Each of us wants to have an even, respectful relationship with our superiors, because so much depends on this, and, first of all, our attitude towards work. But we spend most of our lives at work. What needs to be done and how to behave in order to form the right relationships with managers?

First, let's remember about subordination. Translated from Latin, the word “subordination” means subordination. Once upon a time, a very long time ago, this concept meant exclusively the obedience of soldiers to their senior ranks. At a time when the main occupation of men was participation in hostilities, and strength was considered the main argument, a kind of code was developed, the essence of which boiled down to the following: a subordinate must obey a superior only because he is a superior. Otherwise, due to internal contradictions, there will be neither time nor energy left for the external enemy.

The law of subordination has not changed that much over the past millennia, and it is valid today in any team: all employees are obliged to comply with the same code that we have already talked about - the subordinate must obey the superior, period. It is impossible to imagine such a picture: every morning the general director proves to his subordinates his right to give orders.

The old Roman principle “what is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to the bull” still works. For example, if the boss calls you by name and “you,” you cannot answer him in the same way, even if you like him very much. If you and he are friends, and in your free time from work you play tennis together and go to visit each other, at work you should address him the same way as other employees.

If you are a leader

What rules must a manager follow if he wants not only to organize work well in a team, but also to enjoy the respect of his subordinates?

Choose the right tone when communicating with subordinates: a familiar attitude is unacceptable, as is abuse of power.

Greet your subordinates in a friendly manner and do not forget about the basic form of politeness: the words “thank you”, “please”, “be kind” and others should not lose their value for you when you become a leader.

If you want to make some reprimand to your subordinate, call him to your office, but under no circumstances reprimand him in front of other employees.

If you want to fire a subordinate, do it personally, not through a third party, and, of course, in private.

If you fire one of your employees, think about those who remain: they may find this situation extremely unpleasant and frightening. Explain to your subordinates what caused your decision.

If a manager wants his subordinates to respect him, he must treat them with the same respect, so control your words and actions so as not to create negative attitudes from your subordinates, as this in turn can negatively affect work performance. And in general, it’s much more pleasant when there is a friendly atmosphere at work.

If you are a subordinate

The nature of your relationship with your manager is determined by your manager. It is he who defines the boundaries beyond which you should not go.

Even if your manager offers you a less formal relationship, for example, allowing you to address you by first name, remember that he still remains your boss.

Remember also that a colleague who is your equal today may become your boss tomorrow.

His relationships with subordinates are of great importance in the work of a leader and in gaining authority. A leader’s work style manifests itself first and most clearly in relationships.

The main thing here is that these relationships are built on the principles mutual respect and affection. Of course, you cannot demand that a leader treat everyone with kindness; he is also a human being. However, outwardly, the manager’s attitude towards all subordinates should be exactly the same and friendly. Moreover, even the emphasized coldness of a subordinate does not give the manager the right to refuse goodwill and politeness.

The most difficult situation is found by managers who join a new team, where previous experience has already formed ideas about what a leader should be like. In this case, he must establish which qualities of the previous leader were most valued by his subordinates and prove by deed that he is worthy successor. The worst thing is when a new manager in every possible way emphasizes the mistakes and shortcomings that took place under the old one, and tries to shift all the omissions in the work onto him. In this case, the leader will almost never achieve authority. Such behavior doubly harmful: firstly, for the authority of the new leader; secondly, for the work of the team, since it creates uncertainty and a desire to criticize any action of the new boss. A smart leader will always emphasize continuity in work (especially if the previous manager enjoyed sufficient authority).

Second difficulty for the new leader is that the general mood of the team is ambiguous. There are groups in it, each of which has its own requirements for leadership and its own idea of ​​\u200b\u200bit. It can be very difficult to quickly understand these requirements. For example, there are groups of subordinates (usually experienced specialists) who are accustomed to the fact that the leader is with them advises before making a decision. By ignoring the mood of this group, the new boss will immediately displease them. There are groups of the most qualified specialists who are generally accustomed to independent work (after receiving the task). Such groups do not tolerate constant interference and control. There are groups in which employees, on the contrary, generally can not work independently, they need constant supervision and guidance. There are also those where people are literally needed force to work.

And the new leader needs to figure all this out. It would be good if the new leader was greeted kindly by his assistants and tried to help him get his bearings. What if he dragged all the new assistants with him? Each employee must be treated in the way that is most useful for the business, therefore, taking into account his character, moods and needs. That's why it is forbidden, for example, for all cases, recommend when a collegial discussion is needed, and when a complete individual and quick decision is needed. You need to know when, with whom, what issue to discuss. Accordingly, behave differently with different people. With one consult and the task is given in the form of advice, to the other it is emphasized trust but only suggest decision, third - order. And some even force.

