Index of group psychological cohesion. Test "determining the index of group cohesion"
Along with the formal structure, reflecting the mandatory, normative side of the organization, in any social group Informal interpersonal relationships always develop, which depend on the value orientations of its members, the characteristics of people’s perception of each other, etc. Knowledge of the nuances of the “personal” aspects of labor relations is very important for the group leader.
In any team, informal relationships of mutual support, mutual influence, popularity, prestige, leadership, etc. develop. Labor productivity and employee job satisfaction largely depend on the quality of these relationships; an unfavorable psychological climate in the group leads to instability of production indicators.
Sociometric studies make it possible to identify:
structure and dynamics of intragroup relations;
level of development of the group;
degree of cohesion-disunity of the group;
features of social psychological climate groups;
causes and driving forces of conflicts (intergroup and intragroup, interpersonal and personal-group);
informal leaders who deserve promotion to official leadership;
informal groups, etc.
This data allows the manager to identify successful or conflicting areas of intra-group relations, find out the causes of possible problems and develop effective measures to eliminate them, staff compatible work groups, and, in addition, recognize informal leaders (“stars”) and make them their allies.
Analysis of the resulting sociogram provides a lot of useful information. First you need to identify the most influential members of the group, then identify mutual pairs and groups, which are made up of group members who strive to choose each other (two or three people each, less often four or more). Maximum high sociometric status- (+1) a person receives when all members of the group choose him, and the lowest - (–1) when everyone rejects him. In real groups such extremes practically never occur. The closer the status indicator is to (+1), the more reason to believe that in this group this person is an unofficial leader; the closer it is to (–1), the higher the likelihood that we are dealing with a “outcast”.
For group members, it is not so much the number of elections that matters, but rather the satisfaction with their position. It can be calculated using the coefficient satisfaction (K ud):
If K beat = 0 with a high value of sociometric status, this indicates that a person is forced to interact with people other than those with whom he would like.
As a result of sociometry, it is possible to assess the place of each person in the group and level of relationship well-being in the group as a whole. The level of well-being is considered:
high , if there are more “stars” and “preferred” than “neglected”, “isolated” and “rejected”;
average , if these indicators are equal;
low , if there are fewer “stars” and “preferred” than “neglected”, “isolated” and “rejected”.
In addition, from the data obtained it is possible to determine degree of team cohesion. It can be calculated using the coefficient cohesion (K s):
Analysis of the sociogram shows how active each person in the group is, how integrated he is into intragroup relations (or isolated from them), and makes it possible to evaluate psychological compatibility group members. For this purpose it is used compatibility coefficient (K cm)
Important conditions for the effectiveness of a group are its cohesion(characterized by strength, unity and stability of interpersonal interactions) and consistency- harmony, coherence (characterized by the success of joint activities and subjective satisfaction of group members).
Group cohesion coefficient (K gs) is defined as the difference between the coefficients of group unity (K ge) and group disunity (K gr) according to the formula:
K gs = K ge – K gr
To calculate the coefficient of group unity, the formula is used:
The group disunity coefficient is calculated using the formula:
group integration index- the result of dividing the total sum of positive choices by the total number of all choices made by all members of the group;
mutual liking index (V(+) gr)- the result of dividing the sum of all mutual positive choices by the number of group members;
index of mutual antipathies (V(–) gr)- the result of dividing the sum of all mutual negative choices by the number of group members;
group conflict index (I kgr), which is calculated by the formula:
index of a person's relationship to a group- the difference between the number of choices made by a given group member and the number of deviations made by him;
group-to-person index- the difference between the number of selections received and the number of rejections received;
mutual affection index- the number of mutual choices available to this person with the rest of the group;
mutual hostility index- the number of mutual deviations received (the coefficient of hostility manifested in the relationship between a given person and other members of the group).
Indices of the attitude of a person to a group and the attitude of a group to a person can have both positive and negative values. Indices of a person’s mutual likes and dislikes can also be translated into “vector” indicators: if they are above the group average, then they are assigned a “+” sign (for mutual elections) or a “–” sign (for mutual deviations).
The graphical representation of the resulting indices is called personal sociometric profile. For example, a profile of the type (+ + + +) indicates that the position of this person in the group is favorable in all respects, and a profile of the type (– – – –) indicates obvious disadvantage. Profile options, containing pros and cons, provide a differentiated description of a person’s position in various subgroups.
Applied sociology has developed a solid arsenal of mathematical methods for analyzing the results of sociometric research. Of course, mastering all the formulas and learning to calculate various coefficients and indices is sometimes difficult for a person unfamiliar with statistics. But for a practitioner it is enough to navigate the possibilities that a particular research method provides. The main thing you need to understand is: if the problem is formulated clearly and competently, then you can always select the necessary methods to solve it and calculate the necessary indicators (on your own, or with the help of specialists). And also, putting it into practice new method, it is not enough to master it “theoretically”, you need to try it at least once on yourself (if the technique allows it) or practice with colleagues. It is especially important to prevent possible negative consequences. |
The results of a sociometric survey allow managers to better understand the reasons for the behavior of people in a group, and therefore, manage more skillfully and effectively influence employees. The tasks of the working group, the requirements for its formal structure and functions are determined by the goals of the organization, at the same time, the processes and phenomena of group formation have their own patterns, which largely affect the effectiveness of the group. The formation and development of a work group is a dynamic process that passes through certain stages, or stages. Conventionally, they are called “formation” ( Forming), "fermentation" ( Storming), "rationing" ( Norming) and "activity" ( Performing) (rice. 1).
Rice. 1. Stages of group formation
Stage I - group formation - characterized high degree uncertainty of goals, structure and leadership. Group members behave carefully, carefully monitor every step of new partners, look closely at each other, formulate their positions, try different models behavior. Individual performance of work predominates, while employees are guided by formal norms and requirements (worker and disciplinary); interpersonal relationships are just beginning to form.
Stage II - fermentation - is marked by manifestations of intragroup conflict. A clash of positions occurs, problems are revealed, and a discrepancy between basic individual values is revealed. Group members resist group control, but as a result of such struggle, areas of responsibility are distributed. Decisions are usually made based on the majority opinion. Through a series of conflicts in the group, a relatively clear hierarchy of intragroup leadership is formed. The bulk of energy is spent on establishing and developing communications and solving interpersonal problems.
Stage III - rationing - development and coordination of intra-group rules of activity, norms of “correct” behavior, common value orientations and friendly relations. The roles, functions and responsibilities of everyone are clearly defined, mutual assistance, mutual support and interchangeability are demonstrated. At this stage, the group acts as a holistic entity, the internal atmosphere in it improves significantly, intra-group identification and a “feeling of community” are formed. The group independently seeks ways to resolve internal conflicts.
Stage IV - activity - this is what, in fact, the group is created for. At this stage, its formation is completed: the structure is extremely functional and accepted by everyone; group members are focused on achieving group-wide goals (accepting them as their own); joint work itself becomes the basis of the group’s existence. Its members recognize individual differences as a value; the atmosphere becomes warm, each person feels supported by the whole group and is proud to be part of it. The need for strict control of actions on the part of the leader is reduced; it is replaced by collective control of the group itself, while combining high personal responsibility for the final result of the activity and collective responsibility for each member of the group. Internal interaction in a group is characterized by openness, constant feedback, joint consideration of results and a desire for improvement. general activities, rivalry gives way to cooperation. At this stage of development, we can talk about the transformation of the group into team, which not only works effectively, but also satisfies the needs for self-esteem and self-development of each of its members.
