Зверев_ Phd Summary (1136601), страница 4
Текст из файла (страница 4)
SOCIETY. PERSON" (on October 3031, 2013, Moscow), XXII International conference of students, graduate students and young scientists Lomonosov (on April 13-17, 2015).The structure of a dissertation is determined by a plan of a research and consists of introduction, two chapters, the conclusion and also the list of references containing the name of246 scientific works of russian and foreign authors, including 81 sources in foreign languages.The main content of the thesis is stated on 178 pages. Drawings and summary tables and also sixenclosures are included.In chapter 1 the existing approaches to the study of a phenomenon of the work group andmethods of its formation and assessment are described. Results of the empirical research including determination of features of demand for services of formation of the work groups in theRussian market of training services and also methodology, stages and the analysis of results ofcheck of the general and specific hypotheses of a research are given in chapter 2.MAIN CONTENT OF THE DISSERTATIONThe relevance and the degree of scientific development of the problem, an object, a subject, the purpose, tasks and hypotheses of a research are formulated, described theoretical andmethodological background, empirical base, the scientific novelty and arguments of the dissertation to be defended are given in introduction.In chapter 1 "A socio-psychological training for formation of the work groups in theorganization" the theoretical bases of studying of the work groups are discussed, the phenomenology of the work groups reveals, ways of their formation and typology of the work groups arepresented.
The analysis of development of a socio-psychological training for formation of thework groups, processes of group dynamics, types and also tools of assessment of its efficiency iscarried out.Paragraph 1 discloses relevance of application of group forms of interaction in the organizations and shows that now the considerable practical experience of increase in efficiency ofthe organizations due to development of the work groups is accumulated. At the same time in theearly nineties in scientific community actively discussed a problem of groundlessness of similarapproach and it was even called team tyranny (Sinclair, 1992).In paragraph 2 distinctive features of the work groups, teams and collectives are described. Arguments in favor of the fact that the concept "team" is collective for all work groupsaimed at performance of a task which participants have to cooperate to achieve a common goal(Koenig, Schattenhofer, 2014) are adduced.
The decision to use the term "work group" for allcollectives and teams described in work is made.It is noted that the majority of definitions of the work groups includes such elements asgroup cohesion and perception by members of group unity. Besides, estimating results of activityof the created work group it is common to speak about emergence of synergetic effect (James,Roffe, 2000; Steven, 1994; Tannenbaum, Yukl, 1991; Wood, 1995).11It is supposed that emergence of synergetic effect is mediated by emergence of a phenomenon of the mutual reflected subjectivity of participants (Petrovsky, 2009) which is shown inthe form of peculiar contributions of participants to opulence of the identity of each other (Petrovsky, 1985).In paragraph 3 is shown that modern professional literature contains a significantamount of typology of the work groups.
For this purpose the wide range of criteria of divisioninto types is considered: from compensation forms to the strategy of the organization (Borovikova, Petrov, 2005; Derkach, Kalinin, Sinyagin, 1999; Kalinin, 2009; Wellborn, Gomez-Mehia,2008; Chanko, 2001; Scermerorn, Hunt, Ocborn, 2004; Macintosh-Fletcher, 1996; Nogueira,Raz, 2006; Parker, 1994; Strozniak, 2000).The nature of joint activity in many respects defines features of formation of the workgroups therefore Y. Zhukov, A. Zhuravlev and E. Pavlova's typology has been chosen for thisinvestigation. Authors suggest to divide the work groups on two criteria: range of activity andinterchangeability of members (Tab.
1).Table 1. Work group types (Zhukov, Zhuravlev, Pavlova, 2008)Work group typeRange of activitiesInterchangeability ofmembers"Task team"NarrowLow"Team of specialists"NarrowHigh"Team of changes"WideLow"Management team"WideHighIn paragraph 4 the socio-psychological training for formation of the work groups in theorganization is considered. Is shown that formation of the work groups becomes the most effective at an integrated approach when besides a training it includes diagnostics and elements of organizational consultation (Argyris, 2004; Zhukov, 2004; Moiseyev, 2007; Pavlova, Zhuravlev,2006).It is noted that attempts of allocation of types of a training for formation of the workgroups were very little. Only few typologies have been described.
