Trust within an Organization and Effectiveness of Activities: From the Model to Instruments
The article studies trust as an important factor that has a significant impact on social interaction within an organization. The article presents the results of the conducted correlation analysis of data from questionnaires, obtained in one Tomsk company, on the level of trust, the degree of effectiveness of activities by employees, quality of work, as well as a number of socioeconomic parameters: satisfaction with wages, general job satisfaction, the level of selfrealization in work, working conditions, the level of leadership. The analysis made it possible to reveal a positive correlation at the level of 0.502 between trust and effectiveness of activities (correlations are significant at p = 0.05). The study also revealed a high positive correlation at the level of 0.781 between the real level of trust and the acceptable level of trust, which is determined by the structural features of the organization, the stage of the life cycle and the features of the organization’s configuration, according to Henry Mintzberg. The conducted empirical research also made it possible to determine that labor collectives with a higher level of trust also had higher labor productivity. The obtained results made it possible to develop instruments for managing the level of trust within the organization, which includes a number of stages: assessment of the acceptable level of trust in the company’s divisions (stage I); assessment of the real level of trust in the company’s divisions (stage II); mapping the discrepancies between the acceptable and the real levels of trust (stage III). In order to assess the acceptable level of trust (stage I), it is required to determine the configuration of the organization, identify the stage of its life cycle, allocate and classify the structural parts of the organization, and, as a result, to quantify the acceptable level of trust for each division. At stage II, the employees of the divisions are questioned. The author proposes to determine the assessment and subsequent mapping of divisions according to the degree of demand for trust mechanisms (stage III) by calculating the difference in points received by each division at stages I and II. The divisions that received the highest results at stage III are recognized as most urgently in need of the development of trust mechanisms. The results of testing the instruments developed by the author in one of the companies in Tomsk are described in the article. The instruments made it possible for the company to identify the divisions of the organization that required trust building and to propose a new approach to the formation of a reserve for the rotation of managers and selection of candidates for senior positions in the “problem” divisions. The new approach contributes to improving the quality of social interaction in separate divisions and in the whole company.
Keywords
social and labor relations,
trust,
labor productivity,
leadership rotation,
organization’s configurationAuthors
| Kaz Evgenia M. | Tomsk State University | gk123a@mail.ru |
Всего: 1
References
Li D., Liu J. Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: Evidence from China // Journal of Business Research. 2014. Vol. 67. P. 2793-2799. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.007
Goll I. Rational decision-making and firm performance: the moderating role of environment // Strategic Management Journal. 1997. Vol. 18. P. 583-591. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7<583::aid-smj907>3.3.co;2-q
Jansen J., Crossan M. Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of environmental dynamism // Elsevier. The Leadership Quarterly. 2009. Vol. 20. P. 5-18. DOI: org/ 10.1016/j. leaqua.2008.11.008
Сорокин П.А. Система социологии. М.: Астрель, 2008. 1003 с.
Doise W., Mugny G. Social interaction and cognitive development: further evidence // European Journal of Social Psychology. 1976. Vol. 6. P. 245-247. DOI: 10.1002/ej sp.2420060207
Lopes P. N. et al. Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction // Emotion. 2005. Vol. 5(1). P. 113-118. doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113
Heffner T., Rentsch J. Organizational commitment and social interaction: a multiple constituencies approach // Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2001. Vol. 59. P. 471-490. DOI: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1808
Deutsch M. Trust and suspicion // Sage journal. 1958. Vol. 2 (4). P. 265-279. DOI: 10.1177/002200275800200401
Worchel S., Austin W. G. Trust and Distrust. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA : Cole Publishing. 1979. P. 174-187.
Antonenko I., Rotenberg K. Psychology of social trust // Book of Abstracts: XVI European Congress of Psychology (Moscow, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2-5 July, 2019). Moscow : Moscow University Press, 2019. 2160 p. URL: https://ecp2019.ru/doc/ Book_of_Abstracts_ecp_2019.pdf
Журавлёва Л. А., Сумарокова В. А. Особенности доверия и недоверия у студентов экономических вузов // Вестник РУДН. Серия: Психология и педагогика. 2014. № 3. C. 60-65. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/ri/osobennosti-doveriya-i-nedoveriya-u-studen-tov-ekonomicheskih-vuzov
Зинченко В.П. Психология доверия. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. Самара : Изд-во СИОКПП, 2001. 104 с.
Позняков В.П. Региональные и гендерные особенности доверия российских предпринимателей к различным видам организаций // Экономическая психология в России и Беларуси. Минск : Экономпресс, 2007. С. 274-297.
Скрипкина Т.П. Антиномия доверия к миру и доверия к себе в человеческом бытии // Развитие личности. 2011. № 3. С. 111-131.
Gambetta D. Can We Trust Trust? in Gambetta, Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, chapter 13. 2000. P. 213-237.
Селигман А. Проблема доверия. М. : Идея-Пресс, 2002. 256 с.
Штомпка П. Доверие - основа общества. М. : Логос, 2012. 440 с.
Веселов Ю. Доверие и справедливость. Моральные основания. М. : Аспект Пресс, 2011. 231 с.
Axelrod D., Goold S. Maintaining trust in the surgeon-patient relationship: challenges for the new millennium // Arch Surg. 2017. Vol. 135 (1). P. 55-61.
Miller M., Hoppe S. Attributions for job termination and psychological distress // Human Relations. 1994. Vol. 47. P. 307-327.
Радаев В. О доверии: классовом и личном // Harvard Business Review. Россия. Бизнес и общество. Экономика. 2012. URL: https://hbr-russia.ru/biznes-i-obshchestvo/ ekonomika/a11427
Ляско А. Межфирменное доверие и шумпетерианские инновации // Вопросы экономики. 2003. № (11). С. 27-40. URL: https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2003-11-27-40
Tyler T., Kramer R. Whither trust? Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, 1996. 423 p.
Kaz E.M. Trust in the development of labor relations and well-being at work // The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS). Lifelong Wellbeing in the World (WELLSO 2016). 2017. Vol. ХІХ. P. 291-297. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2017.01.40
Каз Е.М. Фактор «доверие» в концепциях мотивации трудовой деятельности // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Экономика. 2016. № 3 (35). С. 206-218.
Минцберг Г., Альстрэнд Б., Лэмпел Дж. Школы стратегий. СПб. : Питер, 2000. 330 с.
Мундриевская Ю.О. Структура и факторы формирования социального капитала вертикально интегрированного холдинга // Иниция. Актуальные проблемы cоциальных наук. (26-27 апреля 2013 г.). XV Всероссийская конференция молодых учёных. Томск: Издательский Дом Томского государственного университета, 2014.С. 151-155.
Купрейченко А.Б. Психология доверия и недоверия. М. : Институт психологии РАН, 2008. 564 с.
Адизес И.К. Управление жизненным циклом корпорации. СПб. : Питер, 2011. 384 с.
Бергер Д., Бергер Л. Энциклопедия систем мотивации и оплаты труда. М. : Альпина Паблишер, 2008. 768 с.
