Subject characteristics of small work groups and their socio-psychological and productive-economic efficiency

 
PIIS020595920000428-6-1
DOI10.31857/S020595920000070-3
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation: Southern Federal University
Address: 344006, Rostov-on-Don, Bolshaya Sadovaya st., 105/42, Russia.
Affiliation: Southern Federal University
Address: 344006, Rostov-on-Don, Bolshaya Sadovaya st., 105/42, Russia.
Journal namePsikhologicheskii zhurnal
EditionVolume 39 №4
Pages49-60
Abstract

Correlation between subject’s characteristics of small work groups (object-action and sociopsychological unity, norms of productivity and norms of openness, motivational unity) and indices of perceived by group members productive – economic efficiency (“fulfillment of plan and solution of current affairs” and “activity in difficult situations”) as well as indices of socio-psychological efficiency of group and informal group (“satisfaction of group/subgroup members and results of its activity”, “psychological comfort in group/subgroup of their members” and assistance of group/subgroup in their members’ development”) have been studied. On a sample of 37 industrial groups (N=331, female – 51.7%, male – 48.3%, aged 19 – 62) it was revealed that cohesion (at the group and informal group level) and group norms (at the group level in general) are predictors for all indices of socio-psychological efficiency while motivational unity is a predictor for productive – economic efficiency “activity in difficult situations”. Internally linked complexes of certain group’s subjects characteristics have been shown to be predictors for some indices of socio-psychological efficiency of groups and informal subgroups. Some group characteristics (cohesion, e.g) mediate effect of other characteristics (motivational unity) on group sociopsychological efficiency. High – and low-efficient groups are characterized by different, with a few exceptions, combinations of cohesion levels and norms of productivity.

Keywordscohesion, motivational unity, norm of productivity, norm of openness, productive – economic efficiency, socio-psychological efficiency
Received11.10.2018
Publication date14.10.2018
Number of characters1689
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

views: 578

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Gorbatenko A.S. Metodika opredelenija struktury maloj gruppy s pomoshh'ju formalizovannogo analiza mezhlichnostnyh vyborov // Voprosy psihologii. 1984. № 4. P. 112–118. (in Russian)

2. Mingaleeva G.A., Shihirev P.N. Gruppovye ustanovki v sovmestnoj dejatel'nosti proizvodstvennyh brigad // Social'nopsihologicheskie problemy brigadnoj formy organizacii truda / Eds. E. V. Shorohova, A. L. Zhuravlev. Moscow: Nauka, 1987. P. 110–119. (in Russian)

3. Metodiki social'no-psihologicheskogo izuchenija malyh grupp v organizacii: monografija / Ed. A.V. Sidorenkov. Rostov-naDonu: JuFU, 2012. (in Russian)

4. Nemov R.S., Sinjagin Ju.V. Motivacija dostizhenija, uroven' pritjazanija i jeffektivnost' gruppovoj dejatel'nosti // Psihologicheskij zhurnal. 1987. V. 8. № 1. P. 46–54. (in Russian)

5. Nemov R.S., Shestakov A.G. Splochennost' kak faktor gruppovoj jeffektivnosti // Voprosy psihologii. 1981. № 3. P. 113–119. (in Russian)

6. Sidorenkov A.V. Malaja gruppa i neformal'naja podgruppa: mikrogruppovaja teorija. Rostov-na-Donu: JuFU, 2010. (in Russian)

7. Sidorenkov A.V., Ul'janova N.Ju. Metodiki izuchenija jeffektivnosti malyh proizvodstvennyh grupp // Rossijskij psihologicheskij zhurnal. 2011. V. 8. № 4. P. 9–17. (in Russian)

8. Argote L. Agreement about norms and work-unit effectiveness: Evidence from the field // Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 1989. № 10(2). P. 131–140.

9. Beal D.J., Cohen R.R., Burke M.J. & McLendon C.L. Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003. № 88. R. 989–1004.

10. Berkowitz L. Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity // Human Relations. 1954. № 7. R. 509–519.

11. Berkowitz L. Social norms, feelings and other factors affecting helping and altruism // Advances in experimental social psychology / Ed. L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press, 1972. V. 6. P. 63–108.

12. Carless S.A. & Paola C. The measurement of cohesion in work teams // Small group research. 2000. № 31(1). P. 71–88.

13. Carron A.V., Colman M.M., Wheeler J. & Stevens D. Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis // Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 2002. № 24. R. 168–188.

14. Carron A.V. & Brawley L.R. Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues // Small Group Research. 2000. № 31. R. 89–106.

