two stages in the development of the organization.

S. Argyris also pointed out the existence of a conflict between the organization and the individual. In his opinion, the nature of the organization involves the structuring of the roles of its members and control over the performance of their obligations. In the nature of man lies the desire for self-realization through the manifestation of initiative and responsibility. This means that effective leadership must take this into account and rely primarily on these qualities.

R. Likert believed that leadership is a relative process, and the leader must take into account the expectations, values, interpersonal skills of subordinates. The leader must make the subordinates understand that organizational process is aimed at their benefit, as it provides them with freedom for responsible and proactive decision-making.

Within the framework of this theory, R. Blake and J. Mouton were able to depict leadership graphically: along the abscissa axis - concern for individuals, along the ordinate axis - concern for the result. The higher the values ​​of these coordinates, the more developed the relationship of trust and respect in the organization.

In general, noting the conditional "humanism" of these theories, we conclude: it was still a step forward compared to its predecessors. The humanistic approach is based on an in-depth analysis of the personal and psychological roots of the leadership phenomenon.

Exchange theories . Representatives of this theory (J. Homans, J. March, X. Simon, X. Kelly, etc.) proceed from the fact that social relations are a form of special exchange, during which members of the group contribute not only real, productive, but and a purely psychological contribution, for which they receive a certain psychological “income”. The interaction continues until all participants find such an exchange mutually beneficial. T. Jacobs formulated his version of the exchange theory as follows: the group provides the leader with status and respect in exchange for his unusual ability to achieve the goal. The process of exchange is complexly organized, it includes numerous systems of "crediting" and complex "payments".

This group of theories, being super-rationalistic, certainly reflects only one of the aspects of the leadership phenomenon. However, its influence on modern political psychology much. Generally speaking, the entire history of the study of the phenomenon of leadership has led to the fact that two super-approaches have reigned: rationalistic and humanistic.

Motivational theories of leadership . According to W. Stone, a motive is a kind of learned "obsession" based on an internal need to competently handle environment. Regardless of the initial need (power, prestige, self-expression), motivation depends on the possibilities realized by a person. Naturally, too much motivation can distort perception. For example, an overly motivated candidate who objectively has little chance of success may blindly believe in his election victory. However, more often than not, an individual nominates himself when he realizes that he has the potential to win, enough skills and serious support. As D. Schlesinger noted, "ambitions often develop in a specific situation as a response to the opportunities that open up to politics."

"Ambition Theory" involves a rational assessment of the situation. J. Stern proposed the following motivation formula:

motivation = f(motive x expectation x incentive).

This means that the candidate's ambition is a function of three variables. First, from his personal motives (power, success, respect). Secondly, from his expectations regarding the occupation of the position. Thirdly, from the "value of the prize." An individual's expectations are determined by his attitude towards political system, future opportunities as a politician, assessment of one's own abilities and likely support. In other words, three things - future prestige, power and salary - determine the ambitions of a politician.

Motivation, according to J. Atkinson, is divided into two types: motivation for success (MS) - and motivation for avoiding failure (MN). In formula language, we can write:

MU \u003d f (MUxOUxSU),

MN \u003d f (MNxONxCH).

That is, the level of satisfaction in case of success and the degree of humiliation in case of failure depend on the subjective expectations of the individual regarding the possible consequences of both. In the event that in the motivational model of the individual, MN exceeds MU, the individual chooses either a situation with one hundred percent success, or very risky enterprises (to easily justify his failure). If MN is equal to MU, then effective motivation is zero, it is practically absent. And finally, the more MU compared to ML, the higher the subjective probability of success, since the relative strength of motivation affects this probability and shifts it upward. Anxiety about failure is all the stronger, the less the possibility of success approaches the 50/50 border.

So, for leadership, a motive plus the possibility of its implementation is important, since a motive without such an opportunity is equal to movement without direction. A well-known supporter of humanistic psychology A. Maslow, in his theory of hierarchical needs, argued that the roots of leadership arise in the process of transforming human desires (motives emanating from feelings) into needs, social aspirations, collective expectations and political demands, i.e. into motives that depend from Wednesday. In the hierarchy of needs lowest level are physiological needs, on average - security, on highest level- affective needs. The frustration of lower needs increases the motivation to satisfy them. The leader's task is to prevent frustration, apathy, neuroses and other forms of "social disorders" through the transformation of the needs of citizens in a socially productive direction. Leaders, as it were, convert hopes and aspirations into sanctioned expectations. The chain of the state of the slaves controlled by the leader is as follows:

wants and needs => hopes and expectations => demands => political action.