Signs of a high level of group organization (except for general ones, such as quality, speed and nature of work) are:
the emergence in the process of work of a “self-government body” that coordinates the work of all members of the group and a certain structure of their subordination;
clear distribution of responsibilities between group members;
developing a joint action plan and implementing it during the work process;
lack of competition between leaders, conflicts and contradictions in the system of interpersonal relations;
strict (and voluntarily maintained) performance discipline;
high coordination of actions, interchangeability of group members;
demonstration of unity of opinions on significant issues at all stages of work;
high activity of all participants;
manifestation of initiative and creativity in the work process.
It is possible to effectively manage a work group if the leader and group members understand what stage of development it is at and take into account the features of this stage. In real life, it is rarely possible to isolate the described stages in “pure form” (more often in critical cases). As a rule, several processes occur in parallel or even in different directions. At the same time, the staged approach allows you to see the general pattern and dynamics of the group’s development and helps to better understand the problems that arise in it. The stages of group formation can be distinguished only conditionally - in real life they are closely intertwined with other group phenomena, such as leadership, group cohesion, group pressure on the individual, group decision-making, etc.
Managers rarely encounter “spontaneous” groups; more often they have to solve problems associated with updating the composition of long-existing groups and changing their tasks. Often the departure of an informal leader provokes serious conflicts and throws the group far back. The appearance of a newcomer in an established group is also often complicated, since it is associated with his acceptance/non-acceptance of established group norms, resistance to collective pressure, etc. Often new member does not agree with the role assigned to him; Even having outwardly resigned himself and following the demands of the group, he resorts to “defensive” forms of behavior:
withdraws into himself, demonstrates indifference to the goals of the group, lack of involvement, and deepening into his own problems;
shows increased criticism of the activities of the leader, individual members of the group or the group as a whole;
displays formalism: behaves in an emphatically polite manner, strictly follows job descriptions and prohibitions;
tries to show servility or familiarity, behave childishly, be capricious;
tries to demonstrate a frivolous attitude towards work;
obsessively forces the “establishment of relationships”: he is excessively talkative, calls group members into conversations, persistently asks for “secrets”, talks about his own experiences, etc.
Such forms of behavior of a newcomer can be attributed to the “pathological” course of the adaptation process, but they can also appear in other members of the group (at different stages), so the leader must be able to notice deviations in time and react to them correctly. (A wait-and-see attitude - everything will work itself out - as a rule, turns out to be ineffective.)
The progressive development of a group does not mean that its effectiveness is increasing at the same time. Groups may regress relative to the previous stage and become fragmented; at the same time, cooperation in the group sharply decreases, cliques appear - associations of individuals that are only formally related to the goals of the group. Competition arises between cliques, a struggle for power begins, and as a result, efficiency sharply decreases general work. Such forms of “organizational pathology,” which bring huge losses as a result of decreased labor productivity and product quality, are quite common in practice. If the group fails to overcome disintegration processes, it disintegrates, but if the group finds the strength to overcome the crisis (as a rule, the help of a wise leader is necessary), development resumes.
The common views of group members, their positions on fundamental issues, agreed upon decisions on current work problems and in relation to events in the surrounding world, as well as the very process of their formation are called collective opinion. Highlight official (expressed openly) and unofficial (hidden from other persons, especially from managers) collective opinion. Often it is the unofficial opinion of the team that has the greatest influence on other socio-psychological processes in a given group.
As a separate phenomenon, researchers identify collective mood- generalized emotional reactions of group members to the work situation, intra-group relationships, events in the “external” (in relation to the group) world. These are emotionally charged reactions and experiences of a certain intensity and intensity, on which the readiness degree members of the group to take certain actions. The collective mood is characterized by great strength, impulsiveness, dynamism and “contagiousness”. It significantly affects the effectiveness of the group (a bad mood reduces the effectiveness of work in the group by one and a half times) and largely determines satisfaction with the “quality” of group life, although it is not always amenable to rational control.
No less important influence on the success of the group is exerted by traditions. They are relatively stable rules, norms and stereotypes of behavior, actions and communication in specific conditions (situations), developed on the basis of long-term experience of joint activities, which have become a need for each or most members of the group. There are official, professional, social, sports and other traditions. Emotionally attractive traditions become stable forms of group behavior, a kind of “group memory”, the basis for the formation of group identity; they are supported and developed by the group members themselves. It is important for a leader that traditions stimulate the development of the group and contribute to increasing the responsibility and discipline of its members. The destruction or loss of significant traditions significantly impedes the development of a group - just as memory loss becomes an obstacle to the full development of the individual.
The ability to influence the collective opinion, mood and traditions of a group is an effective management tool. Since any group is a complex and largely self-organizing object of management, it is more effective to influence the group as a whole - through informal leaders and “opinion leaders” (the most informed and authoritative members of the group).
Unlike a formal leader, a leader is not appointed; he takes a leadership position with the open or hidden consent of the group. The leader is chosen to be a person who has experience and organizational skills, is interested in the affairs of the group, is sociable and attractive. There are several types of leaders:
leader-organizer can take responsibility, quickly and clearly distribute tasks, make decisions promptly, and provide control; he leads the group towards the goal, actively interacts with all its members, enjoys influence and authority;
leader-initiator able to put forward new ideas and proposals, take initiative, and lead by example;
High intelligence, training or experience are only a prerequisite for leadership, but are critical personal qualities, such as a tendency to dominate, the ability to take initiative in interpersonal relationships, propose solutions, and the ability to speak a language understandable to all members of the group. Very often, the choice of a leader by a group and the degree of his “influence” is determined by the situation.
It is especially important to identify “hidden”, “shadow” leaders. Underestimating their potential, the lack of opportunity to use energy and informal (but very real) power over people for “peaceful” purposes, for the benefit of the group, is fraught with trouble. This can lead to the fact that they become “anti-leaders”, destructors, and begin to realize their personal goals to the detriment of both the group and the goals of the company as a whole. A “formal” (by position) leader should strive for constructive cooperation with informal leaders, provide them with additional powers, increase authority, while relying on their strengths - organizational qualities, innovative potential, communicative competence.
In psychology there is a concept reference* group- circle significant people, whose opinions are decisive for a person and with which he correlates his assessments, actions and deeds (by contacting both directly and mentally). The definition of a “reference circle” is very important in terms of collecting information about relationships that are significant for a given employee. Reference status(preference) of a person for other members of the group is established using a special technique - referentometry, which can be considered one of the most well-known varieties of the sociometric method.
Highlight intragroup And out-group options for conducting referentometry. With in-group referentometry, the reference status of each group member is calculated, with out-group referentometry, ranking is carried out.
The referentometry method makes it possible to identify the most significant group members for a person, whose opinions he orients himself upon when making important decisions. The measure of reference (preference) of group members for the subject is determined indirectly, through the manifestation of interest in their position on essential issues.
The referentometry procedure is carried out in two stages.
1. First, the positions (opinions, assessments, attitudes) of each group member regarding a significant object, event or person are identified. To do this, the subject is asked to fill out an assessment form (for example, given in the appendix) - one copy for each of the group members (that is, each subject fills out n forms according to the number of group members). The name of the subject is indicated in advance on each form. There are various options for questions for instructions: you can offer the same wording as when conducting a sociometric survey or ask for an assessment professional qualities each of the group members according to a number of criteria, etc. The time spent during the survey depends on the size of the group and the number of criteria in the evaluation form.
2. Next, each subject indicates the names of three group members whose forms with “his” grades he would like to see. In this way, the group members whose position is of greatest interest to the rest are identified.
In practice, the choice limits range from 0 to 3 (the main thing is no more than three). There are options when one of the group members does not indicate any names - pointedly ignoring the opinions of colleagues. This behavior can be explained by various reasons. Sociometry data will help identify them more precisely.
