HR management styles in a company: which one is better to choose?

How do you communicate with employees? Do you powerfully control every step, let everything take its course, practice an individual approach? So how does it work? Today we will talk about leadership styles. Make yourself comfortable, let's begin!

Or maybe you haven’t thought about leadership style at all? Business is going well, the online store is developing, why complicate things? Let's look at the main management styles and the pros and cons of each. This will help you understand the strengths and weaknesses of your leadership and determine what style to pursue in the future.

Authoritarian style of personnel management

It is often associated with the saying “I’m the boss, you’re the fool.” Management in the company is built on the principles of strict discipline, unquestioning submission to management and centralization of power.

In an authoritarian management style, managers alone make all decisions based on management accounting data, without listening to or asking the opinions of subordinates. Most often, they are accustomed to regulating all processes and demand strict discipline from their subordinates. Responsibilities are strictly distributed, and the company has a clear and understandable hierarchy.

If a manager uses only an authoritarian management style, he may be harsh in his judgment and not receptive to criticism. There are only two rules in the company: first, the boss is always right, second, see point one. This is a kind of dictatorship that is justified in some situations.

Personnel motivation in an authoritarian management style is based on punishments and fines. They are received for the slightest deviations from the algorithms or failure to meet established KPIs (key performance indicators).

Communications in the company are only vertical: the manager sets tasks and accepts their implementation, without discussing the nuances with subordinates. This makes it difficult for employees to convey something to management, even if it is important for the further development of the company. Managers who practice an authoritarian style do not communicate with staff not only at work - they are not interested in their personal qualities, problems, and successes.

Pros of an authoritarian management style

Iron discipline. Employees know that they will not be forgiven for mistakes and sloppiness, so they strictly comply with the requirements of managers. Thanks to this, force majeure events such as missed project deadlines or production defects rarely occur.
Stability. Even in stressful situations and during a crisis, the company continues to work, because everyone strictly follows the instructions of the manager, and does not discuss further actions at planning meetings.
Transparent business processes. Managers always know what employees are doing and what is happening in the company as a whole. Thanks to discipline and transparency, a characteristic feature of the authoritarian management style is the high speed of completing tasks.

Disadvantages of an authoritarian management style

High turnover. Not everyone is ready to work under the leadership of a dictator, which is why companies with an authoritarian management style have a high percentage of layoffs. Usually the most talented people leave—those who feel constrained by their job responsibilities and instructions.
Problems with feedback. Due to vertical communication, information important for the company may take a long time to reach the manager or not at all. This can negatively affect the development of the enterprise as a whole.
Rejection of ideas. The authoritarian style suppresses employee initiatives - they are not used to sharing ideas with management. Therefore, the company has been working “as usual” for many years, although some business processes may be ineffective.
Lack of development. Due to the suppression of ideas and problematic feedback, employees simply carry out job duties. They do not learn new things and do not develop, which is necessary for the further development of the entire business.
Low dedication. Because of fines and punishments, employees are motivated to do exactly what is required of them. Employees strictly follow job descriptions and are not ready to do more for the benefit of the company.

Typical mistakes of a manager

When identifying shortcomings in the DSR, the lack of strict control on the part of superiors was noted. Reliance on the independent actions of employees, without proper verification of task performance at all levels, leads to unpunished relaxation in the team.

Familiarity can reduce the authority of the boss and become an obstacle to establishing clear business relationships. Control is mandatory, but not direct, but indirect (through other channels, through immediate managers). Improper delegation of responsibilities leads to failure of the entire system.

Typical mistakes of a manager

The style of democratic management of a company does not depend on gender. An organization can be headed by either a man or a woman. The image of a professional leader is what employees see before them. Properly established communication with staff is expressed in the fact that feelings of duty and guilt towards colleagues motivate the “work through mistakes” of the guilty team member more than punishment.

Democratic style of personnel management

Democratic (democratic) style is the exact opposite of authoritarian. The staff also reports to the manager and power is centralized, but there is free communication within the team.

Managers control not so much the processes themselves as the results. They provide staff with everything necessary for work, while employees have relative freedom of action. Managers act more like coordinators and can distribute tasks, taking into account the desires and competencies of employees, and help if necessary, but do not do the work for specialists.

Managers who use a democratic management style are willing to listen to ideas and suggestions from employees. They hold planning meetings or communicate with employees personally, take into account feedback and strive to make everyone feel comfortable.

Democratic leaders are usually sociable and friendly, but in stressful situations they are capable of demanding strict discipline and unquestioning obedience.

Methods of motivating staff in a democratic management style are associated with incentives. Typically, companies introduce KPIs and reward them for their implementation, while additionally working on corporate training, career growth, employee development and other methods of non-material motivation.

Communications in the company are horizontal - employees of different departments easily exchange information and can turn to management for it. Communication is businesslike, but free. Also, managers with a democratic style usually welcome informal communication between colleagues and hold events to unite the team: they organize corporate parties, celebrate holidays, buy board games for the office. Examples of communications for PlanFact were given by Elena Mironova , General Director of Eaton in Russia and Kazakhstan:

“I would call our management style democratic with elements of creativity. It is absolutely impossible to say that we practice an authoritarian style. This does not fit our business model, and in general, in a modern high-tech company, prescriptive leadership can do more harm than good. With a democratic style, management relies on horizontal connections in the company and teamwork. Let me give you an example: our team works with three groups of partners. There are different people in all directions who convey the key success factors to management. Senior management cannot know how to deal with each type of client, so they cannot be authoritarian. Accordingly, in our management we encourage the involvement of specialists. Eaton's corporate culture plays a special role in shaping management style. Horizontal connections are especially important to us. We are part of Eaton's Eastern European branch, which has the same three areas of work with partners as we have in Russia. Accordingly, managers of all three areas have, so to speak, a “peer” who does the same work, but at the international level. We establish communication between the division in Russia and the head office, constantly exchanging experience, ideas and knowledge. This allows us to quickly improve business processes and allow our employees to develop using practices from around the world. Another example of horizontal communications is the corporate E-Star program. This is our platform that allows any employee to express his gratitude to another for a good idea, successful completion of a task, achievement of a goal, etc. When an employee gives someone an E-Star, the managers of both see it. Such assessments are encouraged, sometimes financially. On the one hand, this helps us “catch” good ideas and practices, on the other hand, it increases the loyalty of the company’s employees, satisfaction with their activities, and stimulates employees’ positive assessment of each other. Overall, 82% of Eaton's employees are involved in the E-Star program, and it has borne fruit during the experiment. According to our calculations, the likelihood of program participants leaving the company is two times less than that of those who are not included in it.”

Advantages of a democratic management style

Forming a team of like-minded people. With a democratic management style, it is easy to assemble a team that will share the views of management and strive to develop the company - it will be easier to increase profits or enter new markets.
Low staff turnover. If an employee shares the company's values, he will not leave due to dictatorship, as in the authoritarian style. Employees usually feel comfortable in companies with democratic managers, so they “hold on” to their jobs.
Wide development opportunities. Management listens to ideas and proposals that can bring profit to the company. That’s why startups usually use a democratic style—the team’s opinion allows them to look at the situation more broadly.
Reducing the likelihood of errors. Collective brainstorming is more effective because it is devoid of subjectivity. Through discussion, managers can objectively assess the situation and make the right decision.

Disadvantages of a democratic management style

Long discussions. The more people who participate in important discussions, the longer they can last: someone will find a possible problem, someone will argue for changing the entire concept. In the absence of discipline, this threatens to miss deadlines.
Possible anarchy. Employees may view the democratic management style as a sign of weakness and try to work on their own terms. To prevent this, the leader must be moderately tough.

Types of DSR, their comparison

Democratic style has two types:

advisory;
participative.

Each of them is characterized by its own set of conditions for organizing work.

Advisory

The boss, trusting his employees, consults with his subordinates before making decisions or setting tasks. In the process of such communication, the manager selects the best and most valuable proposals. Based on them, tasks are formed. With this approach, employees receive satisfaction from the fact that they can support their boss and point him in the right direction. As a result, no one is bothered by the fact that instructions come from above. Good offers are usually followed by encouragement.

Advisory type of DSR

Participative

This democratic type of leadership is built on the fact that the boss does not consult, but completely delegates the consideration of assigned tasks to the group, ensuring the involvement of all interested employees for constructive proposals. They are also entrusted with control over the fulfillment of the formed goal.

Participative type of DSR

Friendly style of personnel management

Loyal form of democratic style. In companies using it, it is difficult to identify a clear hierarchy. Discipline problems often arise.

Adherents of a comradely management style freely discuss the internal affairs of the company with subordinates, sometimes even if this is not necessary. They welcome informal communication not only within the team, but also with themselves. They can set tasks and help subordinates complete them, while employees have maximum freedom of action.

A manager who uses a friendly management style is an “insider.” Company employees can easily hand over part of their work to him, take a couple of days off while maintaining their salary, or drink beer after work.

The classic motivation system does not take root with a friendly management style. The manager may try to introduce a system of fines or rewards for fulfilling (exceeding) KPIs, but there is little practical benefit in this. Workers do not perceive him as a boss, so they complete tasks at a pace that is convenient for them.

Communication within the team and with the manager is built on equal terms. The manager does not actually show his power and communicates with subordinates as with friends. Because of this, employees become slack and may miss deadlines or perform poor quality work.

Pros of a friendly management style

Loyalty to the company. People are comfortable working where there is no strict discipline, so they will strive to keep their jobs. But they will not do this too actively, as could be the case with a democratic style of personnel management.
Development opportunities. With a friendly style, everyone can express their opinion without regard to hierarchy - sometimes this helps to get good ideas for business development and implement them.

Disadvantages of a friendly management style

Possible anarchy. The risk of getting a team that misses deadlines and does not complete assigned tasks is much higher with a comradely management style than with a democratic one. Communicating with subordinates on equal terms gives them the idea that setting a task is not an order from a manager, but a request from a friend that can be postponed until later.
Narrow niche of application. Because of its specificity, the friendly management style is suitable only for small teams, in which each is an expert in his own narrow field, but also has skills in other areas and can make informed decisions. In such a situation, everyone is interested in common goals, and employees are capable of self-organization and self-control.
Falling profits. One of the main business risks is associated precisely with the choice of management style: if the manager is not able to demand discipline, this threatens to miss deadlines and, as a result, deteriorate financial performance.

Coaching

A leader-coach is able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of other team members and contributes to their development. In addition, such leaders know how to connect the skills of employees with the goals of the company.

This leadership style will be effective if the leader is creative, open to collaboration, and provides clear feedback to colleagues. It is also important that the coach knows when to step back and give the person space.

If you've ever dealt with a bad mentor, you know that coaching isn't for everyone. If you are unlucky with a coach, such leadership can turn into total petty control.

Benefits of coaching leadership:

A leader-coach can create a motivating atmosphere in which participants are happy to work on a project.
Clearly defined expectations help develop the skills of colleagues.
This leadership style gives companies a competitive advantage because it provides productive conditions for qualified people who are willing to train others.

Disadvantages of coaching leadership:

Coaching requires patience and time.
This style is only effective if others are willing to accept it.
Mentor leaders rely heavily on relationships, which can be difficult if there is no team chemistry.

Individual style of personnel management

This is a style in which the manager seeks a personal approach to each employee. He communicates a lot with people and strives to make everyone feel comfortable.

With an individual management style, managers set tasks and demand their completion on time. But they can also listen and accept the employee’s ideas if they consider them worthy, or meet halfway and slightly change the terms of the project.

Motivation in an individual personnel management style can be different - the manager uses intangible and material methods, rewards and punishments. He selects them personally for departments or specific employees in order to maximize work efficiency.

Communication styles with subordinates can be different. Typically, managers build trusting relationships while trying to maintain subordination. They can organize evenings for communication, corporate parties and other events that bring the team together. Evgeniy Sveshnikov , CEO of the Smart group of companies, told us about his experience

“I use an individual approach to people, because each employee, depending on the structure of his nervous system and temperament, requires a different management style. With the help of a mixed system, you can find an approach to all people in the company, which allows you to keep the team on its toes. For example, in situations where it is impossible to hesitate, I quickly navigate and resort to an authoritarian style. But I am always open to new ideas and suggestions from employees if it will benefit the common cause. It is important to me that department heads see the big picture and come up with solutions for what needs to be done to achieve our goals. We have a general direction, and each leader implements it as he sees it. Of course, in the Soft niche, unlike production, the use of an authoritarian style is not encouraged. Few smart and talented people will accept strict boundaries, so in the future I would like to ensure that every department head in our company adheres to a more democratic style than an authoritarian one.”

Pros of an individual management style

Healthy atmosphere in the team. Each employee understands his importance to the company, and therefore is loyal to it and to the manager.
Low staff turnover. Thanks to comfortable working conditions, people do not leave the company. They can develop within it because management creates all the conditions for this.
Complete trust. With a personal approach to employees, a trusting relationship is created between the manager and subordinate. Managers learn about problems in a timely manner and can quickly solve them, do not miss interesting ideas and know what is actually happening in the company, rather than being guided by dry report numbers.

Disadvantages of an individual management style

Risk of changing priorities. A manager may spend more time on personal communication than on work tasks. This will affect labor efficiency.
Possible overprotection. With an individual style of personnel management, the manager can control literally every step of employees and help them cope with ordinary tasks in situations where this is unjustified.
Large investment of time. Finding an individual approach takes much more time than authoritarian, democratic and even comradely styles. The manager either goes completely into personal communication or overworks it in order to have time to solve all work tasks.

Inspire employees with effective leadership style

Leadership style is a classification of how leadership skills are used in practice. As we already know, leaders have many strengths. They dedicate themselves to a variety of tasks, from motivating employees and thinking creatively to solving problems and taking risky decisions. At the same time, there are no two absolutely identical leaders: the approach to the same set of tasks for different leaders can differ significantly.

Leaders' job is to ensure that employees achieve the organization's goals.
Work management software can help you keep your team working in a consistent manner, no matter where you lead them. Try work management software

Universal style of personnel management

The main principle of such management is that the manager does not have a clear style of personnel management. He may use different approaches depending on:

personal qualities of employees - some people know how to speak and express ideas at planning meetings, while others need personal, confidential communication in order to open up: in the first case, a democratic style is suitable, in the second - elements of comradeship;
situations within the company - in case of force majeure it is easier and more effective to use an authoritarian management style, and in a calm environment - a democratic one, in order to give employees the opportunity to open up.

A universal management style implies a change in techniques and approaches. A manager can speak harshly at a planning meeting in the morning to set a specific task and motivate them to implement the plan, in the afternoon find an individual approach to understand the reasons for the employee’s KPI decline, and in the afternoon brainstorm to solve the next problem.

Due to the lack of a specific style, management successfully combines the advantages of all of the above. This is why most managers use it. Sergey Nasedkin, head of the CCT company office in Moscow, told the PlanFact blog about his experience:

“We don’t have a distinct style, we use a little bit of everything. For example, in accounting we often use an authoritarian and authoritative style: this is required by the direction, we often have to say how to do it, without regard to the opinion of the employees of this direction. We also use it in the logistics and delivery department. But in the direction of sales and marketing, a democratic or even friendly style is much more often used; in these areas, the main driving forces of the company often gather, there is a dialogue and a search for the optimal solution and construction of the work process. Our style can be called universal. In the universal method, the main plus is flexibility - in the current market conditions this is an important positive feature. The disadvantage of this style is the difficulty of switching between approaches, you need to develop this in yourself and learn it.”

There are other management styles. For example, the so-called “American style” implies the creation of healthy competition in the team and a focus on a specific result. Japanese is distinguished by the creation of working conditions under which employees can work in the company for the rest of their lives. Olga Sheina, executive director of the Profilance Group of Companies, spoke about the turquoise style:

“We have a turquoise management style - this is when an employee is his own planner and controller, comes up with tasks himself and carries them out himself. Once upon a time our team consisted of several people. Then the work was built on trust, on the fact that each person is individual, results-oriented, responsible and keeps agreements and promises. And that's why we grew rapidly. And even when we became 70+, the management principle remained the same. The advantage of this approach is that the team reciprocates, it is open to work, it is not limited by boundaries, there are no nerves. The manager only benefits from this, since all of a person’s resource is directed to work, and not to bureaucracy and defending interests. There are no disadvantages as such, because in this management style it is possible to eliminate any difficulties that arise in a timely manner. Employees understand that they are responsible for their tasks and working hours, and report monthly on progress. This helps the manager stay informed and employees take responsibility.”

Direction and functions of management

In addition to leadership style, it is customary to highlight focus. It reflects the manager’s priorities in the performance of general functions. According to this, the orientation can be distinguished:

to solve production problems;
to primarily solve socio-psychological problems;
for optimal solutions to current problems.

The main functions of a manager, in turn, include goal setting (setting goals, comparing them with real conditions, changing tactics if necessary), planning and forecasting (selecting optimal ways to achieve a goal), organization (creating a flexible, economical, self-regulating, reliable and operational system of one the whole, coordination and regulation (adjustment, polishing of the organized system), stimulation, control, accounting and analysis.

Sultanist regime

This type of authoritarian regime is so named because the power of the ruler in the countries where it is used is comparable to the power of medieval sultans. Officially, the position of the head of such states may have different names, but in most known cases they held the presidential post. In addition, under the sultanist regime, there is the possibility of transferring power by inheritance, although this is not enshrined in law. The most famous leaders of countries in which this type of authoritarian regime dominated were Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Francois Duvalier in Haiti. The latter, by the way, managed to transfer power to his son Jean-Claude.

Sultanist regimes are characterized by the maximum concentration of power in one hand in comparison with other autocratic systems. Their distinguishing feature is the absence of ideology, the prohibition of a multi-party system, as well as absolute autocracy.

Socialist authoritarianism

This type of authoritarianism is manifested in the peculiarities of the development of socialist society in certain countries of the world. It is formed on the basis of a special perception of socialism within these states, which has nothing in common with so-called European socialism or real social democracy.