As for the leader himself, A. Maslow distinguished between two types of power needs:

1) the need for strength, achievement, autonomy and freedom;

2) the need for dominance, reputation, prestige, success, status, etc. Most researchers are of the opinion that the main power motive is the desire to satisfy one need - dominance. D. Berne believes that the main element of political ambitions is the need for respect (at the same time, in high self-esteem and praised by others). All the "great people" have demonstrated this need. good example is a leader with flawed self-esteem (W. Wilson, according to 3. Freud). According to D. Burns, the desire for respect is not a pathology, but only an increased need for self-actualization. Self-actualizers are potential leaders.

This is how the seven main approaches to the problem of leadership look like, which formed the initial foundation of its scientific study. Only as this support was formed, the next step became possible: an attempt to create typologies of leadership and identify types of leaders.

Leadership- one of the manifestations of power. Required condition leadership- the possession of power in specific formal and informal organizations of the most different levels and scale.

The concept of leadership and its various concepts arose for the first timein Western social psychology based on empirical researchof small groups. Many researchers have studied leadership as a socialal-psychological phenomenon with different points view., highlighting theor some other aspect of it.

Leadership - it is a natural socio-psychological proprocess in a group built on the influence of the individual's personal authorityon the behavior of group members.

Leader- Leader it is an element of ordering the system, a person capable ofbring people together to achieve a goal. It's a personalityfor which others are ready to recognize and recognize qualities of superiority,those. qualities that inspire faith in him and motivate peopleacknowledge its effect on you.

After analyzing various approaches, the American psychologistR. Stogdill revealed that most often leadership is considered eitheras a focus of group interests, or as the art of achieving agreementlasia, or as role differentiation in positions of power.

The most popular theories are:.

theories personality traits . Direction in Leadership Researchfrom the standpoint of trait theory arose under the influence of an English psychologistand anthropologist F. Galton, who put forward the idea of ​​heredity in the nature of leadership. The main idea behind this approach was the beliefwhat if the leader has qualities that are inherited anddistinguishing him from others, these qualities can be distinguished. butsuch a list could not be made. For the first time a list of 79 features,referred to by various researchers as "leadership", amounted toAmerican psychologist K. Byrd in 1940. However, none offeatures of this list did not take a firm place in different lists. TOfor example, only 5% of traits were named four times in them, 4% - threetimes, 26% - twice, 65% - once. No doubt personalthe preferences of the researchers influenced their choice of traits as leadership.

Situational Leadership Theories. According to these theories, the appearanceleader is seen as the result of a meeting of the subject, place, timeand circumstances. This means that in various specific situationsgroup life, individual members of the group stand out, whosuperior to others in at least one capacity, butbecause it is precisely this quality that is necessary insituation, the person who possesses it becomesleader. It's interesting that situational theory leadership highlightsthe relativity of traits inherent in the leader, and suggests thatqualitatively different circumstances may require qualitativelydifferent personality traits of certain individuals, whichbecome leaders.

This concept did not seem convincing enough to researchersbody. There was even an attempt to see in her the personality of a leader as puppets. An American scientist decided to overcome this limitationleadership. He formulated a number of noteworthyassumptions, especiallyE. Hartley, who proposed a modification of the situational theory:

- if a person becomes a leader in one situation, thenit is excluded that he can become one in another;

- as a result of stereotypical perception, leaders in the same sieve ation viewed by the group as "leaders in general";

- becoming a leader in one situation, the individual acquires authority, which contributes to the election of his leader in another situation tions;

- the leader is more likely to choose a person who is motivated toachieving this status.

Although Hartley's concept of leadership was more flexiblecompared with the previous ones, she still failed to acquire clarity and rigor as scientific theory leadership.

Situational personality theories. More or less compromise!version of the theory of leadership was proposed in 1952 by G. Gert and S. Mills.They identified five factors to consider when considering the phenomenon of leadership:

- traits of a leader as a person;

- his motives;

- images of the leader and the motives that exist in his mind aftergivers and encouraging them to follow him;

- personal characteristics of the leader as a social role;

- institutional context, i.e. those official and legitTiming parameters within which the leader and his successor operate vateli.

Later, there were proposals to study leadership in terms ofstatus, interaction, perception and behavior of individuals according torelation to other members of the group. Thus, leadership has becomeviewed as an interpersonal relationship, not as acharacteristics of an individual. Following this tradition,ny psychologist and diagnostician R. Cattell proposed to consider leadershipas a dynamic interaction between the goals and needs of the leaderand the goals and needs of the followers, where the function of the leadercomes down to choosing and achieving group goals. Within thistraditions developed the theory of leadership E. Hollander, J. Julian.

expectation-interaction theory. It has been developed by manyAmerican researchers - J. Homans, J. Hemphill,R. Stogdill, S. Evans, F. Fidler. Within this school, creatingThere were operational models of leadership, and F. Fiedler proposedits own version - a probabilistic model of leadership effectiveness. INit focuses on the integration of the influence of the leader, his personality traits and situational variables, in particular, the relationship betweenleader and followers.Fiedler identifies two possible leadership styles:

- task orientation (“instrumental leadership”);

- orientation to interpersonal relationships ("emotional boldness").

According to Fiedler, leadership style correlates with situationalmi variables in such a way that the most favorable situationfor the leader includes a good relationship with followerscarefully crafted task strong position leader.

Fiedler concludes that a task-oriented leader is moreeffective when the situation is either very favorable or very unfavorable for him. A focused on interpersonalrelationship leader is more effective in situations of either moderately goodpleasant or moderately unfavorable.

Theory of the humanistic direction. This concept claimsthat the human being is by nature a complex motiveorganism, and the organization, in principle, is always manageable.Therefore, the leader must transform the organization so that the individualDou was provided with freedom to pursue their own goals andneeds, and at the same time in a way that contributes to the achievement of the goals and needs of the organization. The idea was developed by Americanpsychologists R. Blay k, J. McGregor and others.

motivational theory. Representatives of this version are S. Mitchell,S. Evans et al. It states that the effectiveness of a leaderdepends on its impact on the motivation of followers, on theirability to perform tasks productively and satisfactorilynie experienced in the process of work.

The idea suggests a certain structure of the leadership process,defines the types of leadership behavior:

- supportive leadership;

- directive leadership;

- success-oriented leadership, etc.

- motivational theory.

When studying the phenomenon of leadership, it is considered necessary take account of:

- attitudes and behavior of followers;

- job satisfaction or dissatisfaction;

- approval or disapproval of the leader;

- behavior motivation;

- situational factors: individual traits of followers andenvironmental factor (tasks, system of power in the group).

Attribute theory. Treats the leader as a kindpuppet: the leader receives direct instructions and authority from hisfollowers. The latter set the leader in motion like a cockle nick - doll.

There are many other approaches and points of viewbotanical at the level of the general scheme, without a thorough operationalanalysis. Research in this area continues intensively.

Since ancient times, 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 subordinates. In ancient times, there was a parable that at the beginning God endowed a person with three main qualities: talent, will and decency. And then, for some reasons unknown to us, he changed his mind and left each representative of the human race with only two qualities. They say that since then they have been walking the Earth: decent and strong-willed, but mediocre; talented and decent, but weak-willed; strong-willed and talented, but dishonorable. Each leader, by virtue of his professional activity must possess both organizational talent, and a developed will, and impeccable decency. How to achieve harmony in the combination of these "originally given" qualities? What are their components?

He who is unable to control himself cannot govern others.
English proverb

Various scientists have tried to identify the necessary features or characteristics that a particular leader should have. This issue is given close attention, first of all, in foreign psychology management. Initially, scientific research was embodied in the so-called "theory of traits" (sometimes called the "charismatic" theory, from the word "charisma", that is, something descended on a person from God).

In accordance with this theory, any person cannot be a leader, 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 the proponents of this theory. A manager is a kind of artist whose activity is 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 outside; it comes from your heart and your own strength.” A similar position was taken by E. Schumacher, who noted that the actions to implement leadership "are more in the field of poetry than in the exact sciences."

The success of a leader should be measured not only by the outcome of the activity, but also by the ways in which success was achieved.

On the basis of these views, theories of "elite and crowd" are later formed. According to them, prerequisite The life of any society is its differentiation into two layers - into the "elite", a privileged ruling group, whose members are called to lead, and into the "crowd", the rest of the mass of people who blindly follow the leaders.

To agree with this point of view means to recognize unnecessary attempts to identify patterns effective management qualities that a leader should possess. However, the study of practice shows that certain patterns exist, typical features eat. This is why later behavioral psychologists argue that leadership traits cannot be considered entirely innate. Some of them can be acquired through training and experience. In this direction, numerous studies are being carried out aimed at identifying universal traits that must necessarily be characteristic of leaders.