A leader who has studied his subordinates and learned how to treat subordinates correctly is, first of all, a real leader. If the leader was unable to immediately put both himself and his subordinates in their place, and did not gain authority, then a difficult situation may arise in which the role of informal leaders will clearly manifest itself. If the manager does not find a common language with these leaders, then a situation may arise in which the actual management of the team will be in their hands. Therefore, the main thing a leader should strive for is gaining authority, striving to meet the expectations of the team.

There is a category of people (managers) who in every possible way avoid frequent communication with their subordinates. They seem to stand above them and if they condescend to address them, it is very rarely. As a rule, such leaders are not liked; they do not enjoy authority. Why might a manager avoid contact? There are three reasons: first- he sincerely believes that the greater the distance he is from his subordinates, the more they will respect him. This is outright misleading. It is precisely these leaders who think that fear can replace authority. Second - the manager is simply not interested (due to his character traits) in communicating with people, he - uncommunicative Human. In this case, it is necessary to change his character, if, of course, he wants to be a leader. Third- the manager has shy character. This is typical, for example, for many young professionals. It is difficult for them to get up to the podium, to speak, they are lost in front of older people, etc. They must force themselves to speak more, to have more contacts - without this, a leader will not succeed. It is better to exempt people of the first type from leadership work. They can do great harm to the business.

Finally there is fourth The type of leader for whom everything is the opposite; he always specifically seeks communication. Sometimes this is a character trait, in which case you need to limit yourself somewhat. But more often it is quality feigned. A person is trying to gain authority by doing this. As a rule, he fails to do this. Such leaders are quickly understood. It is typical for them familiarity with subordinates, patting on the shoulders, sometimes fawning; Such managers are characterized by picking favorites, giving unreasonable incentives, etc. All this very quickly becomes clear to all subordinates, they themselves begin to pat the manager on the shoulder and treat him with disdain. Authority in such conditions is impossible. Perhaps this is the worst and most dangerous type of leader. A golden mean is needed.

The leader must be moderately sociable, do not avoid contacts, but do not specifically strive for them. The same thing The main thing(we repeat) it must be absolutely equally polite And friendly with all his subordinates. And among them there are people who are pleasant, indifferent and simply unpleasant to the leader. Politeness, attention, friendliness- Here three basic requirements in relationships with subordinates (or even better - with everyone in general). Subordinates must see that the leader is not indifferent to their needs and aspirations, that he is interested in helping them. But these feelings must not be feigned - people very soon understand this and simply stop making requests.

Of course, these qualities alone can earn you a good attitude, but you will not achieve authority. However, without them, most likely there will be no authority. It is very typical in this regard to address subordinates - “YOU” and “YOU”. It should be remembered that “You” can only be said if the interlocutor can respond in kind. It is unacceptable to say this to all subordinates. Politeness requires saying "YOU". There was a time when leaders, in this way, and also with strong words spoken publicly, showed their worker-peasant origins and ease of address. This stage has long been passed, but, unfortunately, this practice still exists.

Supervisor has no right show your irritation to your subordinates, and even more so take it out on them. Sometimes this is forgiven for managers who are excellent in all other respects. But only for the time being. A small breakdown and this circumstance will also be blamed on the manager. It should be noted that there are managers who are polite with their subordinates, but, trying to show their independence in relations with their superiors, allow tactlessness towards them in telephone conversations or in personal communication when this happens in the presence of subordinates. This may lead them to believe that their manager can be treated the same way. Politeness and tact necessary in all cases. You don't respect your boss, your subordinates don't respect you.

In the process of work, a manager often has to do comments to his subordinates. We need to talk about this, because even good leaders have a habit scold publicly offenders (to scold). In some cases, this may be permissible, for example, if there is repeated failure to fulfill one’s duties, malicious mistakes, or gross disciplinary violations. But such scoldings should be carried out as rarely as possible and only in cases where repeated face-to-face warnings have had no effect. In general, bullying should be avoided. The remark should be made when talking in private. You can warn that next time there will be a public discussion. But even when making comments or scolding, it is necessary to maintain politeness and in no case humiliate a person’s dignity. No leader, even in relation to the worst offenders has no right allow their self-esteem to be undermined. There is a type of leader who loves performance-like dressing downs, believing that this will benefit everyone. Indeed, a person who has received a reprimand is unlikely to want to repeat it, but what will it cost him? Rule which every leader should use - it is necessary to criticize not a person, but a mistake perfect for them. Very often these concepts are replaced. In this case there will not be a good result. In the practical work of a manager, this is one of the most difficult responsibilities - he wants to bang his fist, scream at the top of his voice, even curse, but he has no right to do this - he must suppress himself and politely point out the mistake and warn.