V. Ekimova and A. Kokurinallocate types of a training for formation of educational groups (Ekimova, Kokurin, 2015). E.Salas, D. Nichols and J. Driskell allocate: cross-training, adaptation and coordination and selfcorrectional types of a training for formation of the work groups (Salas, Nichols, Driskell, 2007).Y. Zhukov, A. Zhuravlev and E. Pavlova note that development of the work groups can be developed on instrumentual and socioemotional axes (Zhukov, Zhuravlev, Pavlova, 2008).
Thegiven approaches are few and fragmentary.12Conclusion about need of creation of system model of types of a training for formation ofthe work groups which would consider the previous experience of developments, types of thework groups and also corresponded to relevant requirements of the organizations is formulated.Paragraph 5 contains arguments in favor of the fact that for effective implementation ofprograms for formation of the work groups it is necessary to influence processes of group dynamics purposefully: group identification, group standard setting, group cohesion process, groupleadership, role differentiation, group decision-making (Andreyeva, Bogomolova, Petrovsky,2002; Bazarov, Rybkin, 1998; Bolshakov, 1996; Zhukov, Zhuravlev, Pavlova, 2008; Krichevsky,Dubovskaya, 1981; Lipatov, Lovakov, 2012; Petrovsky, Shpalinsky, 1978; Umansky, 1977;Chanko, 2001; 2004; Stroh, 1998; 2001).
The paragraph contains the description of processes ofgroup dynamics and feature of their updating in training process.Paragraph 6 includes the analysis of methods of assessment of socio-psychological efficiency of a training for formation of the work groups. Is shown that the purpose of a sociopsychological training can be defined as achievement of changes of psychological, sociopsychological and other characteristics of the person, group, the organization (Zigon, 2008). Aconclusion about expediency of assessment consists in work not of economic, but sociopsychological effects (Zhukov, 2003; 2013).Justification and the description of parameters of efficiency of a socio-psychologicaltraining for formation of the work groups are given in paragraph 7.
A. Kovalyov shows in histhesis that the area of results of action of group processes during the socio-psychological training is defined in three components of influence on the identity of participants: emotional, cognitive and behavioral (Kovalyov, 1980). This approach is applied also in the context of formationof the work groups (Makarov, 2010).Is proved that as an emotional component of training result in work the parameter ofgroup cohesion is considered.
As cognitive – the parameter of group entitativity. Sets of emotional, cognitive and behavioral components – personality’s opulence of each other. Thus thepossibility of measurement of efficiency of a training for formation of the work groups bymeans of assessment of change of these parameters is shown.In paragraph 8 conclusions of the theoretical section are formulated.In chapter 2 "The empirical research of characteristics of group dynamics in the socio-psychological training for formation of the work groups of various types" four investigation phases are described.Paragraph 1 includes the description of the program of a research. The main hypothesisof a research is given, it is noted that its check has been made by us by means of the formingexperiment (holding the developed socio-psychological training for formation of the workgroups of various types).
Specific hypotheses of a research are formulated:H1: Joint growth of values of socio-psychological efficiency (group entitativity, groupcohesion, personality’s opulence of the group members) of the work group "task team " happensat use of the training module actualising processes of group dynamics group identification andgroup standard setting.13H2: Joint growth of values of socio-psychological efficiency (group entitativity, groupcohesion, personality’s opulence of the group members) of the work group "team of specialists"happens at use of the training module actualising processes of group dynamics group identification, group standard setting and group cohesion process.H3: Joint growth of values of socio-psychological efficiency (group entitativity, groupcohesion, personality’s opulence of the group members) of the work group "team of changes"happens at use of the training module actualising processes of group dynamics group identification, group standard setting, group cohesion process, group leadership and role differentiation.H4: Joint growth of values of socio-psychological efficiency (group entitativity, groupcohesion, personality’s opulence of the group members) of the work group "management team"happens at use of the training module actualising processes of group dynamics group identification, group standard setting, group cohesion process, group leadership, role differentiation andgroup decision-making.Paragraph 2 At the first investigation phase has been carried out the analysis of demandfor training services of formation of the work groups in the Russian companies.
For the solutionof this task poll of directors of HR management and heads of departments of training and development of personnel of the Russian companies has been organized and held to the period fromAugust, 2013 to November, 2014. Selection of a research was made of representatives of 200organizations: 132 heads of departments of training and development of personnel and 68 directors of human resource management.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