Trait sets were especially carefully developed in the United States, because they were supposed to be the basis for building a system of tests for selecting individuals "fit" for leadership. However, it soon became clear that this task was difficult to solve. Starting with a few fundamental qualities, a number of scientists in the process of research have brought their number to two hundred or more. In 1940, the American psychologist C. Byrd 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 generally mentioned only once, 16-20% - twice, 4-5% - three times, and only 5% of the traits were named four times. In addition, this observation from the practice of leadership could not be discounted: there were many cases when people who did not have “essential features” successfully coped with all the functions of a leader. On the contrary, the presence of these traits did not always turn a person into an effective leader. All this led to the emergence of other points of view.

Quite common in foreign psychology is the "situational theory". In it, the emphasis has shifted from the traits of a leader to the analysis of the situation and the object of control, that is, leadership arises as a response to the demand of the situation. In other words, this approach underestimates the role of the activity of the personality, its traits, and elevates circumstances to the rank of a higher power.

Traits are considered only as one of the "situational" variables. Others include: the size and structure of the organization, the type of activity carried out, individual characteristics members of the organization (in particular, their expectations), decision-making time, the psychological climate of the organization, etc. In some conditions, one line of behavior is required from the leader, in others - a completely different one. 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 meets 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, there is no too frequent change of leaders. With 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.

At present, the "synthetic concept of leadership" is dominant in Western social psychology. According to this theory, leadership is the process of organizing interpersonal relationships in a group, and the leader is the subject of management of 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 personality of the leader, his qualities should not be discounted.

Therefore, this theory is characterized by an integrated approach to the entire management process. The nature of the implementation of the leadership role is influenced by the relationship of three variables: the quality of the leader, the quality of 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 just as significant.

Basic Leadership Theories

PLAN

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………… .2

1.Basic theories of leadership……………………………………………………… 4

2.Theories of the environment……………………………………………………………………… 6

3. Personal situational theories……………………………………………... 7

4. "Humanistic" theories of leadership………………………………………... 9

5. Motivational theories of leadership………………………………………….. 11

CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………….. 13

LITERATURE …………………………………………………………………. 15

INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon of leadership occupies a special place in political psychology due to its brightness and intrigue. If for political science main problem is power, then for political psychology it is a concrete expression of this power in the "human factor" of politics. This particular expression has two hypostases. On the one hand, power in the political-psychological dimension is the ability of the ruling subject ("tops") to force himself to obey, that is, some potential of a leader, political institution or regime. On the other hand, power is the willingness of the "bottom" to obey the "top". So there are two sides of the same coin: the ability of the "tops" and the readiness of the "bottom". What "specific weight" of each of these components depends on many circumstances in each case.

The phenomenon of leadership is the most studied problem in political psychology. It is here that the bulk of research, concepts and attempts at theoretical generalization has been accumulated. When studying this section of political psychology, the most productive is the constant appeal to the history of the problem, an in-depth historical digression into previous studies. In research on the phenomenon of leadership, there is as yet no “final diagnosis” that would allow one to briefly summarize and generalize achievements, discarding obviously wrong concepts.

The phenomenon of leadership is the most rewarding topic for political psychologists. Its occupation ensures the interest of the general public and the demand of the politicians themselves. That is, at the same time, it brings a rare combination of fame and money. All of the above explains the increased attention that is shown to this problem. Considering this, we will consider the accumulated scientific data as widely as possible. Note that each subsequent approach did not cross out the previous ones, but built on top of them. So there was a voluminous, multidimensional understanding of the phenomenon of leadership.

1.Basic theories of leadership

Until the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, the main approaches to the problem were purely descriptive. Analysis became the property of the 20th century. Various theories have come close to trying to explain the nature of leadership and to identify the factors influencing this phenomenon. In a generalized form, several groups of such theories can be distinguished.

Hero Theories and Trait Theories. Theories of this group are among the most ancient. Let us briefly mention only some of their origins. As you know, a significant part of the political and psychological traits and characteristics is determined by socio-cultural circumstances. So, the ancient Egyptians attributed to their emperor "divine traits": "powerful statement" in the mouth, "understanding in the heart", but "his language is the tomb of justice." The Homeric Iliad revealed four necessary, according to the ancient Greeks, qualities of leaders: justice (Agamemnon), wisdom (Nestor), cunning (Odysseus) and valor (Achilles). Lists of such or similar qualities are found in a wide variety of cultures: True, the behavior patterns of leaders and the “sets” of leadership “features” have changed more than once over time. Nevertheless, the images of heroes were, are and always will be. In any case, supporters of the understanding of history as the creation of "heroes", great people, remain for the time being. This means that the lists of “heroic” traits will also multiply.

