Building The Organizational Structure Of The Enterprise In Accordance With The Applied Leadership Styles

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

There are many classifications of leadership styles used in organizations. The main works in this vein are the works of: Kurt Levin, who singled out authoritarian, liberal and democratic styles; Robert Blake and Jane Moughton, who identified five main leadership styles: conniving, compromising, authoritarian, social and team (different sources may contain different names); Douglas McGregor, who created the "X" and "Y" theories, consistent with authoritarian and democratic leadership styles; Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, who identified style of explanation, style of persuasion, style of participation, style of delegation, etc.

The problem is that leadership research is at its core in the United States, where the very word leadership is equated with leadership. Our translators, however, translate this word precisely as leadership. Hence, there is constant confusion in distinguishing between leadership styles and leadership styles.

In this regard, for a more objective study, we will take the leadership styles that were studied, abstracted from organizations, i.e. leadership styles as they are in everyday life. These studies are usually devoted to the study of gender leadership styles, i.e. male and female leadership.

As the main leadership styles for consideration in this work, two leadership models were selected, considered by T. V. Bendas is a competitive and cooperative model, which corresponds to different personal characteristics. [2]

The competitive model is distinguished by the importance of individual characteristics (gender, age, sexual attractiveness) for the leader, high indicators of: competitiveness, dominance, aggressiveness, gender identity, self-confidence, egocentrism, self-sufficiency, motivation for power and achievement, emotional stability, success according to business criteria, stereotyped views on female and male leadership, as well as low indicators characteristic of the cooperative model.

Figure 1. Competitive leadership model.

The competitive leadership model is carried out according to the principle of hierarchy - the leader is always from the top, and gives orders from the top down. The competitive leader organizes the group to achieve specific goals.

The cooperative model is characterized by: high rates of cooperativity, communicative characteristics; (focus on communication, altruism, extraversion, motivation for affiliation), intelligence, success in terms of socio-emotional criteria, cooperative environment in childhood, focus on well-being in personal life, egalitarian views on female and male leadership; low indicators of self-confidence, motivation for power and achievement, business success, emotional stability, as well as insignificance for a leader of individual characteristics, competitiveness, dominance, aggressiveness.

Figure 2. Cooperative leadership model.

The cooperative leadership model is carried out according to the principle of complementarity. The cooperative leader is the same member of the group as the rest, he motivates others to achieve goals, builds relationships in the group and directs the emotional and psychological climate.

At the same time, masculine and feminine models are varieties of the competitive model. The first one obeys the principle of obligation (therefore, an applicant for a leadership role certainly fights for it) and is described by the following indicators: male gender (although a woman with masculine characteristics can also be a leader), older age, high competitiveness, masculinity, sexuality, dominance, aggressiveness.

Another type of competitive model - the feminine leadership model - is subordinated to the principle of complementarity, complementarity, and vacuum (a leadership role is accepted only if there is a leadership vacuum, when there is no representative who meets the characteristics of the masculine model). It is described by indicators: female sex (or a man with feminine characteristics), young age, high femininity and subordination, as well as low competitiveness, aggressiveness and sexuality.

Since in this study the gender aspect is not so important, we will consider only competitive and cooperative leadership models, without dividing the competitive model into feminine and masculine types. In fact, speaking, the two models, competitive and cooperative, can be identified with masculine and feminine models, since the personal qualities determined by these models are practically the same. Thus, by masculine and feminine models, we mean competitive and cooperative models, respectively.

These styles were chosen due to the fact that they came to us from the animal world and are conditioned by evolution, i.e. they can be found not only in the organization, but also in society as a whole. Also, these styles are mutually exclusive, which determines the very concept of style, because if we consider any integral style, as researchers do in many theories, the meaning of highlighting any other styles in general disappears. Of course, in any personality there may be a combination of characteristics from one or another model, but one way or another it will be possible to determine which of these styles prevails. On the other hand, these styles can be used alternately, depending on the situation, for example, when leading a group, a competitive model can be used to show the authority of the leader, but when an individual one-on-one approach with an employee is needed, a cooperative model can be used so that the employee felt supported, not dominated.