For example, if a person demonstrates indifference to the opinions of other group members about him, this may indicate that he opposes himself to the group in a conflict (open or hidden) or his psychological incompatibility with the group. Problems may be associated with the complexities of relationships between different generations (with a large age difference between group members), with a discrepancy in levels of professionalism (in the presence of “newcomers” and “old people”), with the rejection of group values by individual group members, with the personal characteristics of people (such such as isolation, touchiness, increased conflict), etc.
Subsequently, the forms can actually be shown to group members who took part in the survey, citing the fact that this is how a well-coordinated team should develop, in which everyone’s assessments are important for the development of all group members.
For ease of processing - by analogy with analyzing the results of a sociometric survey - the received data (elections) are entered into a matrix. To increase the clarity of the results obtained, you can build target referentogram, which allows you to see the reference status of individual group members and the distribution of reference groups.
In practice, it is convenient to use matrices that include the results of calculating both the sociometric and reference status of each group member. If both surveys used the same limit of possible choices (in our case, three), then the rating scales will be close, which will ensure a clear comparison of the results.
As an example, we present the results of sociometric and referentometric studies in a group of employees of one department (six people). The obtained data are presented in a summary table.
Summary table of the results of sociometric and referentometric studies
Status |
Subject |
|||||
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Sociometric | ||||||
Referentometric |
In this study, the sociometric status of a group member (as well as the referentometric one) was determined by the number of choices; based on its results, for clarity, you can construct a diagram, as shown in drawing 2.
Rice. 2. Comparison of the results of sociometric and referentometric studies
The procedure for conducting referentometry, which allows a person to become familiar with the position expressed by a significant (referent) group member for him, encourages the subject to show high selectivity. The group members selected in such a situation constitute the reference group of this person.
With the sociometric approach, the main factor of choice in the system of interpersonal relationships is likes and dislikes, and with the referentometric approach, it is competence in any area, therefore sociometric and referentometric data may not coincide. “Stars” are chosen, as a rule, according to emotional preferences, and a person receives referentometric status based on assessments of his business, intellectual or volitional qualities, professional knowledge and skills, awareness, etc.
For example, referentometric indicators indicate a high assessment and recognition by group members of employee Z as a competent specialist, while at the same time, indicators of his sociometric status in the group are average (or even correspond to the level of “outcasts”). At detailed consideration it may turn out that this employee is “ eminence grise“, therefore, most group members understand his role in making group decisions, but do not accept the methods by which he realizes his “power” capabilities. Data obtained using sociometry and referentometry, together, provide more comprehensive and accurate information about the real role of a person in a group, and make it possible to identify the motives for choices and preferences in the group.
The importance of thoughtful interpretation of results obtained using formalized methods can be illustrated by the following example.
The director set the task of finding out the causes of a complex conflict situation in one of the company’s divisions. The results of sociometry showed that the attitude of all subordinates towards the newly appointed leader was sharply negative (he received only deviations). Of course, the lack of authority among subordinates is a negative fact, and it would seem that the “natural” solution should have been to quickly replace a manager who does not know how to work with a team.
At the same time, the referentometric status of the manager as a qualified specialist turned out to be quite high. But the labor discipline in the company left much to be desired. Workers were accustomed to the fact that systematic theft of materials was not discovered and punished; the previous management “turned a blind eye” to these facts. The new manager was a man of principle and wanted to stop theft in the department: he threatened, reprimanded, and fined (in general, “he interfered with everyone and spoiled relationships”).
Considering the situation with additional facts allowed us to see it in a completely different light and, accordingly, make a more effective decision.
Study and description of the history of the group’s development, continuity of relationships during reorganization; maintaining or changing the management style when changing managers.
General assessment of the psychological climate, identification of group values, norms, opinions, moods, traditions.
Exploring Relationships horizontally- between group members (personal selective relationships - from sympathy and friendship to hostility and hostility), identification of microgroups (groupings), determination of the sociometric status of individual group members. (It’s not bad if each member of the group belongs to some group, the groups cooperate with each other, there is no obvious hostility between them.) Studying group leaders, identifying types of leadership in the group, describing the relationship between the leader and the formal leader (is part of the authority transferred to him ). Study of the causes of conflicts and isolation (“rejection”) of individual group members. Recognition of reference groups, opinion leaders and main channels of information dissemination and influence in the group.
Exploring Relationships vertically- between group members and the leader (formal power relations). Identification of the predominant leadership style of the group, determination of the correspondence of the leadership style to the level of development of the group, opportunities to increase the influence of the leader through working with informal group leaders and opinion leaders.
Training of group leaders, development of their basic management skills (“School of Line Manager”).
Sociometric and referentometric results require professional interpretation. It is useful to supplement them with data obtained using other methods, such as documentation analysis, observation, structured interviews, expert surveys, testing, etc. Despite the complexity and cumbersomeness, the sociometric method today is very operational and effective way identifying a hidden system of interpersonal relationships in a team.
Application FORM Division ________________________________ Instructions: Your department (team, project group etc.) functions within the company as a single organism. You have been working together for quite a long time. During this time, you got to know each other well, and certain business and personal relationships developed between you. Referentometric research is aimed at studying their characteristics. You are offered pairs of words and phrases that have opposite meanings. Please evaluate your colleague critically and impartially (Full name of colleague) (circle the number that corresponds to your assessment).
|
_________________
* Referentiality(from lat. referens- informing) - the importance for a person of the opinions and attitudes of other people (including those that do not really exist, such as literary heroes, ideals to follow, etc.) or a group of which he is a member or considers important, even without being a real participant. This concept was first used by the American psychologist G. Hyman, who argued that people’s judgments about themselves largely depend on which group they associate themselves with.
Article provided to our portal
editorial staff of the magazine
Purpose and instructions. Group cohesion - an extremely important parameter showing the degree of integration of a group, its cohesion into a single whole - can be determined not only by calculating the corresponding sociometric indices.
It is much easier to do this using a technique consisting of 5 questions with multiple answer options for each.
Answers are coded in points according to the values given in brackets (maximum amount +19 points, minimum -5). You do not need to provide scores during the survey.
I. How would you rate your group membership?
1. I feel like a member, part of the team (5)
2. Participate in most activities (4)
3. I participate in some types of activities and do not participate in others (3)
4. I don’t feel like I’m part of a group (2)
5. I live and exist separately from her (1)
6. I don’t know, it’s difficult to answer (1)
II. Would you move to another group if the opportunity presented itself (without changing other conditions)?
1. Yes, I would really like to go (1)
2. Would rather move than stay (2)
3. I don’t see any difference (3)
4. Most likely would have stayed in my group (4)
5. I would really like to stay in my group (5)
6. I don’t know, it’s hard to say (1)
III. What are the relationships between your group members?
3. Worse than most classes (1)
4. I don’t know, it’s hard to say (1)
IV. What is your relationship with management?
1. Better than most teams (3)
2. About the same as in most groups (2)
4. I don't know. (1)
V. What is the attitude towards work (studies, etc.) in your team?
1. Better than most teams (3)
2. About the same as in most groups (2)
3. Worse than in most teams (1)
4. Don't know (1)
Levels of Group Cohesion
- 15, 1 points and above - high;
- 11.6 - 15 points - above average;
- 7 - 11.5 - average;
- 4 - 6.9 - below average;
- 4 and below - low.
Methodology 8. Psychological climate of the classroom team (V.S. Ivashkin, V.V. Onufrieva).
Target: The methodology is focused on determining the psychological climate according to three criteria - emotional, moral and business.
Instructions. The subjects are asked three questions:
- a) Are students in your class always concerned about each other’s academic successes and failures?
- b) Do students in your class always help each other in their studies?
- c) Are all students in your class responsible for their studies?
Instructions are given: “For each question, rate your class using a five-point scale.”
- Always worries - 5
- Worries most often - 4
- Worries half the time - 3
- Mostly doesn't care - 2
- Doesn't care at all - 1
Let the subject give the following ratings on the proposed questions: a - 4; b - 4; at 3.
Processing and interpretation of results:
The average score of the group is calculated: X = (A + B + C) / 3xP
where A, B, C are points for questions; P is the number of subjects. Let X = 3.8
Criteria for evaluation. If:
- a) X > 4.5 points, the psychological climate indicator is high, score 3 points.
- b) 3.5< Х < 4,5- показатель психологического климата средний, оценка 2 балла.
- c) In other cases, the psychological climate indicator is low, score 1 point. In our case, X = 3.8, score 2 points.
Method 9. Class photo.
Instructions: Students in the class are asked to act as “photographers” and take a photo of their class. To do this, each student in the class receives a sheet of paper on which he must place all the students and the class teacher, as in a group photo. The student must sign each “photo” with the names of their classmates. Among his classmates, he must place his photo and the photo of the class teacher. When analyzing the photographs received, pay attention to where in the photograph the student places himself, his friends, his classmates and the class teacher, and in what mood he is doing this work.
Method 10. Letter to an Islander.
Instructions: Students in the class are asked to imagine that they are on a desert island. Life on the island is difficult, there is nowhere to wait for help. But suddenly a bottle with a note in it washes up on the shore: “Send a letter to the people you trust and whom you love. They will help you. Send the letter using the same bottle.” Students should write a letter to people they trust. You should pay attention to what the content of the letter will be and to whom these letters will be addressed.
Method 11. Psychological intimacy scale.
Psychological intimacy is a parameter that describes a person’s relationships with other people. Its degree is different for different people from a person’s usual social circle, and can be determined using a modified “sympathetic distance” scale D. Felds.
Test instructions
Invite respondents to write down in a column the people with whom they habitually and consistently communicate over the past few months. Once this activity is completed, give them the opportunity to rate their psychological closeness to these people on the scale below. The scale contains 11 levels, expressing one or another degree of closeness of the person being assessed in decreasing order.
Test material
Intimacy scale
1. He could be my best friend.
2. I do not differentiate between him and people close to me.
3. I could open my soul to him.
4. I could spend my free time with him.
5. I could spend my holidays with him.
6. I could invite him to visit me.
7. I would not discuss important problems with him.
8. I would not trust him to carry out important tasks.
9. I would quit if I had to work with him.
10. I would not let him out into society.
The psychological closeness of a respondent with a particular person is inversely proportional to the score that the respondent gave to this person:
- maximum degree of closeness – 1 point (the first judgment in the degree of closeness scale),
- the minimum degree of closeness is 11 (the last judgment in the degree of closeness scale).
Method 12. Assessing the psychological atmosphere in the team.
Test instructions
The table below shows opposite pairs of words that can be used to describe the atmosphere in your group or team. The closer you place the * sign to the right or left word in each pair, the more pronounced this feature is in your team.
Test material
friendliness | hostility | ||||||||
agreement | disagreement | ||||||||
satisfaction | dissatisfaction | ||||||||
productivity | unproductiveness | ||||||||
heat | cold | ||||||||
cooperation | inconsistency | ||||||||
mutual support | malevolence | ||||||||
passion | indifference | ||||||||
entertaining | boredom | ||||||||
success | failure |
Processing and analysis of test results
The answer to each of the 10 points is scored from left to right from 1 to 8 points. The further to the left the * is located, the lower the score, the more favorable the psychological atmosphere in the team, according to the respondent. The final score ranges from 10 (the most positive assessment) to 80 (the most negative).
Based on individual profiles, an average profile is created, which characterizes the psychological atmosphere in the team.
Method 13. Expert assessment of the cohesion of a study group.
Target: The methodology is intended to determine the group cohesion of student groups and can be used by educational workers in order to optimize the educational process.
Test instructions
The methodology gives seven psychological characteristics of the class. Test teachers choose one of three proposed statements (A, B, C), which, in their opinion, most reflects the actual state of the class being studied.
It is advisable to carry out this test at the beginning and at the end school year to obtain comparative results. 2-3 teachers should be involved in determining the cohesion of the group (class).
Test material
Assessed psychological characteristics of study groups or classes:
1. Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class:
A. I think that all students feel warm, cozy and comfortable in the classroom, they are among friends.
Q. Not everyone feels the friendly support of the class.
S. There are lonely guys in the class.
2. Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class:
A. Mostly guys value class.
Q. The majority of students do not think about the importance of class in their school life.
S. I think that there are some guys who would like to change classes.
3. Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class:
A. It feels like the class cares about every student.
B. The class goes beyond caring for itself and the school in its activities and shows concern on a large scale.
S. We can say that the class is more concerned about external matters such as discos, rather than internal ones - the protection of each student.
4. Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class:
A. You can express satisfaction with the educational work in the classroom.
Q. I think that educational work in the classroom can be supplemented with some important points.
S. I believe that it requires radical change.
5. Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class:
A. You can positively evaluate the collective creative activities carried out in the class.
Q. It would be better to introduce collective creative activities into practice more often.
C. The class does not need new collective creative activities.
6. Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class:
A. I think that in the class there is a basis for common friendship.
Q. They are mostly friends in groups; they don’t have anything in common.
C. Friendship between everyone in the class is impossible.
7. Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class:
A. I think that most children show their abilities and interests in the classroom.
Q. There are too few opportunities in the classroom for children to demonstrate their abilities.
S. There are many children in the class whose abilities and interests have not yet been discovered.
With the help of sociometry, one can quite accurately determine the position (status) of a person, his place in the informal “table of ranks.” The social status of an individual in a group and the state of the group itself depend on implicit emotional connections and attitudes of people, such as sympathy, antipathy or relative indifference. People's emotional preferences are unevenly distributed: in any group, a few members (“stars”) make up the majority of positive choices, while the majority of group members are rarely chosen and end up in the position of “emotionally disadvantaged.”
The “stars” are the group members who received the maximum number of selections (max ±2). Group members who received a large or average number of choices based on sociometry results are classified as “preferred”; those who were rarely chosen are considered “accepted”; those who were never chosen are classified as “isolated.” Group members who receive only rejections fall into the “rejected” category. In this case, we can talk about the group’s rejection of this person or the fact that he does not show himself in any way and avoids contact with colleagues.
Mutual elections show the presence of friendly, friendly relations. Mutual deviations almost unambiguously indicate the presence of a conflict. As the researchers found, the distribution of preferences in groups is quite standard: in a group of 30 people, no more than three or four fall into the “stars”, 10-12 each fall into the “preferred” and “accepted” groups. Up to five people can be “isolated”, and “outcasts” are not found in every group.
If desired, detailed data analysis can be performed. Researchers recommend calculating special indices, the most used of them in practice are the index of the sociometric status of an individual in a group (S) and the index of group cohesion (Cn). If the HR person does not have the goal of conducting fundamental scientific research, then it is not necessary to calculate the sociometric status index; it is enough to determine the total values of elections and deviations for each member of the group. This is “less scientific”, but more practical - the indicator by which the positions of all group members are compared (and the basis for ranking) is precisely the number of elections/rejections.
Using the group cohesion index is useful for comparing results across two (or more) groups. In such cases it can be considered as a unit of measurement.