In the 20th century, well-known representatives of the “heroic” theory (T. Carlisle, E. Jennings, J. Dowd, and others) tried to study qualities that were “transmitted by inheritance” and “contributing to the attraction of the masses.” Then, following the “heroic”, already the “theory of traits” tried to answer the question of what properties a leader should have as a special subject of activity. Its supporters (L. Bernard, W. Bingham, O. Tad, S. Kilbourne, and others) believed that certain psychological qualities and properties (“features”) make a person a leader. The leader was considered by them through the prism of a number of factors. Firstly, such factors included his "abilities" - mental, verbal, etc. Secondly, "achievements" - education and physical development. Thirdly, "responsibility" - dependence, initiative, perseverance, desire, etc. Fourthly, "participation" - activity, cooperation, etc. Fifthly, "status" - socio-economic status, popularity . Sixth, the "situational traits" of the personality were recognized as important.

Let us single out the main qualities that the supporters of this theory considered necessary for a leader:

1. a strong desire for responsibility and completion of the case;
2. energy and perseverance in achieving the goal, riskiness and originality in solving problems;
3. initiative;
4. self-confidence;
5. the ability to influence the behavior of others, to structure social relationships;
6. the desire to take on all the consequences of actions and decisions;
7. ability to resist frustration and group breakup.

One can treat such views in different ways. However, let us pay attention to the curious results that a comprehensive study of leadership behavior, conducted for applied purposes, commissioned by the US State Department in 1979, brought. It showed that the most important features of a modern political leader are non-formalized organizational skills, avoidance of bureaucratic approaches, tolerance for frustration, directness of judgment, ability to listen to other people's opinions, energy, a resource for growth and humor. Let's agree that the years go by, and the qualities attributed to the leader remain unchanged. At the same time, it is funny that intellectual abilities are still not considered mandatory for a leader.

M. Weber contributed to the development of the "theory of traits". He believed: “Three qualities are decisive for a politician: passion, a sense of responsibility and an eye ...

An eye that is able to succumb to the influence of realities with inner composure and calmness ... a distance is required in relation to things and people ... The problem is to squeeze into the same soul both a hot passion and a cold eye ”

For all their entertainment, the theories of "heroes" and "devils" are not very productive in scientific terms. They allow you to beautifully describe a striking phenomenon, but do not bring closer the penetration into its essence. Despite the general recognition of this, theories of this kind continue to multiply their number of supporters, create ever new lists of necessary leadership qualities. To a certain extent, this is the inertia of the previous, descriptive approaches. The scientific study of the phenomenon of leadership has gone further.

2. Theory of the environment

The main position of the group of theories united under this name says: leadership is a function of the environment, i.e. certain time, place and circumstances, including cultural ones. This approach ignored the individual differences of people, explaining their behavior solely by the requirements of the environment. So, according to E. Bogardus, the type of leadership in a group primarily depends on the nature of the group and the problems that it has to solve.

V. Hawking assumed that leadership is a group function that is transferred to the leader only when the group wishes to follow the program put forward by him. In this regard, X. Person put forward two hypotheses: 1) each situation determines both the qualities of the leader and the leader himself; 2) the qualities of the individual, which are determined by the situation as leadership qualities, are the result of previous leadership situations. Without causing rejection, such conclusions, however, also clarified little.

At one time, J. Schneider was surprised to find that the number of generals in England at different times was directly proportional to the number of military conflicts in which the country participated. This was the most striking illustration of the validity of environmental theories. To assess their essence, let's use the statement of A. Murphy: the situation calls for a leader, who should become an instrument for solving the problem.

3. Personal situational theories

This group of theories is, as it were, a symbiosis of the two previous ones. Within its framework, both the psychological traits of a leader and the conditions in which the leadership process takes place are simultaneously considered. In particular, according to S. Case, leadership is generated by three main factors: the personal qualities of the leader, the group of his followers and the current situation or "event" (for example, the problem that the group solves).

R. Stogdill and S. Shartl proposed to describe leadership through the concepts of "status", "interaction", "consciousness" and "behavior" of individuals in relation to other members of an organized group. Consequently, leadership is seen more as a system of human relations, and not as a characteristic of an isolated individual.

X. Gert and S. Mills believed that in order to understand the phenomenon of leadership, it is necessary to pay special attention to such factors as the traits and motives of the leader, his public image, the motives of his followers, the features of the leadership role, and also take into account the "institutional context" and "situation" .

Thus, in different versions of the theory of this group, they tried to expand the merits of previous approaches. However, the desired was not achieved in everything.

Interaction-expectation theories. According to the views of J. Homans and J. Hemfield, the theory of leadership should consider three main variables: action, interaction and mood. This suggests that increased interaction and participation in joint activities is associated with increased feelings of mutual sympathy, as well as with the introduction of greater certainty into group norms. The leader in this theory is defined as, first of all, the initiator of interaction.