As already noted, the competitive model is carried out according to the principle of hierarchy.

Prerequisites for a competitive leadership style.

In this section, we will look at why a competitive leadership style was singled out, and what are its evolutionary prerequisites.

Scientists have conducted many studies in the field of zoopsychology, evolutionary psychology, ethology, anthropology, tangential formation, such a phenomenon as leadership.

The theory of ranks was created, which explains the structure of animal groups from the position of their hierarchical construction. Basically, these studies were carried out on monkeys, our closest ancestors.

There are many approaches to determining group ranks. The most optimal is a hierarchy consisting of three levels.

Figure 3. The structure of groups formed by animals.

The highest level in the flock of animals is occupied by the alpha male - the competitive leader. He is the strongest individual in the flock, which gives him many advantages over other individuals: he is always first in line for mating and food, he gets the best females from the flock and the best territory.

The second level is beta males, those who are in a continuous struggle for leadership.

The third level is gamma. It should combine those individuals that other researchers refer to as omega (individuals of the lowest rank that are not capable of competitive struggle) and the gamma individuals themselves (outsiders who do not want to take part in the activities of the group).

This classification is considered the most acceptable, since, in fact, the three-level structure of alpha-beta-gamma is not a formal structure. In fact, there is a group consisting of individuals, each of which instinctively strives for leadership in a given group, but it turns out that only the strongest individual achieves leadership, the rest continue to fight for leadership, and someone simply refuses to fight. because they are unable to compete with stronger leaders. In this regard, it is difficult to talk about any other intermediate levels of the hierarchy. However, further we will consider this issue, speaking about the possibility of the existence of several leaders. It is important to note that the individual always strives to take the place of the leader of this group, and intermediate positions are not so important to it.

This is about males. Speaking about females, there are various approaches to assigning them to one or another level of the hierarchy. The main ones are the following approaches:

1. Females are always in the lower (gamma) level because they have the worst physical performance and are unable to overthrow the alpha male.
2. Females assume the level of the male they are mated with, so if a female is mated to an alpha male, then she becomes an alpha female.

There are also classes of animals where the female takes on the role of the male. As a rule, he is more physically strong than the male, then she already takes the top position.

If we are talking about the current position of women, then we can assume that they can occupy any of the levels of the hierarchy. This is due to the fact that in the animal kingdom, the dominance of a particular individual is explained by its physical parameters. In organizations, the main criterion may be the professionalism of the employee, in which a woman may not be inferior to a man.

True, it is worth noting that there may be a contradiction between the conscious acceptance of the leader and the instinctive one, since evolution determined the choice of the strongest and most courageous male as a leader, which, in principle, happens in everyday life. In an organization, the power of a female leader can be supported by formal conditions.

It is necessary to understand that the named structure (alpha, beta, gamma) is not stable, there is a constant struggle for leadership in the group, and from time to time one leader replaces another. The leader in these structures is always one. This structure, further we will call "natural" or "natural" structure.

Building an organizational structure in accordance with the natural structure of the group.

The question immediately arises about multi-level organizational structures that do not correspond to the number of levels of the natural structure of the group. However, this discrepancy is imaginary. To clarify this, we should again turn to our instincts.

Figure 4. Dividing the hierarchical structure according to the natural hierarchical structure.

Thus, the hierarchical levels of the organization can be divided into this three-level structure.

In Figure 4, you can see how the division of the multi-level hierarchical structure of the organization into the levels of the hierarchy due to evolution occurs. It should be understood that this is just a particular example.