There are personal sociometric indices (PSI) and group sociometric indices (GSI). The first characterize the individual socio-psychological properties of a person in the role of a member of a group. The latter provide numerical characteristics of the holistic sociometric configuration of choices in the group. They describe the properties of group communication structures. The main P.S.I. are: index of sociometric status of the i-member; emotional expansiveness of the j-member, volume, intensity and concentration of interaction of the ij-member. The characters i and j represent the same person, but in different roles; i - selectable, j - also chooser, ij - combination of roles.
where C i is the sociometric status of the i-member, R + and R - are the elections received by the i-member, Z is the sign of the algebraic summation of the number of received elections of the i-member, N is the number of group members.
Sociometric status is the property of a personality as an element of a sociometric structure to occupy a certain spatial position (locus) in it, i.e. relate in a certain way to other elements. This property is developed unevenly among the elements of the group structure and for comparative purposes can be measured by a number - an index of sociometric status.
Elements of sociometric structure are individuals, members of a group. Each of them, to one degree or another, interacts with each other, communicates, directly exchanges information, etc. At the same time, each member of the group, being part of the whole (group), influences the properties of the whole with their behavior. The implementation of this influence occurs through various socio-psychological forms of mutual influence. The subjective measure of this influence is emphasized by the magnitude of sociometric status. But a person can influence others in two ways - either positively or negatively. Therefore, it is customary to talk about positive and negative status. Status also measures a person's potential leadership ability. To calculate sociometric status, you need to use sociomatrix data.
It is also possible to calculate C-positive and C-negative status in small groups (N).
where Ej is the emotional expansiveness of the j-member, R j is the choices made by the member (+, -). From a psychological point of view, the indicator of expansiveness characterizes the individual’s need for communication.
From G.S.I. the most important are: Index emotional expansiveness of the group and the index of psychological reciprocity.
3. Index of emotional expansiveness of the group calculated by the formula:
where Ag is the expansiveness of the group, N is the number of group members? R j (+,-) - choices made by the j-member. The index shows the average activity of the group when solving a sociometric test task (per each group member).
4. Index of psychological reciprocity(“group cohesion”) in a group is calculated using the formula:
where Gg is reciprocity in the group based on the results of positive elections, A ij + is the number of positive mutual connections in the group N is the number of group members.
5. For group members, it is not so much the number of elections that matters, but rather the satisfaction with their position. It can be calculated using satisfaction rate(Where):
If Kd = 0 with a high value of sociometric status, this indicates that a person is forced to interact with people other than those with whom he would like.
As a result of sociometry, it is possible to assess the place of each person in the group and the level of well-being of relationships in the group as a whole. The level of well-being is considered:
high if there are more “stars” and “preferred” than “neglected”, “isolated” and “rejected”;
average, if these indicators are equal;
low if there are fewer “stars” and “preferred” than “neglected”, “isolated” and “rejected”.
6. In addition, based on the data obtained, the degree of team cohesion can be determined. It can be calculated using cohesion coefficient(KS):
Where Kcm is the compatibility coefficient,
K+ - number of mutual positive choices,
K- is the number of mutual negative choices,
n is the number of group members.
8. Important conditions for the effectiveness of a group are its cohesion (characterized by the strength, unity and stability of interpersonal interactions) and coherence - harmony, coherence (characterized by the success of joint activities and the subjective satisfaction of group members).
Group cohesion coefficient(Kgs) is defined as the difference between the coefficients of group unity (Kge) and group disunity (Kgr) according to the formula:
Kgs = Kge - Kgr
To calculate the coefficient of group unity, the formula is used:
where Kgr is the coefficient of group disunity,
SK- - - number of mutual negative elections,
n (n - 1) - total number of mutual elections.
9. group integration index- the result of dividing the number of positive choices by the total number of all choices made by all members of the group;
10. mutual liking index(V(+)gr) is the result of dividing the number of all mutual positive choices by the number of group members;
11. index of mutual antipathies(V(-)gr) is the result of dividing the number of all mutual negative choices by the number of group members;
12. group conflict index(Ikgr), which is calculated by the formula:
Ikgr = (∑V(-)gr + ∑(-)gr) / n |
where Ikgr is the group’s conflict index,
∑V(-)gr - the number of mutual negative choices of all group members,
∑(-)gr - the number of one-sided negative choices in the group,
n is the number of group members.
13. index of a person's relationship to a group- the difference between the number of choices made by a given group member and the number of deviations made by him;
14. group-to-person index- the difference between the number of selections received and the number of rejections received;
15. mutual affection index- the number of mutual choices a given person has with other members of the group;
16. mutual hostility index- the number of mutual deviations received (the coefficient of hostility manifested in the relationship between a given person and other members of the group).
Indices of the attitude of a person to a group and the attitude of a group to a person can have both positive and negative values. Indices of a person’s mutual likes and dislikes can also be translated into “vector” indicators: if they are above the group average, then they are assigned a “+” sign (for mutual elections) or a “-” sign (for mutual deviations). The graphical representation of the obtained indices is called a personal sociometric profile. For example, a profile of the type (+ + + +) indicates that the position of this person in the group is favorable in all respects, and a profile of the type (- - - -) indicates obvious disadvantage. Profile options, containing pros and cons, provide a differentiated description of a person’s position in various subgroups.
Examples of calculating some indices.
Using the example below, we will calculate some indices. In particular, for Ivanov (No. 1), the index of a person’s attitude towards the group (index 13) is equal to: 3 positive choices – 1 negative choice. The total is 2.
For him, the index of the group’s attitude towards the person is equal to: 4 positive choices (vertically) – 1 negative choice. Total: this index will be equal to 3. This index for Shumskaya (No. 10) will be equal to -3 (minus three).
For Ivanov the index is 15 ( mutual affection index) equals 3, since all three choices turn out to be mutual (with No. 2,5,8). Negative selection is not taken into account here.
For the same Ivanov, the index is 16 ( index of mutual hostility) equals 0, since the only negative choice made by this person (from No. 10) turns out to be not mutual. Positive elections are not taken into account here.
Danilova | |||||||||||
Alexandrova | |||||||||||
Adamenko | |||||||||||
Petrenko | |||||||||||
Kozachenko | |||||||||||
Yakovleva | |||||||||||
Number of elections | |||||||||||
Number of points | |||||||||||
total amount |
Let's calculate the group's conflict index (index No. 12). The number of mutual negative elections is 1 (for Yakovleva and Shumskaya). The number of one-sided negative elections in the group is 4. Total:
Ikgr = (1+4) / 10 = 0.5
This index has its limits: from 0 to K*(n - 1) / n,
where K is the number of allowed negative choices,
(n - 1) – the number of people against whom the subject can make a negative choice,
n – total number of subjects.
Let's calculate the upper limit: 3*(10-1) / 10 = 2.7
Sociometry and referentometry
The results of a sociometric survey allow managers to better understand the reasons for the behavior of people in a group, and therefore, manage more skillfully and effectively influence employees. The tasks of the working group, the requirements for its formal structure and functions are determined by the goals of the organization, at the same time, the processes and phenomena of group formation have their own patterns, which largely affect the effectiveness of the group. The formation and development of a work group is a dynamic process that passes through certain stages, or stages. Conventionally, they are called “forming”, “fermentation” (Storming), “norming” and “activity” (Performing) (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Stages of group formation
Stage I - group formation - is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty about goals, structure and leadership. Group members behave carefully, carefully monitor every step of new partners, look closely at each other, formulate their positions, and try different models of behavior. Individual performance of work predominates, while employees are guided by formal norms and requirements (worker and disciplinary); interpersonal relationships are just beginning to form.