For example, the theory of "reinforcing expectations"R. Stogdilla is based on a simple statement. The members of the group, he believed, in the process of interaction increase the expectation that each of them will continue to act accordingly. The role of the individual is determined by mutual expectations, expectations, and if his actions coincide with the expectations of the group, he will be allowed to join it, that is, he will be admitted (“accepted”) into the group. A person's leadership potential depends on their ability to initiate the right interactions and expectations.

According to the theory of "target behavior"(path-goal theory) M. Evans, the degree of manifestation of attention by the leader determines the awareness by the followers of the future encouragement, and the degree of initiation of the structure by the leader determines the awareness by the subordinates of what kind of behavior will be encouraged. Close to hermotivational theory”(R. Howe, B. Basse) understood leadership as an attempt to change the behavior of group members through a change in their motivation. F. Fiedler believed that "leadership behavior" depends on the requirements of a particular situation. For example, a "work-oriented" leader will be effective in extreme situations (too easy or too hard work). A relationship-oriented leader is usually effective in solving "moderate", as it were, "intermediate" problems.

4. "Humanistic" leadership theories

A group of leadership theories called "humanistic" put the development of an effective organization at the forefront. According to representatives of this approach, a person by its very nature is a “motivated being”, and an organization by its nature is always structured and controlled. The main function of leadership is the modification of the organization in order to ensure the freedom of individuals to realize their motivational potential and satisfy their needs - however, while achieving the goals of the organization.

D. McGregor developed two theories of organizing leadership. The first, so-called theory X , is based on the assumption that individuals are usually passive, opposed to the needs of the organization and therefore need to be directed and "motivated". Second, theory Y , is based on the assumption that people are already motivated and strive for responsibility, therefore it is necessary to organize and direct them in such a way that they simultaneously realize both their own goals and the goals of the organization. These two theories reflected, in fact, two stages in the development of the organization.

S. Argyris also pointed out the existence of a conflict between the organization and the individual. In his opinion, the nature of the organization involves the structuring of the roles of its members and control over the performance of their obligations. In the nature of man lies the desire for self-realization through the manifestation of initiative and responsibility. This means that effective leadership must take this into account and rely primarily on these qualities.

R. Likert believed that leadership is a relative process, and the leader must take into account the expectations, values, interpersonal skills of subordinates. The leader must let subordinates know that the organizational process is for their benefit, as it provides them with the freedom to make responsible and proactive decisions.

Within the framework of this theory, R. Blake and J. Mouton were able to depict leadership graphically: along the abscissa - concern for individuals, along the ordinate - concern for the result. The higher the values ​​of these coordinates, the more developed the relationship of trust and respect in the organization.

In general, noting the conditional "humanism" of these theories, we conclude: it was still a step forward compared to its predecessors. The humanistic approach is based on an in-depth analysis of the personal and psychological roots of the leadership phenomenon.

Exchange theories . Representatives of this theory (J. Homans, J. March, X. Simon, X. Kelly, etc.) proceed from the fact that social relations are a form of special exchange, during which members of the group contribute not only real, productive, but and a purely psychological contribution, for which they receive a certain psychological “income”. The interaction continues until all participants find such an exchange mutually beneficial. T. Jacobs formulated his version of the exchange theory as follows: the group provides the leader with status and respect in exchange for his unusual ability to achieve the goal. The process of exchange is complexly organized, it includes numerous systems of "crediting" and complex "payments".

This group of theories, being super-rationalistic, certainly reflects only one of the aspects of the leadership phenomenon. However, its influence on modern political psychology is significant. Generally speaking, the entire history of the study of the phenomenon of leadership has led to the fact that two super-approaches have reigned: rationalistic and humanistic.

5. Motivational theories of leadership

According to W. Stone, a motive is a kind of learned "obsession" based on an internal need to competently handle the environment. Regardless of the initial need (power, prestige, self-expression), motivation depends on the possibilities realized by a person. Naturally, too much motivation can distort perception. For example, an overly motivated candidate who objectively has little chance of success may blindly believe in his election victory. However, more often than not, an individual nominates himself when he realizes that he has the potential to win, enough skills and serious support. As noted by DSchlesinger, "ambitions often develop in a specific situation as a response to the opportunities that open up to politics." " ambition theory ” involves a rational assessment of the situation. J. Stern proposed the following motivation formula:

motivation = f(motive x expectation x incentive).