In this organization, there are six levels of hierarchy, the middle of which we have divided into natural or natural hierarchical levels of alpha-beta-gamma. The highest and lowest levels of the hierarchy were not included in the natural structure, since we are considering the hierarchy in a specific group, namely, if employees at the lowest level do not interact with top management in any way, then accordingly, they are not members of the same group, despite what are employees of one organization. But at the same time, if a member of the top management appears among the lower-level workers and begins to lead them, then he will already enter this group and become its member. A leader is the person who leads the group, at a given moment in time, through a certain interaction with it (even if the interaction is mediated). If there is no interaction between the leader and the group, then he cannot be called a leader, at least for the time being.

Another example to prove the existence of a three-level natural structure in a group is the following situation.

Imagine that the group interacts at once on four levels. Let's assume that the first two of them have a standard distribution (the first level consists of workers of natural gamma level, and the second level of workers of the beta level). Thus, the question arises whether the employee at the third level of the hierarchy is the owner of the alpha rank, and if so, what rank is the employee of the fourth level. But if we look at the situation as if from within the group, it becomes clear that an employee from the third level of the hierarchy is perceived as a person subordinate to an employee of the fourth level, respectively, at the moment it is the employee of the fourth level that is perceived as a leader. Moreover, if employees of lower levels can enter into discussions with employees of higher levels, then they acquire the beta rank, and the employees of the lowest level acquire the rank of gamma, because they have no opportunity to challenge or discuss the decisions of a Level 4 employee.

This structure was considered by us in a very abstract way, but it happens that at one hierarchical level of the organization there may be people belonging to one or another natural hierarchical level.

Figure 5. Natural hierarchy in the organizational structure.

In Figure 5, we can see how the natural ranking of group members occurs in the organizational structure of the enterprise. As you may have noticed, the leader is not at the highest level of the organizational hierarchy - this is the so-called situation with the informal leader, i.e. the informal rank distribution in the group prevails over the formal one.

This situation can arise quite often, however, the standard approach to building organizational structures still assumes compliance with the option in Figure 4, based on the fact that formal powers already partly endow the employee with leadership power. On the other hand, a gap in several levels forces workers at lower levels to accept the lowest rank of the natural hierarchy, since it seems impossible for them to jump over several hierarchical levels in order to take a leadership position.

Thus, we can represent the correct construction of the organizational structure as follows (Figure 6):

Figure 6. Optimal organization of the organizational structure in accordance with the competitive leadership model.

This figure shows the correspondence of the levels of the hierarchy of the organizational structure to the levels of the natural hierarchy. In this case, we are considering a rather exaggerated example, but it will help us gain a general idea of the correct construction of the organizational structure in accordance with the competitive type of leadership used in the organization.

It is believed that every next three levels (1, 2, 3; 2, 3, 4; 3, 4, 5), make up three groups, respectively, in each of which there is a direct interaction of workers with each other.

The optimal option for building an organizational structure in accordance with the natural structure will assume the presence of the highest-ranking workers at the highest level, and workers with the lowest rank at the lowest. There are two reasons for this:

1. If an alpha employee is at a low level in the formal hierarchy, it will mean the emergence of a informal leader who will undermine the authority of the official leader.
2. If workers with a gamma level are at the highest official level of the hierarchy, then they will give their power to the very first informal leader who appears in the group.
3. If workers with a gamma level are at the middle level of the hierarchy, then they will, as a rule, be low-motivated workers. We have already said that gamma individuals are those individuals that do not fight for leadership. In terms of the organizational structure, a leader should also be understood as an official leader. If gamma workers do not compete for leadership, then they do not want to take the position of a leader, and accordingly they do not think about promotion.

It is worth noting that the struggle for leadership is one of the basic human instincts, which partly creates the energy of motivation in him. So, according to Adler [1], the striving for superiority is one of the basic in a person, and it is from him that the motivation for action arises. In a situation where gamma workers have no desire to fight, this indicates their low motivation.

Further, we can see that as soon as a higher level of the official hierarchy is added to the group, the levels of the natural one are shifted an order of magnitude lower. Employees from the first level of the official hierarchy, in this case, do not interact with employees of the fourth level of the official hierarchy, however, employees of the second level interact with them, and the employee of the third level, who was the direct leader of the group "1, 2, 3", is now directly subordinate from a fourth-level employee. As a result, due to the creation of a new group, the rank structure of employees also changes. As a result, the most motivating employees are built, an organizational structure where each employee strives to get to the next level of the hierarchy.

From here, we can derive general principles for building an organizational structure in accordance with a competitive leadership model:

1. The person with the highest rank in the group should be in the highest hierarchical position.
2. The person with the lowest natural rank should be in the lowest formal position. It is worth repeating that the person with the lowest natural rank is the least motivated and has the least expertise.
3. At the higher official level of the hierarchy, the employee should have the highest natural rank.
4. Workers must be able to advance to a higher level of the formal hierarchy so that leadership struggles can take place in the natural structure.

Obviously, there are other variations on how to effectively build organizational structures. We will not consider specific types of organizational structures of an enterprise in a standard form (linear, functional, divisional, matrix, etc.). The types of organizational structures will be identified by us according to the criterion of compliance of the organizational structure with the natural structure of the group (Figure 7). So all standard structures according to this criterion can be divided into three types:

Figure 7. Types of organizational structures in accordance with the natural structure of the group.

1. Flattened organizational structures (option 1 in the figure) are organizational structures in which the number of official levels of the hierarchy is less than the number of natural levels of the hierarchy. In this case, both beta workers and gamma are located at the lowest level. To build a three-level official hierarchy, you can add separate official indicators of status (length of service, honor rolls, etc.), which will create official levels of the hierarchy without changing the organizational structure.
2. Structures that exclude levels of the hierarchy (exclusive structures) (option 2) are structures in which individual levels are not included in the natural structure in the group. For example, we have four levels in the organizational structure, where the third level does not interact with the first and second, thus it is not included in the group. On the other hand, the third level can form a separate group with the fourth, since the fourth is the management of the company. This is a completely normal structure, where you should work with each of the groups separately (with the group "1, 2, 4" and with the group "3, 4").
3. Stretched structures (option 3) are those structures where the number of official levels of the hierarchy is greater than the number of natural ones, i.e. direct interaction of group members occurs on more than three levels. Typically, this applies to situations of double reporting that negatively impact performance. In such structures, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between responsibility and subordination.

This may raise the question of whether a three-tier organizational structure, provided that the group structure matches it, is an indicator of double reporting (since we include levels of beta and gamma workers in the same group). In fact, this is not the case, since the natural structure, in fact, reflects the organizational in an informal aspect, namely, the subordination is the same as in the standard linear structure of the enterprise: the gamma level obeys the beta level, the beta level obeys the alpha level. Another point is that double subordination is, as a rule, subordination of a group member to a member of the same group, but of a higher rank, and subordination to a member of another group, hence the contradictions. If the structure is organized correctly, then there can be no double subordination regarding the gamma-level employee, so then it turns out that the beta-level employee giving orders to the gamma-level employee goes against the orders of the alpha-level employee, and if the gamma-level employee follows the orders exactly a beta-level employee, it follows that an alpha-level employee is not such, but a true leader, in fact, the employee whose orders were executed.

The question may also arise about matrix organizational structures, and how the ranks are distributed if the organization is built in the form of a matrix. The answer is quite simple: in this case, a situation of double subordination is also created, or multiple leadership, which we will consider below.

The ability to have multiple leaders.

The next question before us is the possibility or impossibility of having multiple leaders. Here again, there is a contradiction between organizational culture, where it is possible to have several, simultaneously existing, leading positions and the natural hierarchical structure, where there is only one leader.

There are many approaches to this issue, which, in fact, are divided into two - either group leadership is possible or not.

An evolutionary approach seems to be more correct - only one leader is possible. But right away it is worth making a reservation that we are talking now about the competitive model of leadership, and that one leader is possible only in one unit of time. So nothing prevents leaders from taking turns replacing each other.