Stage II - fermentation - is marked by manifestations of intragroup conflict. A clash of positions occurs, problems are revealed, and a discrepancy between basic individual values is revealed. Group members resist group control, but as a result of such struggle, areas of responsibility are distributed. Decisions are usually made based on the majority opinion. Through a series of conflicts in the group, a relatively clear hierarchy of intragroup leadership is formed. The bulk of energy is spent on establishing and developing communications and solving interpersonal problems.
Stage III - standardization - development and coordination of intra-group rules of activity, norms of “correct” behavior, common value orientations and friendly relations. The roles, functions and responsibilities of everyone are clearly defined, mutual assistance, mutual support and interchangeability are demonstrated. At this stage, the group acts as a holistic entity, the internal atmosphere in it improves significantly, intra-group identification and a “feeling of community” are formed. The group independently seeks ways to resolve internal conflicts.
Stage IV - activity - what, in fact, the group is created for. At this stage, its formation is completed: the structure is extremely functional and accepted by everyone; group members are focused on achieving group-wide goals (accepting them as their own); joint work itself becomes the basis of the group’s existence. Its members recognize individual differences as a value; the atmosphere becomes warm, each person feels supported by the whole group and is proud to be part of it. The need for strict control of actions on the part of the leader is reduced; it is replaced by collective control of the group itself, while combining high personal responsibility for the final result of the activity and collective responsibility for each member of the group. Internal interaction in the group is characterized by openness, constant feedback, joint consideration of results and the desire to improve overall performance; competition gives way to cooperation. At this stage of development, we can talk about transforming the group into a team that not only works effectively, but also satisfies the needs for self-esteem and self-development of each member.
Signs of a high level of group organization (except for general ones, such as quality, speed and nature of work) are:
the emergence in the process of work of a “self-government body” that coordinates the work of all members of the group and a certain structure of their subordination;
clear distribution of responsibilities between group members;
developing a joint action plan and implementing it during the work process;
lack of competition between leaders, conflicts and contradictions in the system of interpersonal relations;
strict (and voluntarily maintained) performance discipline;
high coordination of actions, interchangeability of group members;
demonstration of unity of opinions on significant issues at all stages of work;
high activity of all participants;
manifestation of initiative and creativity in the work process.
A work group can be effectively managed if the leader and group members understand what stage of development it is at and take into account the features of this stage. In real life, it is rarely possible to isolate the described stages in “pure form” (more often in critical cases). As a rule, several processes occur in parallel or even in different directions. At the same time, the staged approach allows you to see the general pattern and dynamics of the group’s development and helps to better understand the problems that arise in it. The stages of group formation can be distinguished only conditionally - in real life they are closely intertwined with other group phenomena, such as leadership, group cohesion, group pressure on the individual, group decision-making, etc.
Managers rarely encounter “spontaneous” groups; more often they have to solve problems associated with updating the composition of long-existing groups and changing their tasks. Often the departure of an informal leader provokes serious conflicts and throws the group far back. The appearance of a newcomer in an established group is also often complicated, since it is associated with his acceptance/non-acceptance of established group norms, resistance to collective pressure, etc. Often a new member does not agree with the role assigned to him; Even having outwardly resigned himself and following the demands of the group, he resorts to “defensive” forms of behavior:
withdraws into himself, demonstrates indifference to the goals of the group, lack of involvement, and deepening into his own problems;
shows increased criticism of the activities of the leader, individual members of the group or the group as a whole;
displays formalism: behaves in an emphatically polite manner, strictly follows job descriptions and prohibitions;
tries to show servility or familiarity, behave childishly, be capricious;
tries to demonstrate a frivolous attitude towards work;
obsessively forces the “establishment of relationships”: he is excessively talkative, calls group members into conversations, persistently asks for “secrets”, talks about his own experiences, etc.
Such forms of behavior of a newcomer can be attributed to the “pathological” course of the adaptation process, but they can also appear in other members of the group (at different stages), so the leader must be able to notice deviations in time and react to them correctly. (A wait-and-see attitude - everything will work itself out - as a rule, turns out to be ineffective.)
The progressive development of a group does not mean that its effectiveness is increasing at the same time. Groups may regress relative to the previous stage and become fragmented; at the same time, cooperation in the group sharply decreases, cliques appear - associations of individuals that are only formally related to the goals of the group. Competition arises between cliques, a struggle for power begins, and as a result, the efficiency of overall work sharply decreases. Such forms of “organizational pathology,” which bring huge losses as a result of decreased labor productivity and product quality, are quite common in practice. If the group fails to overcome disintegration processes, it disintegrates, but if the group finds the strength to overcome the crisis (as a rule, the help of a wise leader is necessary), development resumes.
The common views of group members, their positions on fundamental issues, agreed upon decisions on current work problems and in relation to events in the surrounding world, as well as the very process of their formation are called collective opinion. There are official (expressed openly) and unofficial (hidden from other persons, especially from leaders) collective opinion. Often it is the unofficial opinion of the team that has the greatest influence on other socio-psychological processes in a given group.
As a separate phenomenon, researchers identify collective mood - generalized emotional reactions of group members to a work situation, intragroup relationships, events in the “external” (in relation to the group) world. These are emotionally charged reactions and experiences of a certain intensity and tension, on which the degree of readiness of group members for certain actions depends. The collective mood is characterized by great strength, impulsiveness, dynamism and “contagiousness”. It significantly affects the effectiveness of the group (a bad mood reduces the effectiveness of work in the group by one and a half times) and largely determines satisfaction with the “quality” of group life, although it is not always amenable to rational control.
Traditions have an equally important influence on the success of a group. They are relatively stable rules, norms and stereotypes of behavior, actions and communication in specific conditions (situations), developed on the basis of long-term experience of joint activities, which have become a need for each or most members of the group. There are official, professional, social, sports and other traditions. Emotionally attractive traditions become stable forms of group behavior, a kind of “group memory”, the basis for the formation of group identity; they are supported and developed by the group members themselves. It is important for a leader that traditions stimulate the development of the group and contribute to increasing the responsibility and discipline of its members. The destruction or loss of significant traditions significantly impedes the development of a group - just as memory loss becomes an obstacle to the full development of the individual.
The ability to influence the collective opinion, mood and traditions of a group is an effective management tool. Since any group is a complex and largely self-organizing object of management, it is more effective to influence the group as a whole - through informal leaders and “opinion leaders” (the most informed and authoritative members of the group).
Unlike a formal leader, a leader is not appointed; he takes a leadership position with the open or hidden consent of the group. The leader is chosen to be a person who has experience and organizational skills, is interested in the affairs of the group, is sociable and attractive. There are several types of leaders:
the leader-organizer can take responsibility, quickly and clearly distribute tasks, quickly make decisions, and provide control; he leads the group towards the goal, actively interacts with all its members, enjoys influence and authority;
the initiating leader is able to put forward new ideas and proposals, take initiative, and inspire by his own example;
High intelligence, training or experience are only a prerequisite for leadership, but personal qualities such as a tendency to dominate, the ability to take initiative in interpersonal relationships, propose solutions, and the ability to speak a language that is understandable to all members of the group are crucial. Very often, the choice of a leader by a group and the degree of his “influence” is determined by the situation.
It is especially important to identify “hidden”, “shadow” leaders. Underestimating their potential, the lack of opportunity to use energy and informal (but very real) power over people for “peaceful” purposes, for the benefit of the group, is fraught with trouble. This can lead to the fact that they become “anti-leaders”, destructors, and begin to realize their personal goals to the detriment of both the group and the goals of the company as a whole. A “formal” (by position) leader should strive for constructive cooperation with informal leaders, provide them with additional powers, increase authority, while relying on their strengths - organizational qualities, innovative potential, communicative competence.