This means that the candidate's ambition is a function of three variables. First, from his personal motives (power, success, respect). Secondly, from his expectations regarding the occupation of the position. Thirdly, from the "value of the prize." An individual's expectations are determined by his attitude to the political system, future opportunities as a politician, assessment of his own abilities and likely support. In other words, three things - future prestige, power and salary - determine the ambitions of a politician.

Motivation, according to J. Atkinson, is divided into two types: motivation for success (MS) and motivation for avoiding failure (MN). In formula language, we can write:

MU \u003d f (MuhOUhSU),

MN \u003d f (MnxONxCH).

That is, the level of satisfaction in case of success and the degree of humiliation in case of failure depend on the subjective expectations of the individual regarding the possible consequences of both. In the event that in the motivational model of the individual, MN exceeds MU, the individual chooses either a situation with one hundred percent success, or very risky enterprises (to easily justify his failure). If MN is equal to MU, then effective motivation is zero, it is practically absent. And finally, the more MU compared to ML, the higher the subjective probability of success, since the relative strength of motivation affects this probability and shifts it upward. Anxiety about failure is all the stronger, the less the possibility of success approaches the 50/50 border.

So, for leadership, a motive plus the possibility of its implementation is important, since a motive without such an opportunity is equal to movement without direction. A well-known supporter of humanistic psychology A. Maslow in histheories of hierarchical needsargued that the roots of leadership arise in the process of transforming human desires (motives emanating from feelings) into needs, social aspirations, collective expectations and political demands, that is, into motives that depend on the environment. In the hierarchy of needs, physiological needs are at the lowest level, security needs are at the middle level, and affective needs are at the highest level. The frustration of lower needs increases the motivation to satisfy them. The leader's task is to prevent frustration, apathy, neuroses and other forms of "social disorders" through the transformation of the needs of citizens in a socially productive direction. Leaders, as it were, convert hopes and aspirations into sanctioned expectations. The chain of the state of the slaves controlled by the leader is as follows:

desires and needs => hopes and

expectations => demands => political action.

As for the leader himself, A. Maslow distinguished between two types of power needs:

1) the need for strength, achievement, autonomy and freedom;

2) the need for dominance, reputation, prestige, success, status, etc. Most researchers are of the opinion that the main power motive is the desire to satisfy one need - dominance. D. Berne believes that the main element of political ambitions is the need for respect (at the same time, high self-esteem and high appreciation of others). All the "great people" have demonstrated this need. A good example is a leader with a flawed self-esteem (W. Wilson, according to 3. Freud). According to D. Burns, the desire for respect is not a pathology, but only an increased need for self-actualization. Self-actualizers are potential leaders.

CONCLUSION

This is how the seven main approaches to the problem of leadership look like, which formed the initial foundation of its scientific study. It was only as this support was formed that the next step became possible: an attempt to createleadership typologiesand identifying types of leaders.The phenomenon of leadership is rooted in the biological nature of man. Proto-leadership reveals itself among animals leading a herd lifestyle (monkeys, deer, wolves). There is always a leader here - the strongest, smartest, stubborn and determined individual who leads the herd (flock) in accordance with genetic laws. The herd is a complexly organized system with clearly identified needs. The main one is the need for self-organization, streamlining the behavior of individual elements of the system in order to preserve its integrity and ensure development. Such orderliness is achieved due to the vertical and horizontal distribution of functions and roles. A hierarchical pyramid is formed, the top of which is the proto-leader. Large social groups are much more complex systems, the self-organization and development of which cannot be based only on natural factors. The clarity of identifying the position of the leader here will depend on the degree of interdependence of the members of the group from each other and the relationship of the group as a whole with the environment. In systems with low group integration and a high degree of autonomy of members, the leader's functions may be expressed very weakly or not at all (there are no leadership traits in a crowd of pedestrians or among transport passengers). As the group's need for joint collective action grows, the need for a leader increases.

