Helpness system as a marker of employes in a labour collective

1123

Abstract

From the psychological point, we consider the phenomenon of mutual aid in the workplace. We reveal its importance as a marker that helps employees to categorize relations on the principle of “friend-or-foe”, “us– them” The analogy is drawn with Ericksonian understanding of the construct of trust and its role in labor relations. A comparative analysis of the principles of social exchange and approaches to social sharing of the lead researchers in social psychology and psychology of influence is performed. Particular attention is paid to the study subjects and its relations to culture characteristics, social capital, and organizational culture. We discovered an interesting phenomenon of microculture that exists within the “big” corporate culture. Relevance of the work is determined by the economic situation in our country in 2010-2013.

General Information

Keywords: organizational psychology, psychology of influence, mutual aid, mutual exchange, labor collective.

Journal rubric: Psychology of Professional Activity

Article type: scientific article

For citation: Barannikov K. Helpness system as a marker of employes in a labour collective [Elektronnyi resurs]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie psyedu.ru [Psychological Science and Education psyedu.ru], 2013. Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 339–348. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

References

  1. Vesnin V.R. Menedzhment: Uchebnik: 3-e izd. M., 2006.
  2. Kabachenko T.S. Metody psihologicheskogo vozdeistviya. M.,2000.
  3. Kabachenko T.S. Psihologiya v upravlenii chelovecheskimi resursami. SPb., 2003.
  4. Karpov A.V. Psihologiya menedzhmenta. M., 2000.
  5. Luman N. Formy pomoshi v processe izmeneniya obshestvennyh uslovii. M., 2005.
  6. Mashkov V.N. Psihologiya upravleniya. SPb., 2002.
  7. Melibruda E. Ya-Ty-My. M., 1986.
  8. Meskon M., Al'bert M., Heduri F. Osnovy menedzhmenta. M., 1999.
  9. Obuhova L.F., Dvornikova I.N. Ritualy kak sredstvo formirovaniya splochennosti sem'i // Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie. 2008. № 4.
  10. Olport G. Stanovlenie lichnosti. M., 2002.
  11. Poteryahin A.L. Psihologiya upravleniya. Kiev, 2004.
  12. Reisshman R.V. V pomosh' rukovoditelyu. M., 2007.
  13. Saimon G.A., Smitburg D.U., Tompson V.A. Menedzhment v organizaciyah. M. 1995.
  14. Sergeichuk A.V. Sociologiya upravleniya. SPb., 2002.
  15. Skripkina T.P. Psihologiya doveriya. M., 2000.
  16. Tatarko A.N., Lebedeva N.M. Kul'tura i ekonomicheskoe povedenie: Sb. nauch. statei. M., 2011.
  17. Travin V.V., Magura M.I., Kurbatova M.B. Motivacionnyi menedzhment. M., 2005.
  18. Frezer D.D. Zolotaya vetv'. M., 1980.
  19. Fromm E. Iskusstvo lyubvi. M., 1990.
  20. Chaldini R. Psihologiya vliyaniya. SPb., 2009.
  21. Erikson E.G. Detstvo i obshestvo. SPb., 2000.
  22. Esseks L., Kasei M. Teper' ili nikogda: novyi stil' upravleniya. M., 2010.
  23. Cotton D. Keys to Management. L., 1999.
  24. Glaff M.M., Marks M.J. The Dependence Phenomenon. England, 2011.
  25. Knack S. Social capital and the quality of government: Evidence from the states// American Journal of Political Science. 2012. Vol. 46.
  26. Putnam R.D. The prosperous community: social capital and public life// American Prospect. 2012. Vol. 4.

Information About the Authors

K. Barannikov, Ph.D student at the Psychology faculty of the National research university Higher school of economics, e-mail: kbarannikov@mail.ru

Metrics

Views

Total: 4980
Previous month: 41
Current month: 15

Downloads

Total: 1123
Previous month: 4
Current month: 1