It should be taken into account that order the form usually works worse than request. Unfortunately, it is also possible that individual workers do not accept any other form of receiving tasks other than a strict order. You need to know such people and treat them accordingly. But there are cases when the leader obliged to give orders. First of all, this is during accidents, states of emergency, and natural disasters. Here the leader becomes a commander.

Abuse remarks and reprimands are not allowed. Among other things, with frequent use their effectiveness decreases. At small mistakes should be made politely, it is better right at the workplace and exceptions should be allowed only for persistent violators.

Leader in general has no right Be guided by emotions in your behavior. You shouldn’t even just raise your voice, let alone shout. A constantly yelling leader is the subject of ridicule and sometimes fear of his subordinates.

Every leader wants his authority to be recognized by the team and supported from above. But to do this, he must maintain the authority of the leaders subordinate to him. There are bosses who like to visit workplaces and give instructions directly there. over your head immediate supervisor. This practice undermines not only the authority of subordinate managers, but also the authority of the boss himself - he is engaged in work that is not typical for him, putting himself in the place of a subordinate manager. Of course, there may be cases when the immediate supervisor of the work is absent, and the mistake or incorrect actions of the workers is obvious. In this case, the boss is obliged to intervene, but at the same time immediately notify the immediate supervisor of his orders. If the immediate supervisor is on site, then the order should be given only to him. Failure to comply with this rule leads to confusion, decreased discipline, and undermines the authority of immediate superiors. Similarly, criticism of managers should be avoided. in the presence their subordinates. Sometimes bosses abuse this, wanting to show themselves as a good specialist or organizer.

Special requirements must be presented to managers regarding their accuracy And mandatory. These qualities are absolutely necessary and deviations from them always cause an appropriate reaction in the team. Managers sometimes make promises or schedule an event without really thinking about the possibility of its exact implementation. Of course, sometimes unexpected circumstances arise that make it impossible to keep a given word, but this means, first of all, that the leader himself gives it thoughtlessly, without taking into account real possibilities. Absolutely necessary accustom yourself to the idea that any given promise must be exactly fulfilled, any appointed time must be strictly observed. In cases where this is physically impossible to do, the manager must advance apologize and say that the fulfillment of a promise or the holding of an appointed event is postponed and determine the final deadlines for them. Necessary get used to that in leadership activities every spoken word is equivalent to a signed document.

Very important accuracy at appointment for personal matters. To do this, there must be strictly established days and hours, and the manager must strictly observe them. Sometimes the manager neglects this, considering such work to be of secondary importance. The deepest misconception. It is here that the leader’s behavior style, his personal qualities are determined, and his authority is confirmed or reduced. If people do not go to a personal reception, this can only mean that they do not believe in their leader, do not rely on him. At the same time, the manager must be attentive to the most trivial (from his point of view) request, attentive, polite and friendly.

It’s good when a leader knows how to speak (not chatter), he doesn’t have to be a speaker, but he must be able to clearly And briefly formulate any thought. In a business conversation, he is also obliged to speak clearly, without obscuring his real intentions. In general, it is not difficult to develop these abilities in yourself, but for this you need to train. You don’t have to talk often or a lot, but you should always talk essentially, balanced And avoid ill-considered statements. It’s better to delay answering the question and think, rather than blurt out something that you’ll then have to correct and get out of your way. This deficiency is usually characteristic of young leaders who, in their youth, think that they can do anything. And not only young people.

Over the years, leaders have strengthened style of talking a lot. This incompatible With efficiency And responsibility. And from this point of view, when a leader is a good speaker, this can even harm the business - he gets carried away, loves to listen to himself. The leader should not pretend that he knows everything himself and does not need advice (this feature is inherent in the authoritarian leadership style). No specialist can know everything. It is for this purpose that the mid-level manager has functional departments on his staff, the site managers have local specialists, and the mining foreman has experienced workers whose advice should be heeded. This especially applies to young professionals who, because of their youth, consider it shameful to take advice. Even experienced, wise managers should not neglect advice, including from an ordinary worker. Moreover, if this advice was practical, this circumstance should definitely be publicly noted. And in general, the less a leader pretends that he decides all issues himself, endlessly repeating “I”, my opinion, etc., the more useful it is for his authority.

For good leadership it is absolutely necessary to have clear distribution of responsibilities between all managers: director, chief engineer, their deputies, heads of leading departments, etc. In this case, such a distribution should be officially enshrined and is known to everyone. In no case should one manager perform the functions of another - this will inevitably lead to confusion, a decrease in the level of production and technological discipline, and failure to follow instructions. At the same time, the distribution cannot be typical - it must be made taking into account the individual characteristics and capabilities of each manager and specialist. The first manager must know well what issues each of his subordinates can solve, who can be trusted, and, taking this into account, he himself makes the distribution. It is permissible to resolve all issues yourself only in emergency situations, and then only if there is no one to consult with. But if a decision is made in an emergency situation, the manager is obliged to notify the head of the relevant service (or department) about this. Ability to correctly distribute responsibilities also included in the concept competence leader. Leaders who strive to decide all issues themselves and interfere in any matter are even worse than leaders who are constantly in the office.

For a leader to work clearly, he must have regular daily routine, in which, if possible, all daily (routine) actions should be provided for and time should be left for emergency events. Of course, when working at a mine there are no opportunities to regulate the daily routine, such as, for example, when working in a factory. Therefore, the routine cannot be very rigid - it must provide the opportunity for some maneuvering time. What must be indicated and maintained as accurately as possible is reception on personal matters, familiarization with current information, holding scheduled meetings and discussions. This routine is one of the elements of efficiency.

Should we strive to visit our places of work as often as possible? This must be decided by the leader himself, based on the situation. But we can say that a golden mean must also be found in this matter. On the one hand, a leader who sits in his office all the time is rarely good. However, one that is constantly in production is also not the best option. The manager always has a lot to do that requires his presence on site. And if he is constantly absent, this brings nervousness to the work, everyone is looking for and cannot find a leader, many matters (more important than those that he wants to solve on the spot) are not resolved. At the same time, it is pointless to give any advice - how much time and where the manager should spend - this is due to the nature of production, the general situation, etc.. Of course, in case of accidents or natural disasters, the presence of the first manager at the scene of the accident may be required. But on the other hand, there must be a permanent organizer, a chief of staff - one of the deputy first leaders. He must be at his workplace at all times.

It can be very difficult (and not only for the manager) admit your mistakes. Some people never learn this. But if the leader made a wrong decision, then after this has become clear, he must take responsibility responsibility for this, publicly admit your mistake (unless, of course, this happens all the time), which in no case will diminish the dignity or undermine the authority of the leader. But if he tries in every possible way to shift his blame onto his subordinates, this will not go unnoticed and can really damage his authority.

About the leader's determination. In principle, a decisive leader is always better than an indecisive one. They even sometimes believe that it is better to make a bad decision than not to make any. Just remember that excessive determination Same flaw, which can lead to the most unpleasant consequences, one must be decisive when the question is completely clear, or when the situation requires a quick decision. In all other cases, you can take your time with a decision, having first thoroughly weighed all the circumstances of the case. In many cases, decisions made “on the spot”, when there is an opportunity to think about the issue, may not be the best.

As has been said many times, every leader is teacher. Whether he wants it or not, he educates people in the team first and foremost by example. And it’s bad when this example is not very good. Sometimes a manager thinks that he is personal life- this is a purely personal matter that has nothing to do with work. The deepest misconception. The leader is always visible. And if he thinks that some of his actions go unnoticed in the team, he is deeply mistaken. It is difficult to say how this happens, but the fact is clear: everything that a leader does ultimately becomes known to the team. Therefore, the assumption that some actions will remain secret is, as a rule, not confirmed.

That is why large US corporations try to hire only family people for management positions, and their family life should be normal and calm (information is collected specifically for this purpose). Obviously, this is correct and we should establish such an order. The messy connections of a manager, and even within a team, are a subject of endless discussion and conflict, making it impossible for a manager in many cases to make objective decisions. In addition, this is a personal example for others.

Appearance the leader must be attractive. This means - neatness, neatness, cleanliness, smartness. Of course, many people may lack these qualities in their character. Some leaders who are very strong in other respects are forgiven for this. But not very strong or downright weak, and this circumstance will be blamed. Excluded for a manager, excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages, use of official position for personal purposes. But at the same time, a leader should not be a hypocrite. This will be immediately noticed in the team. Of course, some mistakes will be forgiven to a leader who is loved and respected. However, not drunkenness.

It is especially necessary to warn about the undesirability of the participation of the first manager in various works in which he actually did not take a serious part, but only provided some assistance. The leader must always provide this assistance; that’s why he is the leader. But participation in groups of authors and inventions, if it is not supported by real work, is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, many managers abuse this. Even an authoritative and respected leader can lose a significant part of his authority due to this.

Concluding the conversation about the relationship between a manager and his subordinates, we should also mention two qualities, in all cases useful to the manager. First of all - objectivity, it is needed in everything, but first of all in relationships with people. Objectivity is understood as the ability to correctly evaluate the work (behavior, activity) of each individual group, unit, person. Personal attitude towards a person should not be an obstacle in assessing the quality of work. An example is that a person is bad in all respects and the manager knows this well. But if he did his job well, the assessment should be appropriate and, conversely, a very good person made serious mistakes - the assessment should be impartial. It would seem a completely clear and necessary requirement. However, it is precisely this (or rather its execution) that very often turns out to be a difficult test for a leader; he is under pressure from the general idea of ​​a person.

AND second quality- ability (and desire) to untie initiative every employee. Showing initiative has always been difficult (initiative is punishable); in conditions of production chaos, initiative is often not needed at all. But under normal production conditions, initiative is absolutely necessary. And we must make sure that people are interested in its manifestation; they must know that every initiative will be noticed and will not go unnoticed. The task The leader, above all, is the need to distinguish a useful initiative from a useless and even harmful one. Unfortunately, this also happens, and it is necessary not only to distinguish it, but also to show the author and everyone that such an initiative is unnecessary or harmful. Otherwise, it will not be understood why the leader is holding back the initiative and this will be the cause of conflicts and troubles.

They play a special role in the service team subordination relationshiptions and the accompanying moral relations between superiorscom and subordinates, which are defined by such concepts as “leader ethics” and “subordinate ethics”. In the strictly scientific sense of the word, ethics means philosophical science. Here, ethics is understood as the practice of moral communication between a leader and a subordinate, certain moral rules governing their communication and activities, as well as the moral qualities that they possess or should possess.

Despite the fact that the concept of “profession - leader” is still difficult to enter into our vocabulary, we must admit that a leader is still a profession (and one of the most difficult ones), and therefore the ethics of a leader should be considered as an essential element of professional ethics and the profession of “manager” in general. Of course, the head of a department (department, department), the commander of a unit have a specialty, a special education related to their professional affiliation, and at the same time, they are managers, their status is determined primarily by their official position as managers.

Since professional ethics reflects different levels of development of moral consciousness and moral requirements for certain professional groups, the ethics of the head of a law enforcement agency represents the specificity of the manifestation of the general moral requirements of society for him, primarily as a leader, and also as a specialist in the criminal investigation department, BEP, Traffic police, investigator, criminologist, judge, etc. Being a specification of general moral categories, principles, norms, professional ethics determines the place of morality in the activities of workers of a given profession, the significance of certain moral requirements in their official work, their awareness of the prestige of a given profession (the profession of a leader of one or another level in one or another field of law enforcement practices), their understanding of professional duty, honor, responsibility. The main ones that determine the specifics of a manager’s managerial work are those moral norms that express his attitude towards the people subordinate to him.

The leader is required to be tolerant and attentive to the needs of his subordinates. The more warmth and care is shown, the easier the path to mutual understanding will be found. There is often an opinion that there should be a distance between a manager and a subordinate, that good relationships and exactingness are incompatible. But practice shows that democratic relations between superiors and subordinates not only do not interfere with business, but on the contrary, it allows you to create an efficient team united by a common task. This is not about familiarity, but about business relationships based on respect for each other. Any action of a superior in relation to a subordinate is perceived not simply as the attitude of one person to another, but as the action of a person endowed with power over another.

For example, a manager’s personal hostility towards any of the team members should not be expressed in actions that show this hostility, because they can be interpreted as a corresponding assessment by the boss of the person’s personal, professional or other qualities. Conversely, personal friendly relations between a boss and a subordinate should not be transferred into the sphere of official relations. A leader will never gain high authority and respect if he builds professional relationships on the basis of personal sympathies. That is why the boss must be extremely objective in relation to his subordinates and consistent in his actions. He needs to constantly remember the norms of behavior, cultivate the habit and need to comply with them in all situations.

The work of any leader, especially the head of a law enforcement agency, causes a large expenditure of nervous energy, which can affect his actions. But despite this, a leader of any rank must always and everywhere be polite, correct and tactful. And he may have a bad mood or health, troubles or troubles, but his official position obliges him to behave evenly, helpfully, affably with people, and not to lose composure under any circumstances.

A good leader is free from arrogance, arrogance, irritability, capriciousness, and the desire to force his own manners and habits on his subordinates. He avoids in every possible way situations in which he can humiliate his subordinate and insult his personal dignity and honor.

A positive quality of a leader is restraint, which is manifested in everything - in decision-making, in words, in actions, since the first impulse is not always correct. Under its influence, succumbing to the influx of feelings, a person often incorrectly perceives facts. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, he can say or do something that he could never do in a calm state. In such a situation, the best way out is to admit your mistake. Authority will not suffer from this. It is worse when, guided by misunderstood pride, the person who made the mistake not only does not apologize, but also aggravates the situation by stubbornness, continuing to defend the wrong position once taken.

The consequence of incontinence and irritability of a leader, as a rule, is swearing and rudeness, which are intolerable in any case and in any form. Shouting and insults never contributed to normal relationships in the team. Psychologists have long proven that orders given confidently, in a calm, respectful tone are much more effective than those given in a state of irritation and accompanied by statements and reproaches, when the subordinate thinks not so much about the essence of the matter, but about the fact that his dignity has been violated, and a feeling of resentment takes precedence over business considerations.

Even if the subordinate has done something wrong, even in this case the strictest conversation should not resemble reprimand. It is necessary to distinguish severity and exactingness from harshness and pickiness, and be able to correlate the severity of punishment with the degree of guilt. It is also important to remember the difference between a reprimand given in private and one given in front of other employees. The latter is always more difficult to bear, but does not always achieve the desired result.

When issuing a penalty, it is important for the manager to show tact and correctness. It is better to first talk about certain positive qualities of the employee who committed the fine, then state the essence of the violation and the punishment. The rule should be remembered: the more fully a leader relies on positive, informal means in relations with people, the fewer situations are created that create the need to apply administrative sanctions.

Naturally, a manager cannot do without critical comments addressed to his subordinates. And here it is especially important that this criticism is perceived by a person as deserved. Criticism will only become an effective force capable of eliminating negative consequences when it meets the basic requirements for it.

Criticism should be businesslike and substantive. Unfortunately, there is also so-called pseudo-criticism. It can be: tenentious (as a means of settling personal scores, maintaining or increasing one’s position and prestige); formal, when, for example, a “critical” part is included in the report, which does not obligate anyone; ostentatious, creating the appearance of intolerance to shortcomings; defamatory, when a principled and honest employee is bombarded with accusations that magnify his minor mistakes and miscalculations.

Criticism should be friendly, take into accountpersonal qualities and merits of the person being criticized. Its task is not to humiliate a person, but to help him improve, to show ways out of the current situation. Criticism is always perceived as unfair if it carries only a negative charge. Conversely, a fair assessment of the positive and negative aspects of an employee’s performance has a beneficial effect.

Criticism must have its own clearly defined object. Criticism causes nothing but harm when, instead of assessing a person’s specific actions, his personality and character are criticized. This can cause anger, indignation of the person being criticized, a desire to justify himself at all costs, since the person considers himself, and quite rightly, undeservedly offended. And a specific indication of certain actions or behavior of an employee neutralizes these negative emotional reactions of the person being criticized. Therefore it is always preferable.

4. Criticism requires a specific approach, taking into account the peculiaritiestemperament and character of a person. One will react to criticism painfully, but will quickly calm down and return to normal, another may, as they say, “not reach” it, a third may be pushed onto the path of bickering, and a fourth has experienced his wrongdoing so internally that even a reproach towards him will be redundant.

The attitude of the boss towards his subordinates is perceived by the latter not as rules, norms that he is guided by in communicating with them, but as moral qualities, as a natural manifestation of the nature of their leader. In this sense, the leader is always “under the control” of his subordinates, who quickly discover the falsity and hypocrisy of the relationship, if it occurs. In this case, the moral fate of the leader turns out to be unenviable: he cannot count on either authority or moral influence on subordinates, and cannot become an informal leader in the team.

Features of managerial and executive work, the different legal status of superiors and subordinates require differentiationtioned approach to the moral assessment of the personality of the leader and subordinatenenny. In table 8.1 presents the results of studies conducted in law enforcement agencies, which show the most significant, preferred moral qualities of a leader.

Table 8.1. Most preferred qualities of a leader

№ p/p	Leadership qualitiesnamed by respondents	Quantitywho named thesequality, %
	Demanding behavior towards oneself and subordinates
	Justice
	Trust in subordinates
	Respect for the personal dignity of a subordinate
	A sense of responsibility for the state of affairs in the subordinate team
	Self-control, tactfulness
	Caring for subordinates, attention to their needs and problems
	Self-confidence, perseverance, firmness, determination
	Sensitivity, responsiveness
	Faithfulness to the word, commitment
	Sociability, ease of communication, accessibility
	Modesty, self-criticism
	Cheerfulness, optimism, sense of humor

In addition to those mentioned in the table. 8.1, such qualities of a leader as humanity, decency, humanity and a number of others of a generalized nature were named 1.

People are impressed by leaders with a predominance of the above-mentioned traits, in the presence of which subordinates often forgive their leader some of his weaknesses related to qualities of a different nature (knowledge, intelligence, professional and business qualities, physical, etc.). Without contrasting moral qualities with others, it should be noted that if subordinates want, first of all, to see moral qualities in their boss, then managers put business and professional qualities in their subordinates in first place. This is due to two reasons. On the one hand, in addition to moral means of influencing subordinates, managers also have other (legal, material) means, while a subordinate can influence his boss only through moral relations, which presupposes that the latter has appropriate moral qualities. However, the moral virtues of a leader can to prove themselves, provided that their subordinates also have the necessary qualities. For example, a manager’s trust in his subordinates can only exist if they possess such traits as conscientiousness, responsibility, and initiative, since trust stimulates the development of these qualities in subordinates and inspires them. And on the contrary, petty care and pickiness fetter people’s initiative, give rise to passive waiting, actions with an eye on the boss, and develop in the subordinate such qualities as servility, conformism, unprincipledness, etc.

On the other hand, the boss highlights the business qualities of his subordinates because no matter what moral qualities the employees have, if they are not professionally trained, they are not able to effectively perform official tasks, for which any manager is primarily responsible.

The rules of behavior of a leader and the degree of manifestation of his moral qualities are directly dependent on the behavior and moral traits of his subordinates, their value orientation, customs, traditions of the team, and public opinion.

The moral side of the behavior and activities of a subordinate is characterized by the concept of “subordinate ethics.” As experience shows, if it is impossible to consider the ethics of a doctor in isolation from the ethics of the patient, the ethics of a teacher - from the ethics of the listener (cadet), the ethics of an artist - from the ethics of the viewer, the ethics of the seller - from the ethics of the buyer, etc., then it is also impossible to study the ethics of the leader without the ethics of a subordinate.

In table 8.2 presents the results of the study, which show what the most attractive qualities subordinates should have 1.

Table 8.2.

№ p/p	Moral qualities of a subordinate's personality	Number of indicatedgiven quality, %
	Discipline, diligence
	Responsibility
	Honesty
	Integrity
	Sociability, collectivism, camaraderie
	Independence, initiative
	Sincerity, trust
	Respect for superiors and elders
	Hard work, diligence, diligence
	Self-esteem

Of course, many of the personality traits of a subordinate must also be present in a leader. It is no coincidence that they say: “If you do not learn to obey, you will not be able to command.” And it is not without reason that good leaders necessarily go through a “school of subordination” - primarily in educational institutions and in lower command positions. However, the significance and nature of the manifestation of these qualities in the leader and the led are far from the same. For example, there are no situations where an employee would have the moral right to hide any proprietary information from his boss. However, morality does not condemn a manager for keeping certain operational information, plans and plans of senior management secret from subordinates. If the subordinate’s self-esteem is incompatible primarily with such immoral qualities as hypocrisy, servility, envy, slander, then the leader’s self-esteem is primarily against such qualities as rudeness, injustice, familiarity, vindictiveness, cowardice, connivance.

Many managers who want to keep up with the times and use knowledge in the field of practical psychology in order to build the most effective relationships with subordinates use the methodology proposed by N.I. Kozlov, author and developer of many programs aimed at developing personal and business qualities, including those of managers. He proposes to carry out working relationships based on the formula “Positive - Constructive - Responsibility”.

According to this formula, the relationship between a manager and a subordinate is built not on fear or dependence, but on positivity. A subordinate has the right to count on the trust of the company and its management and on recognition of his real merits. He must believe that any controversial issues can be resolved, he has the right to make mistakes and can count on respect for his personality.

As for constructiveness, the manager should use phrases such as “I need to listen to your opinion on this matter”, “For the good of the matter, I need to involve you in this issue”, etc. as motivation. Of course, these phrases are manipulative, but they raise the self-esteem of the subordinate and are a good stimulant. Constructive also implies business, partnership, constructive communication.

Such communication leads to the fact that the employee is ready to take responsibility without shifting it completely onto the shoulders of the boss. Mutual responsibility also implies mutual obligations, which become the basis for partnerships and cooperation between a manager and a subordinate. And work based on the principles of cooperation is the most effective.

Foreign experience

A particular style of management is popular in the West. At the same time, the process of communication between a manager and his subordinates is organized in such a way that the latter do what they think is necessary. As you know, a person always does this more willingly than following someone else’s orders. But the fact is that it is the leader who creates such situations or unobtrusively pushes the subordinate to make supposedly independent decisions, which, nevertheless, are beneficial to the leader himself.

The management process is structured in such a way that subordinates actually act independently, but in fact under the control and management of the manager-mentor. Control is carried out during everyday business communication: this is consultation during production meetings, work meetings, scheduled checks of the fulfillment of duties. Mastering this art of management is the task of a manager who wants to improve the efficiency of the team entrusted to him.

FinExecutive Russia website 2019-02-25

The secret of success or how to build effective relationships with your manager

Properly built relationships with management can be an excellent support for your career advancement. It would seem that what is so difficult about this? After all, communication at work primarily depends on ourselves.

Many articles are devoted to this topic. Their authors are unanimous that you need to be competent in your field, be able to cope with assigned tasks on time and become a team player. But is it really that simple? How to develop an effective strategy and learn to get around sharp corners.

Your leader is, first of all, a person with his own feelings, priorities and values. This means that in most cases, it is quite possible to find a common language with him. What is needed for this?

5 valuable tips on how to build relationships with management

1. Look for common ground. Most likely, your boss's interests are not limited to work. Perhaps he has hobbies that are close to you. Just don't try to cheat. If the manager is an avid mushroom picker, and you can barely distinguish a fly agaric from a champignon, find another topic for dialogue.
2. Remember the chain of command. Whatever your relationship, do not forget that the last word should remain with the manager. If you are sure that your idea will benefit the company, defend your point of view with arguments. Be tactful and remain correct. Even if they answer you with a refusal, do not rush to write a letter of resignation. After all, responsibility for decisions made (or not made) always falls on the shoulders of the boss.
3. For criticism - taboo. Criticism is one of the most serious mistakes of a subordinate. Even if you have something to say, resist the temptation to engage in discussions about management behavior. After all, among the interlocutors there may be a “friend” who will soon tell the boss everything in detail. And it is unknown in what form, with what colorful turns this information will be presented.
4. Learn from experience. This is a great way to improve your professionalism. After all, it was these methods that allowed the boss to achieve success. Therefore, analyze his train of thought, his work methodology, and what technologies he prefers. It is possible that your personal productivity will soon increase significantly.
5. Calculate the development of the situation. When you receive a task to find out information or analyze the figures obtained, think about what else management might need along the way. Foresight and knowledge of information indicate your professionalism.

What to do when everything is not so smooth?

Unfortunately, in practice the situation is not always favorable. There could be many reasons for this. After all, each of us has our own character, communication experience, rhythm, and habitual techniques that we acquire at our previous place of work.

Maybe you are used to completing tasks efficiently and thoughtfully, but now you are expected to have a lightning-fast reaction and an instant report on the work done. Or the new boss seeks to control you at all stages of the task, but you are used to planning your actions on your own and only showing the final result by the specified deadline.

In any case, negative emotions unbalance and interfere with productive work. Sometimes, in order to understand the cause of disagreements and eliminate them, it is enough to analyze what situations irritate the manager, listen to his opinion and try to make adjustments to your behavior.

Observing colleagues can be helpful. If only you experience difficulties in communication, and the rest manage to find a common language with the boss, then the cause of the troubles definitely lies with you. Ask if someone in the team has already been in your place. Then it makes sense to talk to this person and benefit from his experience.

If, despite your best efforts, productive cooperation cannot be achieved, try to find an appropriate moment to talk with your manager alone. Correctly ask what actions of yours he considers incorrect. Ask his opinion on how to fix it and take the answer into account. After all, your future career may depend on how well you listen.

In this situation, it is important to be able to choose the right time to talk and manner of behavior. When an inspection is on the horizon or deadlines for submitting an important report are approaching, management is unlikely to be in the mood for dialogue. And the question “Why are you yelling at me?” will not help establish contact. It is much more constructive to formulate the phrase like this: “What is my mistake?” At the same time, demonstrate a desire to make efforts to correct it.

Remember - a frank conversation with your boss has saved more than one career.