In psychology, the concept of a reference group is highlighted - a circle of significant people whose opinions are decisive for a person and with whom he correlates his assessments, actions and deeds (by contacting both directly and mentally). The definition of a “reference circle” is very important in terms of collecting information about relationships that are significant for a given employee. The reference status (preference) of a person for other members of the group is established using a special technique - referentometry, which can be considered one of the most well-known varieties of the sociometric method.
There are intragroup and outgroup options for conducting referentometry. With in-group referentometry, the reference status of each group member is calculated, with out-group referentometry, ranking is carried out. The referentometry method makes it possible to identify the most significant group members for a person, whose opinions he orients himself upon when making important decisions. The measure of reference (preference) of group members for the subject is determined indirectly, through the manifestation of interest in their position on essential issues.
The referentometry procedure is carried out in two stages.
1. First, the positions (opinions, assessments, attitudes) of each group member regarding a significant object, event or person are identified. To do this, the subject is asked to fill out an assessment form (for example, given in the appendix) - one copy for each of the group members (that is, each subject fills out the n-number of forms according to the number of group members). The name of the subject is indicated in advance on each form. There are various options for questions for instructions: you can offer the same wording as when conducting a sociometric survey, or ask to evaluate the professional qualities of each of the group members according to a number of criteria, etc. The time spent when conducting a survey depends on the size of the group and the number of criteria in evaluation form.
2. Next, each subject indicates the names of three group members whose forms with “his” grades he would like to see. In this way, the group members whose position is of greatest interest to the rest are identified.
In practice, the choice limits range from 0 to 3 (the main thing is no more than three). There are options when one of the group members does not indicate any names - pointedly ignoring the opinions of colleagues. This behavior can be explained by various reasons. Sociometry data will help identify them more precisely.
For example, if a person demonstrates indifference to the opinions of other group members about him, this may indicate that he opposes himself to the group in a conflict (open or hidden) or his psychological incompatibility with the group. Problems may be associated with the complexities of relationships between different generations (with a large age difference between group members), with a discrepancy in levels of professionalism (in the presence of “newcomers” and “old people”), with the rejection of group values by individual group members, with the personal characteristics of people (such such as isolation, touchiness, increased conflict), etc.
Subsequently, the forms can actually be shown to group members who took part in the survey, citing the fact that this is how a well-coordinated team should develop, in which everyone’s assessments are important for the development of all group members.
For ease of processing - by analogy with analyzing the results of a sociometric survey - the received data (elections) are entered into a matrix. To increase the clarity of the results obtained, you can build a target referentogram, which allows you to see the reference status of individual group members and the distribution of reference groups.
In practice, it is convenient to use matrices that include the results of calculating both the sociometric and reference status of each group member. If both surveys used the same limit of possible choices (in our case, three), then the rating scales will be close, which will ensure a clear comparison of the results.
As an example, we present the results of sociometric and referentometric studies in a group of employees of one department (six people). The obtained data is presented in a summary table.
Table 4. Summary table of results
sociometric and referentometric studies
Subject |
||||||
Sociometric | ||||||
Referentometric |
In this study, the sociometric status of a group member (as well as the referentometric status) was determined by the number of choices; based on its results, for clarity, you can construct a diagram, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Comparison of the results of sociometric and referentometric studies
The procedure for conducting referentometry, which allows a person to become familiar with the position expressed by a significant (referent) group member for him, encourages the subject to show high selectivity. The group members selected in such a situation constitute the reference group of this person.
With the sociometric approach, the main factor of choice in the system of interpersonal relationships is likes and dislikes, and with the referentometric approach, it is competence in any area, therefore sociometric and referentometric data may not coincide. “Stars” are chosen, as a rule, according to emotional preferences, and a person receives referentometric status based on assessments of his business, intellectual or volitional qualities, professional knowledge and skills, awareness, etc.
For example, referentometric indicators indicate a high assessment and recognition by group members of employee Z as a competent specialist, while at the same time, indicators of his sociometric status in the group are average (or even correspond to the level of “outcasts”). Upon closer examination, it may turn out that this employee is a “gray eminence”, so most group members understand his role in making group decisions, but do not accept the methods by which he realizes his “power” capabilities. Data obtained using sociometry and referentometry, together, provide more comprehensive and accurate information about the real role of a person in a group, and make it possible to identify the motives for choices and preferences in the group.
The importance of thoughtful interpretation of results obtained using formalized methods can be illustrated by the following example. The director set the task of finding out the causes of a complex conflict situation in one of the company’s divisions. The results of sociometry showed that the attitude of all subordinates towards the newly appointed leader was sharply negative (he received only deviations). Of course, the lack of authority among subordinates is a negative fact, and it would seem that the “natural” solution should have been to quickly replace a manager who does not know how to work with a team.
At the same time, the referentometric status of the manager as a qualified specialist turned out to be quite high. But the labor discipline in the company left much to be desired. Workers were accustomed to the fact that systematic theft of materials was not discovered and punished; the previous management “turned a blind eye” to these facts. The new manager was a man of principle and wanted to stop theft in the department: he threatened, reprimanded, and fined (in general, “he interfered with everyone and spoiled relationships”).
Considering the situation with additional facts allowed us to see it in a completely different light and, accordingly, make a more effective decision.
Study and description of the history of the group’s development, continuity of relationships during reorganization; maintaining or changing the management style when changing managers.
General assessment of the psychological climate, identification of group values, norms, opinions, moods, traditions.
The study of horizontal relationships between group members (personal selective relationships - from sympathy and friendship to hostility and hostility), identification of microgroups (groupings), determination of the sociometric status of individual group members. (It’s not bad if each member of the group belongs to some group, the groups cooperate with each other, there is no obvious hostility between them.) Studying group leaders, identifying types of leadership in the group, describing the relationship between the leader and the formal leader (is part of the authority transferred to him ). Study of the causes of conflicts and isolation (“rejection”) of individual group members. Recognition of reference groups, opinion leaders and main channels of information dissemination and influence in the group.
The study of vertical relationships - between group members and the leader (formal power relations). Identification of the predominant leadership style of the group, determination of the correspondence of the leadership style to the level of development of the group, opportunities to increase the influence of the leader through working with informal group leaders and opinion leaders.
Training of group leaders, development of their basic management skills (“School of Line Manager”).
Sociometric and referentometric results require professional interpretation. It is useful to supplement them with data obtained using other methods, such as documentation analysis, observation, structured interviews, expert surveys, testing, etc. Despite the complexity and cumbersomeness, the sociometric method today is a very quick and effective way to identify the hidden system of interpersonal relationships in team.
Probably no one doubts that the effective functioning of work groups is an important condition for the success of any company. Even if all employees are engaged in purely individual activities (for example, in a jewelry workshop), the psychological microclimate and the characteristics of relationships significantly influence the overall results.
I would like to emphasize that all data obtained using sociometry are relative in nature: they show the distribution of influence, relationships and popularity within a given group. Therefore, all characteristics - “leader”, “preferred”, “accepted”, “isolated”, “rejected” - make sense only in relation to this group. In another group (formal or informal), a person may take a different position, sometimes diametrically opposed. A “star” in a construction team may turn out to be “isolated” in a group of trade union committee activists, and in a group of football fans - “preferred”, etc. There are no “stars” or “outcasts” in general, outside a certain group.
Group cohesion? an extremely important parameter showing the degree of integration of the group, its cohesion into a single whole,? can be determined not only by calculating the corresponding sociometric indices. It is much easier to do this using a technique consisting of five questions with multiple answer options for each. Answers are coded in points according to the values given in parentheses (maximum amount? nineteen points, minimum? five). You do not need to provide scores during the survey.
