The degree of horizontal abnotivity as a determinant of experts’ teamwork

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Ашық рұқсат Ашық рұқсат
Рұқсат жабық Рұқсат берілді
Рұқсат жабық Тек жазылушылар үшін

Аннотация

Actuality of the problem is conditioned by the necessity of searching new methods and techniques of organizational work in the high life speed environment and entropy of modern society. Objective is to identify the role and nature of the influence of horizontal abnotivity on the effectiveness and specificity of the perception of teamwork. Mechanism of horizontal abnotivity consists in revealing potential of equal in social and professional status of participants of cooperate activity and giving them support in self-realization and achieving success. The empirical investigation, in which 192 respondents took part, was carried out, by means of set of questionnaire techniques, that allow to collect general data about the respondents, evaluate the level of their horizontal abnotivity and involvement into teamwork, its peculiarities and efficiency in the participants’ conceptualization. By means of statistics methods and qualitative analysis the role of the horizontal abnotivity in determination efficiency and peculiarities of teamwork process was stated. Result of the study is the description of a new type of abnotivity, which assists in disclosing creative potential of equal in status participants of cooperate activity and offering them support in self-realization and achieving success. This type of abnotivity is called “horizontal”. It is stated that the level of expression of horizontal abnotivity impacts involvement of the subjects of professional activity into teamwork and determines its efficiency and peculiarities of its perception. For the first time principles of operation of horizontal abnotivity are described: the higher it is expressed the more often the subject of activity becomes a member of a team; the level of horizontal abnotivity expression of a subject of activity, included into a team, positively affects the evaluation of efficiency of its work, helping in revealing the abilities of each member. Conclusions: the main and additional roles, that moderately and highly abnotive subjects play in a team, differ. The degree of horizontal abnotivity determines efficiency and peculiarities of teamwork.

Толық мәтін

Рұқсат жабық

Авторлар туралы

M. Kashapov

Demidov Yaroslavl State University

Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: smk007@bk.ru

ScD (Psychology), Professor, Head of the Department of Pedagogy and Educational Psychology

Ресей, 150000, Yaroslavl, Respublikanskaya str., 108/1

O. Angelova

Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Email: oangelova@mail.ru

PhD (Economics), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Information Technology and Instrumental Methods in Economics

Ресей, 603022, Nizhny Novgorod, Gagarin av., 23, bldg. 2

T. Podolskaya

Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Email: podolskaya79@yandex.ru

PhD (Sociology), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of University Management and Innovation in Education

Ресей, 603022, Nizhny Novgorod, Gagarin av., 23, bldg. 2

M. Prokhorova

Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Email: personalgerente@mail.ru

PhD (Psychology), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Management Psychology

