Сидоренков А.В. Неформальные подгруппы в производственных группах: численный состав и отношения в подгруппах
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14934698Ключевые слова:
неформальная подгруппа, численный состав подгруппы, диада, межличностное доверие, микрогрупповое доверие, межличностная идентичность, микрогрупповая идентичность, межличностный конфликт, микрогрупповой конфликтАннотация
В работе изучается связь численного состава неформальных подгрупп, возникающих в производственных группах, с некоторыми феноменами отношений (межличностное и микрогрупповое доверие, межличностная и микрогрупповая идентичность, межличностный и микрогрупповой конфликт) внутри этих подгрупп, а также делается сравнительный анализ степени выраженности соответствующих феноменов отношений в неформальных диадах и более многочисленных подгруппах. Использованы данные двух эмпирических исследований на разных выборках производственных групп (N=37 и N=42), в которых обнаружено 65 и 71 неформальных подгрупп, соответственно. Численный состав неформальных подгрупп значимо положительно связан с межличностным доверием и межличностной идентичностью, микрогрупповым доверием и микрогрупповой идентичностью, но значимо не связан с межличностным и микрогрупповым конфликтом внутри подгрупп. Межличностное доверие и межличностная идентичность, микрогрупповое доверие и микрогрупповая идентичность слабее выражены внутри диад, чем в более многочисленных подгруппах. Значимых отличий межличностного конфликта внутри диад и более многочисленных подгрупп не обнаружено. В завершении работы представлены обсуждение, теоретические и практические приложения полученных результатов, а также некоторые перспективы дальнейшего исследования.
Скачивания
Библиографические ссылки
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Андреева Г.М. Социальная психология: учебник / Г.М. Андреева. 5-е изд. – М. : Аспект Пресс, 2002. – 360 с.
2. Сидоренков А.В. Внутригрупповые противоречия, конфликты и эффективность групп в организации : монография / А.В. Сидоренков, О.Ю. Шипитько. – Ростов-на-Дону : Мини Тайп, 2017. – 216 с.
3. Сидоренков А.В. Малая группа и неформальные подгруппы: микрогрупповая теория : монография / А.В. Сидоренков. – Ростов-на-Дону: Изд-во ЮФУ, 2010. – 272 с
4. Сидоренков А.В. Роль количества неформальных подгрупп в эффективности производственной малой группы / А.В. Сидоренков, В.А. Штроо // Организационная психология. – 2023. – Т. 13. № 1. – С. 35–58. – https://doi.org/10.17323/2312-5942-2023-13-1-35-58.
5. Сидоренков А.В. Социально-психологические характеристики и эффективность малых групп в организации: монография / А.В. Сидоренков, И.И. Сидоренкова, Н.Ю. Ульянова. – Ростов-на-Дону : Мини Тайп, 2014. – 248 с.
6. Baron R.A. Exploring Social Psychology / R.A. Baron, D. Byrne, B.T. Johnson. 4th ed. – Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1998. – 317 p.
7. Butt A.N. The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: A comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics / A.N. Butt, J.N. Choi, A.M. Jaeger // Journal of Organizational Behavior. – 2005. – Vol. 26, No. 6. – Р. 681–704. – https://doi.org/10.1002/job.328
8. Carnevale J.B. LMX-differentiation strengthens the prosocial consequences of leader humility: An identification and social exchange perspective / J.B. Carnevale, L. Huang, T. Paterson // Journal of Business Research. – 2019. – Vol. 96. – Р. 287–296. – https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.048
9. Carron A.V. Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues / A.V. Carron, L.R. Brawley // Small Group Research. – 2000. – Vol. 31, No. 1. – P. 89–106. – https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100105
10. Choi K. Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group task conflict and group relationship conflict / K. Choi, B. Cho // Journal of Organizational Behavior. – 2011. – Vol. 32, No. 8. – Р. 1106–1126. – https://doi.org/10.1002/job.733
11. Jiang J.Y. Emotion regulation as a boundary condition of the relationship between team conflict and performance: A multi-level examination / J.Y. Jiang, X. Zhang, D. Tjosvold // Journal of Organizational Behavior. – 2012. – Vol. 34, No. 5. – Р. 714–734. – https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1834
12. Korsgaard M.A. A multilevel view of intragroup conflict / M.A. Korsgaard, S. Jeong, D.M. Mahony, A.H. Pitaru // Journal of Management. – 2008. – Vol. 34, No. 6. – Р. 1222–1252. – https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308325124
13. Li J. Leader-member exchange and leader identification: Comparison and integration / J. Li, S. Furst Holloway, S.S. Masterson, L.M. Gales, B.D. Blume // Journal of Managerial Psychology. – 2018. – Vol. 33, No. 2. – Р. 122–141. –https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2017-0220
14. Luan M. Perceived subgroups, TMS, and team performance: The moderating role of guanxi perception / M. Luan, H. Ren, X. Hao // Frontiers in Psychology. – 2019. – Vol. 10. – A. 2655. – https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02655
