Абай атындағы ҚазҰПУ-нің Хабаршысы, «Педагогика ғылымдары» сериясы, №2 (50), 2016 ж.
341
Such authoritarian leaders prefer to formalize relationships, keep their subordinates at arm's length that
they do not have the right to violate. Regardless of personal qualities (kindness, tact, etc.) they will hold a
hard line against employees, imposing their solutions.
Experts identify two kinds of authoritarian style. Exploiting style suggests that the head completely takes
over all matters, he or she does not trust subordinates, is not interested in their opinion, takes responsibility
for everything, giving the performers a guidance. As the main forms of stimulation such a leader uses
punishment, threats, psychological pressure [1].
The employees are indifferent to everything going or negative, they are happy about all his or her
mistakes, finding in it a confirmation of his innocence. The result is poor morale and creates the basis for the
development of industrial disputes.
By a milder “benevolent” form of the authoritarian style the head refers to subordinates already
condescending fatherly, is interested in their opinion, even though, despite its validity, can do in their own
way, provides independence performers to a limited extent. Motivating penalty takes place here, but it is
minimal.
The use of an authoritarian style can be effective when subordinates are completely at the mercy of the
head, such as the military, or the boundless trust him (say, the actors the director or the athletes coach), and
the head is sure that they are not able to act independently in the right way .
The authoritarian leadership style is more typical for the charismatic creative personalities. Its use
increases personal power and the ability to head its influence on subordinates, provides maximum
performance, but does not generate an internal interest of performers, as excessive disciplinary actions cause
in the human fear and anger, and destroy the incentive to work.
According to T.I. Shamova, classic and most common authoritarian type of managers considers
subordinates only as tools for the execution of orders and the achievement of the organization, in cooperation
with the staff use a variety of strategies of behavior - by coaxing and encouragement to coercion and
blackmail of dismissal [2].
The downside is the suppression of the individual style of the initiatives on the part of workers - is
punished by the very fact of its existence. Creative employees or become ordinary performers or quit.
Authoritarianism is the basis of the absolute majority of industrial action because of the desire of the
subject to the absolute rule. Autocrat's claim on jurisdiction in all matters creates chaos and, ultimately, a
negative impact on overall performance. The willfulness of autocrat paralyzes the work of the staff. He loses
not only the best employees, but creates a hostile atmosphere around him that threatens to himself. Unhappy
and resentful subordinates can misinform. Intimidated employees are not only unreliable, but also are not
working at full capacity; they are alien to the interests of the company.
If a person who is holding a post is inferior to his subordinates in professionalism and personal qualities,
then he has to compensate for the mismatch position his repressive commanding style of leadership. Very
often there is an opposite situation when the head-professional is surrounded by inexperienced workers,
which are simply impossible to share the responsibility. Being authoritative - this is the only correct way out
in this situation. But the leaders of this type in the new conditions still should look to a democratic style.
A variant of the authoritarian management style is paternalistic style. It involves treatment subordinates,
both as children and their work motivation mediates through personal dependence on the head. Service
information is distributed from top to bottom, depending on the goodwill of management, control the
activities carried out selectively, at the request of the head and intuition.
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: