The role of the leader in increasing the efficiency of the enterprise

Leadership is the ability to influence individuals and groups of people to motivate them to work towards goals. There are many means by which you can influence others and lead people with you.

According to the personal theory of leadership, the best leaders have a certain set of personal qualities that are common to all. Developing this thought, it can be argued that if these qualities could be identified, people could learn to cultivate them in themselves and thereby become effective leaders. Some of these studied traits are the level of intelligence and knowledge, impressive appearance, honesty, common sense, initiative, social and economic education and a high degree of self-confidence [Mokshantseva O.S. Social Psychology. Uch. pos. for universities - M .: Infra-M, 2001.].

However, personality studies continue to produce conflicting results. Leaders tend to be distinguished by intelligence, desire for knowledge, reliability, responsibility, activism, social participation, and socioeconomic status. But in different situations, effective leaders displayed different personal qualities. Scientists concluded that "a person does not become a leader only because he has a certain set of personal properties."

The behavioral approach has created a framework for classifying leadership styles or behaviors. It has become a significant contribution and a useful tool for understanding the complexities of leadership. This approach to the study of leadership has focused on the behavior of the leader. According to the behavioral approach, efficiency is determined not by the personal qualities of the leader, but rather by his demeanor towards subordinates.

Neither a personality or behavioral approach has been able to identify a logical relationship between a leader's personality or behavior, on the one hand, and efficiency, on the other. This does not mean that personal qualities and behavior are irrelevant to the leadership. On the contrary, they are essential ingredients for success. However, more recent research has shown that additional factors can play a decisive role in the effectiveness of leadership. These situational factors include the needs and personal qualities of subordinates, the nature of the task, the requirements and influences of the environment, and the information available to the manager.

An important contribution of the behavioral approach to leadership theory is that it helped to analyze and classify leadership styles. Leadership style in the context of management is the habitual manner in which a leader behaves towards subordinates in order to influence and motivate them to achieve the goals of the organization. The extent to which a manager delegates authority, the types of power he uses, and his concern primarily for human relationships or, above all, for the performance of a task all reflect the leadership style that characterizes a given leader.

Each organization is a unique combination of individuals, goals and objectives. Each manager is a unique personality with a number of abilities. Therefore, leadership styles do not always fit into a specific category. According to the traditional classification system, the style can be autocratic (this is one extreme) and liberal (the other extreme), or it will be a work-centered style and a person-centered style. An autocratic leader in management is authoritarian. The autocratic leader has enough power to impose his will on the performers, and, if necessary, does not hesitate to resort to it. The autocrat deliberately appeals to the needs of the lower level of his subordinates on the assumption that this is the level at which they operate.

Based on these initial assumptions, the autocrat usually centralizes authority as much as possible, structures the work of subordinates, and gives them little freedom to make decisions. The autocrat also tightly directs all work within his competence and, in order to ensure that the work is done, he can exert psychological pressure, as a rule, threaten.

When an autocrat avoids negative coercion and uses a reward instead, he is called a benevolent autocrat. Although he continues to be an authoritarian leader, the benevolent autocrat takes an active role in the mood and well-being of his subordinates. He may even agree to allow or encourage them to participate in scheduling assignments. But he retains the actual power to make and execute decisions. And as supportive as this leader may be, he extends his autocratic style further, structuring tasks and imposing strict adherence to a huge number of rules that rigidly regulate employee behavior.

The ideas of a democratic leader about workers differ from the ideas of an autocratic leader:

• •    Labor is a natural process. If conditions are favorable, people will not only accept responsibility, they will strive for it.

• •    If people are attached to organizational goals, they will use selfmanagement and self-control.

• •    Involvement is a function of goal achievement reward.

• •    The ability for creative problem solving is common, and the intellectual potential of the average person is only partially used.

Due to these assumptions, the democratic leader prefers such mechanisms of influence that appeal to the needs of a higher level: the need for belonging, high purpose, autonomy and self-expression. A real democratic leader avoids imposing his will on his subordinates.

Organizations dominated by a democratic style are characterized by a high degree of decentralization of powers. Subordinates take an active part in decision-making and enjoy wide freedom in performing tasks. Quite often, by explaining the goals of the organization, the leader allows subordinates to define their own goals in accordance with the ones that he has formulated. Instead of exercising strict control over subordinates in the course of their work, the grassroots leader usually waits until the work is completed to the end in order to assess it. The leader acts as a liaison, ensuring that the goals of the production group are aligned with those of the organization as a whole, and that the group gets the resources it needs.

Because a democratic leader assumes that people are motivated by higher-level needs - for social interaction, success, and self-expression - he tries to make the responsibilities of subordinates more attractive. In a sense, he tries to create a situation in which people, to some extent, motivate themselves, because their work, by its nature, is itself a reward.

It also encourages subordinates to understand that they will have to solve most of the problems without seeking approval or help. But the leader puts a lot of effort into creating an atmosphere of openness and trust so that if subordinates need help, they could not hesitate to turn to the leader. To achieve this, the head organizes two-way communication and plays a guiding role.

One can understand why both the autocratic approach and the human relations approach have won many supporters. But now it is already clear that both those and other supporters sinned by exaggeration, drawing conclusions that are not fully supported by facts.

There are many well-documented situations where a supportive autocratic style has proven to be highly effective.

The democratic style has its strengths, successes and weaknesses.

Certainly, many organizational problems could be solved if improved human relations and worker participation in decision-making always lead to greater satisfaction and higher productivity. Unfortunately, this does not happen.

Scientists have encountered situations where workers were involved in decision making, but, nevertheless, the degree of satisfaction was low, as well as situations where satisfaction was high and productivity low.

It is clear that the relationship between leadership style, satisfaction, and performance can only be determined through lengthy and extensive empirical research.