Ресей, 603022, Nizhny Novgorod, Gagarin av., 23, bldg. 2

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Angelova O.Yu., Prohorova M.V., Podol’skaya T.O., Fortunatov A.N. Specificheskie aspekty formirovaniya professional’nyh planov odarennymi podrostkami. Yaroslavskaya psihologicheskaya shkola: istoriya, sovremennost’, perspektivy: sbornik materialov Vserossijskoj nauchnoj konferencii YArGU, 8–10 oktyabrya 2020 g. Ed. A.V. Karpov. Yaroslavl: YarGU: Filigran’, 2020. P. 333–336. (In Russian)
  2. Andreeva G.M., Bogomolova N.N., Petrovskaya L.A. Zarubezhnaya social’naya psihologiya XX stoletiya. Teoreticheskie podhody. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2001. 286 p. (In Russian)
  3. Bedernikova I.V., Chugunova L.N. Faktory uspeshnoj komandnoj raboty. Vestnik SPbGU. 2010. Ser. 12. Vyp. 1. P. 222–227. (In Russian)
  4. Belbin R.M. Tipy rolej v komandah menedzherov. Moscow: HIPPO, 2003. 232 p. (In Russian)
  5. Gol’man T.I., Arhipova I.V., Bejti V. Vliyanie social’nyh kommunikacij na effektivnost’ upravlencheskoj deyatel’nosti. Missiya konfessij. 2020. V. 9. № 2 (43). P. 252–254. (In Russian)
  6. Dikaya L.G., Mahnach A.V., Laktionova A.I. Individual’nye i social’no-psihologicheskie faktory zhiznesposobnosti professional. Social’nye i gumanitarnye nauki na Dal’nem Vostoke. 2018. V. XV. Vyp. 4. P. 137–146. (In Russian)
  7. Zhuravlev A.L., Zhalagina T.A., Zhuravleva E.A. Vzaimodejstvie sub”ekta truda i organizacionnoj sredy kak predmet psihologicheskogo issledovaniya v usloviyah global’nyh izmenenij (vmesto vvedeniya). Sub”ekt truda i organizacionnaya sreda: problemy vzaimodejstviya v usloviyah globalizacii. Eds. A.L. ZHuravlev, T.A. Zhalagina, E.A. Zhuravleva, T.I. Korotkina. Tver: Tverskoj gos. un-t, 2019. P. 4–10. (In Russian)
  8. Zhuravlev A.L. Kollektivnyj sub”ekt: osnovnye priznaki, urovni i psihologicheskie tipy. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2009. V. 30. № 5. P. 72–80. (In Russian)
  9. Zverev D.A., Shtroo V.A. Spros na treningovye uslugi po komandoobrazovaniyu v sovremennyh rossijskih organizaciyah. Social’naya psihologiya i obshchestvo. 2019. V. 10. № 1. P. 182–198. (In Russian)
  10. Kashapov M.M. Abnotivnost’ kak harakteristika professionalizacii myshleniya pedagoga. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya Filosofiya. Psihologiya. Pedagogika. 2019. V. 2. Vyp. 2. P. 137–147. (In Russian)
  11. Kashapov M.M. Psihologiya tvorcheskogo myshleniya: uchebnoe posobie. Moscow: INFRA-M, 2017. 436 p. (In Russian)
  12. Kashapov M.M. Resursnaya gotovnost’ pedagoga k rabote s odarennymi obuchaemymi. Chelovecheskij faktor: social’nyj psiholog. 2019. № 2 (98). P. 90–101. (In Russian)
  13. Kenig O., Shattenhofer K. Vvedenie v gruppovuyu dinamiku. Moscow: Institut konsul’tirovaniya i sistemnyh reshenij, 2014. 176 p. (In Russian)
  14. Polevaya M.V., Dzapalla S., Kamneva E.V. Upravlenie talantami: traktovka, sistematizaciya, opyt. Upravlencheskie nauki. 2018. V. 8. № 4. P. 104–111. (In Russian)
  15. Rubinshtejn S.L. Princip tvorcheskoj samodeyatel’nosti. Voprosy psihologii. 1986. № 4. P. 101–108. (In Russian)
  16. Sidorenkov A.V., Borohovskij E.F. Svyaz’ formal’nyh harakteristik rabochih grupp s ih sub”ektivno ocenivaemoj effektivnost’yu. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2020. V. 41. № 1. P. 18–30. (In Russian)
  17. Sidorenkov A.V., Mondrus A.L. Empiricheskoe obosnovanie modeli gruppovoj splochennosti. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2012. V. 33. № 2. P. 45–58. (In Russian)
  18. Chernov E.S. Osnovnye faktory sozdaniya uspeshnoj komandy v organizacii. Ekonomika i menedzhment innovacionnyh tekhnologij. 2014. № 1. [online]. URL: https: ekonomika.snauka.ru/2014/01/3462 (date of access: 12.06.2021). (In Russian)
  19. Shadrikov V.D., Mazilov V.A., Slepko Yu.N. Psihologiya pedagogicheskih sposobnostej: monografiya. Yaroslavl: RIO YAGPU, 2021. 219 p. (In Russian)
  20. Belbin R.M. A reply to the Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory by Furnham, Steele and Pendleton. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 1993. V. 66. № 3. P. 259–260.
  21. Cooren F. et al. Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization studies. 2011. V. 32. № 9. P. 1149–1170.
  22. Hoegl M., Gemuenden H.G. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization science. 2001. V. 12. № 4. P. 435–449.
  23. Kang M., Sung M. How symmetrical employee communication leads to employee engagement and positive employee communication behaviors: The mediation of employee-organization relationships. Journal of Communication Management. 2017. V. 21. № 1. P. 82–102.
  24. Littlejohn S.W. Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1992. 417 p.
  25. Mendo-Lázaro S., Polo del Rio M.I., Iglesias D., Felipe-Castano E., del Barco B.L. Construction and validation of a measurement instrument for attitudes towards teamwork. Frontiers in psychology. 2017. V. 8. Art. 1009. P. 1–10.
  26. Schoeneborn D. Organization as communication: A Luhmannian perspective. Management Communication Quarterly. 2011. V. 25. № 4. P. 663–689.
  27. Steiner I.D. Group Process and Productivity. N.-Y.: AcademicPress, 1972. 204 p.
  28. Stoica M.M. The Internal Communication-The Road to a Performing Organization. EIRP Proceedings. 2021. V. 16. № 1. P. 224–232.

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу
2. Fig. 1. Distribution of respondents by field of activity

Жүктеу (570KB)
Метадеректер
3. Fig. 2. Distribution of the total primary assessment of respondents

Жүктеу (311KB)
Метадеректер
4. Fig. 3. The average severity score of the total assessment of horizontal absenteeism of two groups of respondents

Жүктеу (184KB)
Метадеректер
5. Fig. 4. ANOVA. The role of belonging to a team in the development of horizontal absenteeism

Жүктеу (162KB)
Метадеректер
6. Fig. 5. ANOVA is one-factor. The influence of the team on horizontal absenteeism

Жүктеу (161KB)
Метадеректер
7. Figure 6. Involvement in teamwork among contrasting groups of respondents

Жүктеу (157KB)
Метадеректер
8. Fig. 7. The influence of the team on the manifestation of abilities among contrasting groups of respondents

Жүктеу (186KB)
Метадеректер
9. Figure 8. The relative effectiveness of the team

Жүктеу (146KB)
Метадеректер
10. Fig. 9. The choice of the main (a) and additional (b) command roles by moderately-absentee respondents

Жүктеу (492KB)
Метадеректер
11. Fig. 10. The choice of the main (a) and additional (b) team roles by highly competitive respondents

Жүктеу (535KB)
Метадеректер

© Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024

Осы сайт cookie-файлдарды пайдаланады

Біздің сайтты пайдалануды жалғастыра отырып, сіз сайттың дұрыс жұмыс істеуін қамтамасыз ететін cookie файлдарын өңдеуге келісім бересіз.< / br>< / br>cookie файлдары туралы< / a>