Another point may be that group leadership is possible when followers have an associated image of several leaders, i.e. when several leaders are perceived as one whole. For this, it is necessary that their orders, goals and views coincide.

Looking at the situation from the other side, one can easily prove that having multiple leaders is impossible. If they do not form an associated image among workers, but at the same time hold different views and give different orders, then which of them will the group follow? Variants are possible: either the group will follow one leader (i.e. he was the leader and was), or the group will split into two parts, i.e.two opposing groups will be formed, each of which will have its own leader.

The relationship between leadership and dominance.

Objections may arise regarding the above view of the construction of a natural hierarchy, since this hierarchy is more inherent in the reflection of the processes of domination, the causal factor of which is the identification of leadership and domination. It is worth answering right away that this article is not talking about the identification of these two processes. We will not consider in detail the differences between leadership and domination in this article, since it is devoted to a different topic, but we will note the most important aspect of the relationship between leadership and domination: leadership is dominance with setting a goal and leading people to it. To prove this fact, one can imagine a situation opposite to our assumption that leadership includes dominance and say that in the same group there is both a leader and a dominant. The question immediately arises whether people will follow the leader if he has contradictions with the opinion of the dominant. Obviously, they will not, since the dominant has means of suppressing both the leader himself and the members of the group. Hence the result is that the dominant becomes a leader. However, there are many aspects in the difference between these concepts, and much more complex dependencies of rank relations in a group.

Prerequisites for a cooperative leadership style and its use in building an organizational structure.

As we said, a cooperative leadership style is a feminine leadership style, i.e. it is more characteristic of women, or men with a feminine model of behavior.

The selection of this style was due to the role of females in groups. Females of animals could not independently take the position of the alpha leader, since they did not have the opportunity to compete with males in their performance. The only way out for them was to use a stronger individual for survival (which is why there is a theory that the female takes the rank of the male with which she is paired). And if the male leadership model did not change much over time, then the female one, more and more developed towards the development of female social skills, hence the better development of intuition in women, a better understanding of non-verbal signals, and a more loyal attitude towards people.

The cooperative leader has the function of rallying, uniting and motivating group members. Moreover, if there can be only one competitive leader in a particular group at a given time unit, then there can be several cooperative leaders, since they only complement each other. If a given leader shows a desire for competition, then he will either do it secretly (the so-called Machiavellianism), again achieving his goals through other people, or he will cease to be cooperative leaders and become competitive. In most cases, such a leader refuses to fight, giving another to take a higher position, as a rule, thereby motivating him.

We see the most optimal ratio in the presence of both types of leaders: a competitive leader in the highest position, and a cooperative leader within the group. Thus, there will be a force coming from above, organizing the group, providing order, planning and solving global problems, and a force coming from within the group, solving particular problems, providing an optimal psychological climate in the team, regulating conflicts.

Figure 8. Optimal organization of the organizational structure in accordance with leadership styles.

As a result, we get a competitive leader at the top level of the organizational hierarchy who carries out long-term planning, sets goals and solves the global problems of the organization, and a cooperative leader or several cooperative leaders who solve particular problems of the organization.exercising its influence from within the group.

In addition, it is worth insisting that the leader must develop both models of leadership. In some situations, it is worth applying one model to another. In particular, in relation to the lower levels of the hierarchy, the leader can apply a competitive leadership model, and to the higher and his own levels a cooperative one (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Optimal use of leadership styles in an organization.

Summing up, it is worth saying that when building an organizational structure in your enterprise, you must take into account the natural processes occurring in the group.

Bibliography.

1. Adler. A. Practice and theory of individual psychology - M.: Foundation for Economic Literacy. 1995.
2. T. V. Bendas Leadership Psychology (Study Guide). - SPb.: Peter 2009.
3. Shane E. Organizational culture and leadership. - SPb: Peter, 2002.