15. Martin R. Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review / R. Martin, G. Thomas, A. Legood, S.D. Russo // Journal of Organizational Behavior. – 2018. – Vol. 39, No. 2. – P. 151–168. – https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2202
16. Martins L.L. A contingency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: The moderating roles of team psychological safety and relationship conflict / L.L. Martins, M.C. Schilpzand, B.L. Kirkman, S. Ivanaj, V. Ivanaj // Small Group Research. – 2012. – Vol. 44, No. 2. – Р. 96–126. – https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412466921
17. McAllister D.J. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations / D.J. McAllister // Academy of Management Journal. – 1995. – Vol. 38, No. 1. – Р. 24–59. –https://doi.org/10.5465/256727
18. Moreland R.L. Are dyads really groups? / R.L. Moreland // Small Group Research. – 2010. – Vol. 41, No. 2. – Р. 251–267. – https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409358618
19. Panko R. Managerial communication patterns / R. Panko // Journal of Organizational Computing. – 1992. – Vol. 2, No. 1. – Р. 95–122. – https://doi.org/10.1080/10919399209540176
20. Roodt H. Subgroup formation in diverse virtual teams: The moderating role of identity leadership / H. Roodt, H. Krug, K. Otto // Frontiers in Psychology. – 2021. – Vol. 12. – A. 722650. – https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722650
21. Roussin C. Increasing trust, psychological safety, and team performance through dyadic leadership discovery / C. Roussin // Small Group Research. – 2008. – Vol. 39, No. 2. – Р. 224–248. – https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408315988
22. Savolainen T. Trust–communication dyad in inter-personal workplace relationships – Dynamics of trust deterioration and breach / T. Savolainen, P. Lopez-Fresno, M. Ikonen // Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. – 2014. – Vol. 12, No. 4. – Р. 232–240.
23. Simmel G. The sociology of georg simmel / G. Simmel. – Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1950. – 445 p.
24. Tiede K.E. Subgroup splits in diverse work teams: Subgroup perceptions but not demographic faultlines affect team identification and emotional exhaustion / K.E. Tiede, S.K. Schultheis, B. Meyer // Frontiers in Psychology. – 2021. – Vol. 12. – A. 595720. – https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.595720
25. Topi H. The effects of personality and media differences on the performance of dyads addressing a cognitive conflict task / H. Topi, J.S. Valacich, M.T. Rao // Small Group Research. – 2002. – Vol. 33, No. 6. – Р. 667–701. – https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402238620
26. Wang L. Beyond negotiated outcomes: The hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation / L. Wang, G. Northcraft, G.A. Van Kleef // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. – 2012. – Vol. 119, No. 1. – Р. 54–63. – https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1168208
27. Wang M. Dyads or quads? Impact of group size and learning context on collaborative learning / M. Wang, L. Jiang, H. Luo // Frontiers in Psychology. – 2023. – Vol. 14. – A. 1168208. – https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1168208
28. Williams K.D. Dyads can be groups (and often are) / K.D. Williams // Small Group Research. – 2010. – Vol. 44, No. 2. – Р. 267–281. – https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409358619
29. Xu E. When self-view is at stake: Responses to ostracism through the lens of self-verification theory / E. Xu, X. Huang, S.L. Robinson // Journal of Management. – 2017. – Vol. 43, No. 7. – Р. 2281–2302. –https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314567779
30. Yong K. Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams / K. Yong, S.J. Sauer, E.A. Mannix // Small Group Research. – 2014. – Vol. 45, No. 3. – Р. 266–289. – https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414530789
31. Zheng Q. Teammate conscientiousness diversity depletes team cohesion: The mediating effect of intra-team trust and the moderating effect of team coaching / Q. Zheng, L. Wang // Current Psychology. – 2023. – Vol. 42. – Р. 6866–6876. – https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01946-7
REFERENCES
1. Andreeva G.M. (2002). Sotsial'naya psikhologiya [Social Psychology]. Moscow : Aspekt Press (In Russian).
2. Sidorenkov A.V., & Shipitko O.Yu. (2017). Vnutrigruppovye protivorechiya, konflikty i effektivnost' grupp v organizatsii [Intragroup contradictions, conflicts and effectiveness of groups in the organization]. Rostov-on-Don: Mini Taip (In Russian).
3. Sidorenkov A.V. (2010). Malaya gruppa i neformal'nye podgruppy: Mikrogruppovaya teoriya [Small group and informal subgroups: Microgroup theory]. Rostov-on-Don: Izd-vo YuFU (In Russian).
4. Sidorenkov A.V., & Stroh V.A. (2023). Rol' kolichestva neformal'nykh podgrupp v effektivnosti proizvodstvennoi maloi gruppy [Efficiency of production groups and the number of informal subgroups in them]. Organizatsionnaya psikhologiya [Organizational Psychology], 13(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.17323/2312-5942-2023-13-1-35-58 (In Russian).
5. Sidorenkov A.V., Sidorenkova I.I., & Ul'yanova N.Yu. (2014). Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskie kharakteristiki i effektivnost' malykh grupp v organizatsii [Socio-psychological characteristics of the effectiveness of small groups in organizations]. Rostov-on-Don: Mini Taip (In Russian).
6. Baron R.A., Byrne D., & Johnson B.T. (1998). Exploring Social Psychology. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon (In English).
7. Butt A.N., Choi J.N., & Jaeger A.M. (2005) The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: A comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.328 (In English).
8. Carnevale J.B., Huang L., & Paterson T. (2019). LMX-differentiation strengthens the prosocial consequences of leader humility: An identification and social exchange perspective. Journal of Business Research, 96, 287–296. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.048 (In English).
9. Carron A.V., & Brawley L.R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100105 (In English).
10. Choi K., & Cho B. (2011). Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group task conflict and group relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1106–1126. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.733 (In English).
11. Jiang J.Y., & Zhang X., & Tjosvold D. (2012). Emotion regulation as a boundary condition of the relationship between team conflict and performance: A multi-level examination. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 714–734. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1834 (In English).
12. Korsgaard M.A., Jeong S., Mahony D.M., & Pitaru A.H. (2008). A multilevel view of intragroup conlict. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1222–1252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308325124 (In English).
13. Li J., Furst-Holloway S., Masterson S.S., Gales L.M., & Blume B.D. (2018). Leader-member exchange and leader identification: Comparison and integration. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(2), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2017-0220 (In English).
14. Luan M., Ren H., & Hao X. (2019). Perceived subgroups, TMS, and team performance: The moderating role of guanxi perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2655. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02655 (In English).
15. Martin R., Thomas G., Legood A., & Russo S.D. (2018). Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2202 (In English).
16. Martins L.L., Schilpzand M.C., Kirkman B.L., Ivanaj S., & Ivanaj V. A. (2012). Contingency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: The moderating roles of team psychological safety and relationship conflict. Small Group Research, 44(2), 96–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412466921 (In English).
17. McAllister D.J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/256727 (In English).
18. Moreland R.L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research, 41(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409358618 (In English).
19. Panko R. (1992). Managerial communication patterns. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2(1), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919399209540176 (In English).
20. Roodt H., Krug H., & Otto K. (2021). Subgroup formation in diverse virtual teams: The moderating role of identity leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 722650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722650 (In English).
21. Roussin C. (2008). Increasing trust, psychological safety, and team performance through dyadic leadership discovery. Small Group Research, 39(2), 224–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408315988 (In English).
22. Savolainen T., Lopez-Fresno P., & Ikonen M. (2014). Trust–communication dyad in inter-personal workplace relationships – Dynamics of trust deterioration and breach. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 232–240 (In English).
23. Simmel G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press (In English).
24. Tiede K.E., Schultheis S.K., & Meyer B. (2021). Subgroup splits in diverse work teams: Subgroup perceptions but not demographic faultlines affect team identification and emotional exhaustion. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 595720. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.595720 (In English).
25. Topi H., Valacich J.S., & Rao M.T. (2002). The effects of personality and media differences on the performance of dyads addressing a cognitive conflict task. Small Group Research, 33(6), 667–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402238620 (In English).
26. Wang L., Northcraft G., & Van Kleef G.A. (2012). Beyond negotiated outcomes: The hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.05.002 (In English).
27. Wang M., Jiang L., & Luo H. (2023). Dyads or quads? Impact of group size and learning context on collaborative learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1168208. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1168208 (In English).
28. Williams K.D. (2010). Dyads can be groups (and often are). Small Group Research, 44(2), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409358619 (In English).
29. Xu E., Huang X., & Robinson S.L. (2017). When self-view is at stake: Responses to ostracism through the lens of self-verification theory. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2281–2302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314567779 (In English).
30. Yong K., Sauer S.J., & Mannix E.A. (2014). Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small Group Research, 45(3), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414530789 (In English).
31. Zheng Q., & Wang L. (2023). Teammate conscientiousness diversity depletes team cohesion: The mediating effect of intra-team trust and the moderating effect of team coaching. Current Psychology, 42, 6866–6876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01946-7 (In English).
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
Статьи журнала «Вестник Донецкого университета. Серия 05. Филология и психология» находятся в открытом доступе и распространяются в соответствии с условиями Лицензионного Договора с Донецким Государственным университетом, который бесплатно предоставляет авторам неограниченное распространение и самостоятельное архивирование.
