My friend, I’ll call her Vera, in her youth made scandals in restaurants that made me very embarrassed. He could have yelled openly and rudely at the misbehaving waiter in his opinion. It seemed to me that it would be better to settle everything peacefully, and if you do not like something, you can always leave, pressure and aggression will only aggravate the situation. By the way, it was different. Sometimes the issue ended in a scandal, the pressure increased with the call of the management, the screaming was sometimes terrible, sometimes the waiter or manager apologized but I was disturbed by any result. I didn’t even go with him. And I still don’t understand whether this is a way of self-respect or just a method of manipulation: the desire to turn the world into oneself. Of course, I do not want to eat cold pasta and wait an hour for an order, but on the other hand, it is more important for me to keep my nerves and not get into a sharp conflict that was not in vain. I’m sure both sides.
Then Vera became the big boss. His behavior has changed, he has become kinder, softer, calmer. She stopped yelling. But once I heard him talk to a subordinate: his voice was metal, stern, chased expressions, an order not to argue. Report within the specified time. I’m not interested in the details, do as I say. The taxi driver we were traveling with heard him, then muttered: “I respect it.”
A true leader, his subordinates say about him. True, I do not know everyone, maybe there are other opinions. I want them to be because I believe in the possibility of other methods to achieve results. Not with suppression and seriousness, but with a shared interest in success. But I’m not a leader, I’ve never managed people, so it’s hard for me to judge. Is assertiveness and rigidity necessary in the relationship between the leader and the team, does it provide real efficiency? In fact, willpower is needed, of course, but they say women can be flexible, diplomatic and that’s better than direct pressure. Vera, on the other hand, shows that a strong and confident woman will give any man a chance if he sees aggression as an appropriate tool.
I think I will not work with a boss who will put pressure on me, but I was lucky, my bosses were always kind and loyal, they took my opinion into consideration and appreciated my efforts. On the other hand, I am a responsible and hardworking employee, but not everyone is like that. Perhaps there are workers who just need an emotional whip, strict boundaries and fear of punishment, without which they will not act at all.
Another friend of mine was put in charge of a fairly large provincial team, a traditional government agency. He is a smart, energetic, educated person, but they did not work together. He then asked his employees why he didn’t suit them. I got an unexpected statement: he is not solid, he is probably still young, he does not know how to stand out. He wanted to be called by his own name, he didn’t dress like a boss, he built trusting and friendly relationships. In general, he did not demand self-respect. Employees were embarrassed by him – what kind of manager can represent the organization in the region, who does not distance himself, keeps himself informal? My friend complained that his former employees were not proactive, incompetent and did not strive for improvement.
In management science it is said that there are two leadership styles – authoritarian and democratic.
The first is more suitable for overcoming crisis periods, and the second is more suitable for development. But in my completely unscientific experience, I have felt every day that the authoritarian style works where employees don’t know how or don’t want to work. They are not interested or do not get results, so they are ready to withstand pressure or even threats, but do not share responsibility for the result. Such employees follow instructions, but do not take the initiative, do not argue with the authorities, do not argue with him, report what they want to hear and hide their fears. In the end, in such teams an obedient and even seemingly loyal team is formed, but works only under pressure and on command. As soon as the pressure weakens, everything crumbles, scatters, the level of efficiency immediately drops.
A democratic leader works with peers, focuses on horizontal connections, is more of a dispatcher than a leader. His motivation will not be threats and praise, but the opportunity to show his abilities, achieve the best result. But there is one problem – in such a team there must be a high level of competence and personal responsibility. It is difficult to achieve efficiency with lazy and stupid employees.
Or there is a stereotype that it is necessary to lead more freely in creative teams than, for example, in the army. But frankly, it’s hard to find greater tyrants and despots among generals than the main directors in theaters or producers in big film companies. Generals have an ancient experience of subordination, submission, discipline from the time of petty officers, and sometimes such lawlessness blooms in creative teams, for which no tyrant has enough imagination.
Not all leaders are perfect. In life you often have to deal with gifted people, to put it mildly, to varying degrees, and examples from textbooks in life are useless. Employees and managers are often aware that their interests are different, which means that both will bend the other. The boss is putting pressure on the employee, demanding results from him and deceiving the employee’s manager, maneuvering, throwing off responsibility. It is believed that the best leaders are obtained from people who are long-willed, stubbornly and stubbornly going to the result, overcoming obstacles and ignoring them, but such people are very sensitive, inflexible. And probably, a boss who is sensitive to other people’s moods will be more successful at a long distance.
Today, technological processes, including management, are in vogue. Pressing and forcing seems like outdated methods, I want to warn and manipulate asap. Trainings, organizational and activity games, techniques for improving the skills of engineering construction of reality have become very popular, specially trained coaches promise to solve all problems with the help of techniques. In management, as in everything else, our world of mass culture relies on universal techniques to successfully run any industry.
But it seems to me that the special case is always important. Unfortunately or fortunately, no team is alike. And the leaders are also different, no plan helps to cope with individual difficulties, it is always important to find a certain option, and this is the most difficult.
Unfortunately, the love for united approaches and solutions played a bad role – people stopped listening to each other and adapting. This makes it difficult to manage and work under someone else’s supervision.
The most amazing and beautiful thing is when a person can choose and people have such options. Because in the social world, as in nature, there are thousands of different forms of submission and interaction, and the only thing that should not be allowed is the restriction of diversity. You cannot deselect.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.