LITERATURE

1. Alpha Leadership (Julian Russell, Ann Dearing, Robert Dilts). - M.: 2004. - 256 p.
2. Andreeva O.I. leadership phenomenon. - K.: Osvita. - 2004. - 312 p.
3. Bazarov T. Organizational context of personnel management / Social Psychology. Reader. Moscow: Aspect-Press, 2003.
4. Boychuk A.A. Leader or leader? - TO.: high school. - 2003. - 282 p.
5. L.A. arose. Theories of leadership. - M.: Phoenix. - 2004. - 264 p.
6. Evtikhov O. Strategies and methods of leadership. M.: Speech, 2007. - 238 p.
7. Kanjemi J.P. The Psychology of Modern Leadership: American Studies. - M.: Kogito-Center. - 2006. - 288 p.
8. Keshavan Nair High standard of leadership. Lessons from the life of Galdi. - M.: 2001. - 160 p.
9. Collins D. From good to great. St. Petersburg: Stockholm School of Economics, 2006. - 303p.
10. Lansberg M. Leadership. Vision, inspiration and energy. - M.: Phoenix. - 2000. - 224 p.
11. Leader and team (R.Jay, S.Morris). - M.: Phoenix. - 2002. - 296 p.
12. Michael Miller Where does the leader begin. - M.: Phoenix. - 2005. - 232 p.
13. Nemov R.S. Psychology. Book 1. General Basics psychology. M.: VLADOS, 2001. - 686 p.
14. Pimenova A.A. Leadership psychology. - M.: 2003. - 318 p.
15. Pulson K. Leadership in questions and answers. Career Magazine 5 (90), May 2006.
16. Stout L. Leadership: from riddles to practice. M .: OOO "Good book", 2002. - 320 p.
17. Stolyarenko L.D. Psychology and ethics business relations. - M.: Phoenix. - 2003. - 512 p.

Management: training course Makhovikova Galina Afanasievna

6.3. Basic Leadership Theories

The following approaches to the study of leadership in an organization are distinguished: traditional leadership concepts (leadership theory and leadership behavior concepts), situational leadership concepts and new approaches ( situational analysis effective leadership as a combination of leadership traits and their manifestation in behavior).

Leadership Theory

The theory of leadership qualities appeared at an early stage in the study and explanation of leadership. The first concepts tried to identify those special qualities that belong to great people. The researchers believed that leaders have a unique set of fairly stable and unchanging qualities that distinguish them from ordinary people. Scientists have tried to define leadership qualities, measure them and use them to identify leaders. This approach was based on the belief that leaders are born, not made. Hundreds of studies have been conducted, resulting in an extremely long list of identified leadership qualities.

F. Taylor put forward new requirements for management personnel and developed a list of leadership qualities. This list includes intelligence, education, special or creative knowledge, physical dexterity and strength, tact, energy, determination, honesty, prudence and common sense as well as good health.

Ralph Stogdill in 1948 summarized all the previously identified leadership qualities and came to the conclusion that the leader is basically characterized by five qualities:

Mind (intellectual abilities);

dominance or dominance over others;

Self-confidence;

Activity and vigor;

Business knowledge.

However, these five qualities do not explain the emergence of a leader. Many people with these qualities remained performers, followers. Further study led to the allocation of four groups of leadership qualities: physiological, psychological (emotional), mental (intellectual) and personal business.

Warren Bennis, one of the leading experts on leadership in the United States, offers the following list of qualities that a leader should possess: technical competence, propensity to strategic thinking ability to achieve results, communication, motivation and delegation skills, ability to identify and develop talents, ability to accept complex decisions in the face of time pressure and lack of reliable information, the nature of .

Gay Hendrix And Keith Ludman give their list of qualities of leaders of the 21st century: absolute honesty, justice, deep knowledge of oneself, focus on contribution, non-dogmatic spirituality, efficiency due to the ability to be present in the present moment. A leader also needs a focus on the best in himself and in others, openness to change, a special sense of humor, a combination of perspective vision with a focus on the little things in the present, exceptional self-discipline, the ability to maintain a balance between various areas life (personal life - work - spirituality - society).

Robert Goffey And Gareth Jones identified four more qualities that they consider fundamentally important: leaders selectively demonstrate their weaknesses, they rely heavily on intuition in choosing the right time and direction of action, they manage their subordinates with tough empathy, they show their difference from others.

The theory of leadership qualities does not allow establishing a close relationship between the considered qualities and leadership, as well as effectively identifying leaders in practice, since:

The list of potentially important leadership qualities turned out to be almost endless, and therefore it is impossible to create the right image of a leader;

It is difficult to measure many leadership qualities;

There is no differentiation of leadership qualities depending on the organization or situation.

Thus, although an important factor in the implementation of the leader's functions is his personal qualities, not everything depends only on him, a lot depends on the maturity of the followers, their experience and knowledge. In addition, the actions of the leader are influenced by both situational factors and the results of the activities of the followers. The next stages in the study of the problem of leadership were the emergence of the concept of leadership behavior, and then situational leadership.

5. Situational theories of leadership by Fiedler, Hersey-Blanshard, Reddin, Vroom-Yetton The most popular among the concepts of behavioral styles of a leader in Lately received the management grid of R. Blake and D. Mouton (Fig. 2). At the heart of this two-dimensional theory of leadership