15. Carron A.V. & Dennis P.W. The sport team as an effective group // Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance / Ed. J.M. Williams. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1998. P. 127–141.

16. Carron A.V. & Hausenblas H.A. Group dynamics in sport. Ontario: Book Crafters, 1998.

17. Chang A. & Bordia P. A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship // Small group research. 2001. № 32(4). P. 379–405.

18. Chansler P.A., Swamidass P.M. & Cammann C. Selfmanaging work teams an empirical study of group cohesiveness in “Natural work groups” at a HarleyDavidson motor company plant // Small Group Research. 2003. № 34(1). P. 101–120.

19. Chiocchio F. & Essiembre H. Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams // Small Group Research. 2009. № 40(4). R. 382–420.

20. Chow G.M. & Feltz D.L. Exploring new directions in collective efficacy and sport // Group dynamics in exercise and sport psychology / Eds. M.R. Beauchamp, M.A. Eys. N.Y.: Routledge, 2007. P. 221–245.

21. Cota A.A. et al. The structure of group cohesion // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1995. № 21(6). R. 572–580.

22. Ellemers N., De Gilder D. & Haslam S.A. Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance // Academy of management review. 2004. № 29(3). P. 459–478.

23. Evans C.R. & Dion K.L. Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis // Small group research. 1999. № 22. P. 175–186.

24. Gammage K.L., Carron A.V. & Estabrooks P.A. Team cohesion and individual productivity: The influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of individual effort // Small Group Research. 2001. № 32(1). P. 3–18.

25. Greene C.N. Cohesion and productivity in work groups // Small Group Behavior. 1989. № 20. R. 70–86.

26. Gully S.M., Devine D.J. & Whitney D.J. A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence // Small Group Research. 1995. № 26. R. 497–521.

27. Hogg M.A. The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: John Wiley, 1992.

28. Jacobsen C.B., Hvitved J. & Andersen L.B. Command and motivation: how the perception of external interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public service motivation // Public administration. 2013. № 1. P. 32–51.

29. Jordan M.H., Feild H.S. & Armenakis A.A. The relationship of group process variables and team performance: A team-level analysis in a field setting // Small group research. 2002. № 33(1). R. 121–150.

30. Jung D.I. & Sosik J.J. Group potency and collective efficacy: Examining their predictive validity, level of analysis, and effects of performance feedback on future group performance // Group & organization management. 2003. № 28(3). P. 366–391.

31. Karau S J. & Hart J.W. Group cohesiveness and social loafing: effects of a social interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups // Group dynamics. 1998. № 2. P. 185–191.

32. Kim M. Performance norms and performance by teams in basketball competition // Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1995. № 80. P. 770.

33. Langfred C.W. Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance // Small Group Research. 1998. № 29(1). P. 124–143.

34. Liden R.C. et al. Social loafing: A field investigation // Journal of Management. 2004. № 30(2). P. 285–304.

35. Mullen B. & Copper C. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration // Psychological Bulletin. 1994. № 115. R. 210–227.

36. Mulvey P.W. & Klein H.J. The impact of perceivedloafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance // Organizational behavior and human decision processes. 1998. № 74(1). P. 62–87.

37. Munroe K., Estabrooks P., Dennis P. & Carron A. A phenomenological analysis of group norms in sport teams // The sport psychologist. 1999. № 13. R. 171–182.

38. Oliver L.W., Harman J., Hoover E., Hayes S.M. & Pandhi N.A. A quantitative integration of the military cohesion literature // Military Psychology. 1999. № 11. R. 57–83.

39. Ramzaninezhad R. et al. The relationship between collective efficacy, group cohesion and team performance in professional volleyball teams // Brazilian Journal of Biomotricity. 2009. № 3(1). P. 31–39.

40. Rutkowski G.K., Gruder C.L. & Romer D. Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention //Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983. № 44(3). P. 545–552.

41. Schachter S., Ellertson N., McBride D. & Gregory D. An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity // Human Relations. 1951. № 4. R. 229–238.

42. Sidorenkov A.V. & Pavlenko R.V. GROUP PROFILE computer technique: A tool for complex study of small groups // SAGE Open. 2015. № 5(1). R. 1–13.

43. Song S.H. & Keller J.M. Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation // Educational technology research and development. 2001. № 49(2). P. 5–22.

44. Tekleab A.G., Quigley N.R. & Tesluk P.E. A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness // Group & organization management. 2009. № 34. P. 170–205.

45. Wegge J. & Haslam S.A. Group goal setting, social identity, and self-categorization // Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice / Eds. S.A. Haslam et al. N.Y.: Psychology Press, 2003. P. 43–59.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up