In states with this form of government, there is a one-party system and there is no legal opposition. Often, countries with socialist authoritarianism have a fairly strong leadership role. In addition, quite often socialism is combined with nationalism in a mild form.

Among modern countries, socialist authoritarianism is most pronounced in Venezuela, Mozambique, Guinea, and Tanzania.

Racial democracy

Despite the fact that the name of this type of authoritarianism contains the word “democracy,” this political regime provides freedoms and rights only to representatives of a certain nationality or race. Other nationalities are not allowed to participate in the political process, including through violence.

The most typical example of racial democracy is South Africa during the apartheid period.

Corporate authoritarianism

The corporate form of authoritarianism is considered its most typical type. It arises in societies with relatively developed economies, in which various oligarchic groups (corporations) come to power. In such a state system, there is practically no ideology, and the economic and other interests of the group that has come to power play a decisive role. As a rule, in states with corporate authoritarianism there is a multi-party system, but these parties cannot play a significant role in political life due to the apathy of society towards them.

This type of political regime became most widespread in Latin American countries, in particular in Guatemala, Nicaragua (until 1979), and Cuba during the reign of Batista. There were also examples of corporate authoritarianism in Europe. This regime manifested itself most clearly in Portugal during the reign of Salazar and in Spain during the dictatorship of Franco.

Post-totalitarian regimes

This is a special type of authoritarian regimes that is formed in societies moving along the path from totalitarianism to democracy. At the same time, the phase of authoritarianism is not at all necessary on this road, but it is inevitable in those former totalitarian countries where it was not quickly possible to build a full-fledged democratic society.

Post-totalitarian regimes are characterized by the concentration of significant economic assets in the hands of representatives of the former party nomenklatura and people close to them, as well as the military elite. Thus, they turn into an oligarchy.

Typical representatives of post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes are the countries of the former USSR, except for the Baltic states.

Absolutist monarchy

This type of authoritarianism is inherent in modern absolute and dualistic monarchies. In such states, power is inherited. The monarch has either absolute powers to govern the country or weakly limited ones.

The main examples of an authoritarian regime of this type are Nepal (until 2007), Ethiopia (until 1974), as well as the modern states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco. Moreover, the latter country is not an absolute monarchy, but a typical constitutional (dualistic) one. But, despite this, the power of the Sultan in Morocco is so strong that this country can be classified as an authoritarian state.

What style does the leader use and is he able to change it?

If someone you know already works on this team, you can try your luck and ask them what style your future manager has. However, I will be very surprised if you get a clear answer. First, you will have to at least convince him to read this article.

Your friend's reaction to a question about his boss's style

An alternative way to obtain such information is... an interview. If you’ve been interviewed at any company at least once, you’ve probably heard questions like: “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?”, “Name your weaknesses,” etc. Obviously, all these questions are not asked with the aim of prolonging the interview, they are needed to determine soft skills. In fact, with such questions you can learn a lot about the candidate’s motivation and create his psychological portrait. These kinds of questions are a powerful tool that can be used in reverse. Don’t miss your opportunity to ask questions when you are given the floor, ask for an additional session with your future boss or colleagues. Ask questions until you have a complete understanding of the company's leadership style. Of course, you need to be able to use these techniques, and if you are not familiar with the soft-skill side of conducting interviews, read about the interpretation of marker phrases, the STAR and PARLA frameworks. As with any tool, the more you practice, the better you will get at it.

Military-bureaucratic regime

A distinctive feature of this type of authoritarian regime is the seizure of power in the country by a group of military officers through a coup. At first, all power is concentrated in the hands of the military, but later representatives of the bureaucracy are increasingly involved in management. In the future, this type of management may gradually take the path of democratization.

The main factors that lead to the establishment of military regimes are dissatisfaction with the existing government and the fear of revolution “from below.” It is the latter factor that subsequently influences the restriction of democratic freedoms and the right to choose. Preventing the intelligentsia, which is opposed to such a regime, from coming to power is his main task.

The most typical representatives of this type of authoritarianism are the regime of Nasser in Egypt, Pinochet in Chile, Peron in Argentina, and the juntas of 1930 and 1969 in Brazil.

Post-colonial regimes

Like post-totalitarian regimes, in many post-colonial countries authoritarianism is a phase on the path to democracy. True, the development of these states often stops at this stage for many decades. As a rule, this form of power is established in countries with poorly developed economies and imperfect political systems.

Countries with post-colonial authoritarian regimes include almost all African states that gained independence in the second half of the 20th century.