- 1. How would you rate your membership in the group?
- 1.1. I feel like a member of it, part of the team (5).
- 1.2. I participate in most activities (4).
- 1.3. I participate in some activities and do not participate in others (3).
- 1.4. I don't feel like I'm a member of the group (2).
- 1.5. I live and exist separately from her (1).
- 1.6. I don’t know, I find it difficult to answer (1).
- 2. Would you move to another group if such an opportunity presented itself (without changing other conditions)?
- 2.1. Yes, I would really like to go (1).
- 2.2. I would rather move than stay (2).
- 2.3. I don't see any difference (3).
- 2.4. Most likely, he would have remained in his group (4).
- 2.5. I would really like to stay in my group (5).
- 2.6. I don't know, it's hard to say (1).
- 3. What are the relationships between the members of your group?
- 3.1. Better than most teams (3).
- 3.2. About the same as in most teams (2).
- 3.3. Worse than in most teams (1).
- 3.4. I don't know, it's hard to say (1).
- 4. What is your relationship with management?
- 4.1. Better than most teams (3).
- 4.2. About the same as in most teams (2).
- 4.3. Worse than in most teams (1).
- 4.4. I don't know (1).
- 5. What is the attitude towards work (studies, etc.) in your team?
- 5.1. Better than most teams (3).
- 5.2. About the same as in most teams (2).
- 5.3. Worse than in most teams (1).
- 5.4. I don't know (1) .
- 1.5 Lutoshkin’s sketch map
For a general assessment of some of the main manifestations of the psychological climate of the team, you can use the map diagram by L.N. Lutoshkina. Here, on the left side of the sheet, those qualities of the team that characterize a favorable psychological climate are described, on the right? qualities of a team with a clearly unfavorable climate. The degree of expression of certain qualities can be determined using a seven-point scale placed in the center of the sheet (from plus three to minus three).
Using the diagram, you should first read the sentence on the left, then on the right, and then mark with a plus sign in the middle part of the sheet the assessment that most closely matches the truth.
We must keep in mind that grades mean: plus three? the property indicated on the left always manifests itself in a given group; plus two? the property manifests itself in most cases; plus one? the property appears quite often; zero? neither this nor the opposite (indicated on the right) properties are manifested clearly enough, or both are manifested to the same extent; minus one? Quite often the opposite property appears (indicated on the right); minus two? the property manifests itself in most cases; minus three? the property always appears.
To introduce big picture psychological climate of the team, you need to add up all the positive and negative points. The obtained result can serve as a conditional characteristic of the psychological climate of a greater or lesser degree of favorability.
However, is a simpler assessment possible? through periodic measurement of emotional states using the same created by L.N. Lutoshkin's color painting technique, in which students are asked to choose which color they associate with being in a given group, situational mood, etc. In this case, the following colors are used: red? enthusiastic mood; orange? joyful; yellow? bright, pleasant; green? calm, balanced; violet? anxious, tense; black? despondency, complete disappointment, loss of strength.
Determination of Seashore's group cohesion index
Group cohesion is an extremely important parameter that shows the degree of integration of the group, its cohesion into a single whole.
Answers are coded in points according to the values given in brackets (maximum amount +19 points, minimum -5). You do not need to provide scores during the survey.
I. How would you rate your class membership?
I feel like a member of it, part of the team (5)
Participate in most activities (4)
I participate in some activities and do not participate in others (3)
I don't feel like I'm part of a group (2)
I live and exist separately from her (1)
I don’t know, it’s difficult to answer (1)
II. Would you move to another class if given the opportunity?
Yes, I would really like to go (1)
Would rather move than stay (2)
I don't see any difference (3)
Most likely would have stayed in my class (4)
I would really like to stay in my class (5)
I don't know, it's hard to say (1)
III. What are the relationships between members of your class?
Worse than most classes (1)
I don't know, it's hard to say (1)
IV. What is your relationship with class teacher?
Better than most teams (3)
About the same as in most teams (2)
Don't know. (1)
V. What is the attitude towards work (studies, etc.) in your team?
Better than most teams (3)
About the same as in most teams (2)
Worse than in most teams (1)
Don't know (1)
Levels of Group Cohesion
15, 1 points and above - high;
11.6 - 15 points - above average;
7 - 11.5 - average;
4 - 6.9 - below average;
4 and below - low.
5) Diagnostic technique “Make a wish”
The child is told that there is such a belief: if you see a star falling and have time to make a wish, it will definitely come true. “ Imagine that you see a shooting star. What wish would you make?”
Processing of the results can take place according to the following scheme: write down desires, summing up those that are repeated or similar in meaning:
Material (things, toys, etc.);
Moral (having animals and caring for them, etc.);
Cognitive (learn something, become someone);
Destructive (break, throw away, etc.).
8) Graphic test “I am a position”
A circle is drawn on a piece of paper. The student puts a dot - his “I” relative to the circle (it can be placed in the circle, the center of the circle, behind the circle). The purpose of this test is to identify the nature of children’s self-esteem and the place of each child in the team. The results of this test can be used to form classroom self-government.
) Test “Pedestal”
Students in the class are given sheets of paper on which they must build a podium for the award. The pedestal consists of 3 steps. They must lead 1 person from the class to each step. The student has the right to keep one step for himself if he considers it necessary. Those children who, in their opinion, are a significant figure in the life of the class are placed on a pedestal.
This technique allows you to see the relationships of students in a team, their attachment to each other, and determine the moral side of student relationships. You can role-play the situation: “You have to participate in sports competitions. Who would you like to see win?”
The results obtained will give an idea of the main properties of the child’s personality, which are expressed in the unity of knowledge, attitudes, motives of behavior and actions.
A parable about spiritual emptiness...
Sad kindness walked along the road,The soul drove her out of her heart.She cried out: - I don’t need tears and worries,After all, life without them is easy and good.Understand, she said, times are alarming and evil,Sentimentality and sadness don’t suit me.Why waste heat on good actions,Take Love and Faith on a long journey.And I’m with you: - said compassion,Fear plagues me from lies and greed.After all, since the creation of the universe,I played on Love's lips.They left their hearts, obeying the parting words,And callousness laughed after them.Cold and gloomy insensibility crept there,GOD'S light was blocked by indifference.I went into all sorts of troubles, my soul was devastated,Forgetting about Conscience, sweeping aside Honor.Gray without repentance, unforgiven before GOD,She was filled with betrayal and arrogance.*The rule was* acquisitiveness, permissiveness reigned,And the world seemed ghostly good.As soon as the stupid heart calmed down in arrogance,Trouble stabbed a sharp knife into the soul.The blood from the wound was cold, gushing restlessly,But there is nothing to heal the enemies around.And now, with a hoarse voice, the soul screams desperately,Love, Nadezhda Vera help...Goodness heard the call, whispered repentance,Healing, a stream of living tears poured out.Forgiveness and sincerity know no distance,If the *lesson* is learned reliably. * * * Having been cleansed from the coma of evil, the soul barely recovered,Do not defile your hearts with emptiness.Keep love with faith, a simple rule of life,To avoid a *ridiculous* end.
After all, as one wise man said, “Know yourself and you will know the world.”
Who am I in this black and white world?
In which bird does my soul live?
Maybe the wing is broken
And I’m not allowed to fly?
Perhaps I feel lonely?
Or maybe I’m singing together with someone,
Or am I enjoying wide freedom,
Or am I taking care of my nest?
That's the miracle in every bird - me!
How multifaceted my life is.