Construction of Instrument for Identifying Conflict in Working Team
In modern society all spheres of our work and life are permeated with communications, which influence, determine and construct our indicators of success, satisfaction. The process of communication can be transformed in different directions, from the formation of long-term, trusting relationships, to conflict confrontation, resistance. In this regard, it is important to expand the knowledge of effective tools for identifying, regulating and forming constructive relationships between teams, groups, neutralizing the negative consequences of incipient or existing conflict. In this article, we present the problem of studying the different communication styles between members of work groups, which often leads to an increase in intergroup conflicts. This is detrimental to interpersonal relationships and work productivity. The subject of the study is the study of team interaction styles that are predictors of tensions leading to inter-group conflict. The task for developing this instrument is based on the assumption that different communication styles between group members lead to group dynamic tensions that may be stimulating and helpful for the team development, but also for generating conflict. The main research question is: “How can team developers and conflict counselors identify different communication styles in work groups and treat conflicts at a very early stage?” The purpose of this paper is to develop a tool for examining communication styles in work groups. The construction of the instrument and quality control is described, from theoretical justification to factor-analytic reduction of 12 items into 4 scales and quality control of the scales. The result is an easy-to-use tool with satisfactory quality that can be applied to groups with many members. It allows group members to carefully evaluate different communication styles and identify relevant differences. Based on it, group members can directly discuss the differences between communication styles and, if a tense situation or conflict arises, deal with them constructively. As a result, this will indicate better group work, trainings, examinations and further optimization of interaction tools.
Keywords: communications, identity, working group, conflict
Journal rubric: Empirical and Experimental Research
Article type: scientific article
For citation: Redlich A., Gurieva S.D. Construction of Instrument for Identifying Conflict in Working Team. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology, 2023. Vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 113–127. DOI: 10.21638/spbu16.2023.407.
Bales, R.F., Cohen, S.P. (1979). SYMLOG — A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York,The Free Press.
Bush, R.A.B., Folger, J.P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation: Responding Conflict through Empowerment and Recognition. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Camp, J. (2012). No: The Only Negotiating System. Moscow, Dobraia kniga Publ. (In Russian)
Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conceptions, Applications and Programming. New York, Routledge, Tayler & Francis.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Imamgalieva, L.A. (2017). Socio-labor conflicts and the business culture of the organization: the question of definitions. Science. Society. State, 5, 1 (17). Available at:https://esj.pnzgu.ru/files/esj.pnzgu.ru/imam-galieva_la_17_1_26.pdf (accessed: 29.12.2022). (In Russian)
Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. London, Sage.
Fischer, J. (2012). Die Soziale Architektur von Gruppen. Anwendungsbeispiele des Gruppentests. Saarbrücken, Akademiker Verlag.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., Patton, B. (2013). Negotiations Without Defeat. Harvard Method (2nd ed.). Moscow, Mann, Ivanov and Ferber Publ.
Fürntratt, E. (1969). Zur Bestimmung der Anzahl interpretierbarer gemeinsamer Faktoren in Faktorenanalysen psychologischer Daten. Diagnostica, 15, 62–75.
Gewohn, W. (2010). Entwicklung und Evaluation eines computergestützten Verfahrens zur Objektivierung des Gruppentests “Die Soziale Architektur von Gruppen in der Teamentwicklung (SAG)”. Diplomarbeit am Fachbereich Psychologie. Hamburg, Universität.
Gizatullin, A.A. (2018). Strategies for resolving social conflicts in military units of the Russian ministry of defense. Historical and Social Educational Idea, 10, 2-2, 67–71. https://doi.org/10.17748/2075-9908-2018-10-2/2-67-71. (In Russian)
Gurieva, S.D., Udavikhina, U.A. (2014). Business game as an instrument of the study the styles of negotiations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Education and Applied Psychology (Vienna, May 14, 2014) (pp. 284–292). Vienna.
Gurieva, S., Udavikhina, U. (2015). Negotiating styles in situation of limited resources and ambiguity: “Short” and “long” communications. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 4S2, 109–117. https://doi.org10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s2p109
Gurieva, S., Borisova, M., Mikhalyuk, O., Dmitrieva, V., Odintsova, O., Kawabata, T. (2016). Trust as a mechanism of social regulation the modern youth’s behaviour. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 13, 1, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2016.100.110
Jollife, I.T. (2002). Principal Component Analysis. New York, Springer.
Korth, B.A. (1978). A significance test for congruence coefficients for Cattell’s Factors matched by scanning. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 13, 419–430.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In: Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R., Klimoski, R.J.(eds). Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12 (pp. 333–375). London, Wiley.
Kramer, M.W. (2004). Managing uncertainty in organizational communication. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Langer, I., Schulz von Thun, F. (2007). Messung komplexer Merkmale in Psychologie und Pädagogik: Rating verfahren. Münster, Waxmann.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York, Ronald Press.
Lyutens, F. (1999). Organizational Behavior. Moscow, INFRA-M Publ.(In Russian)
Mastenbroek, W. (1993). Negotiate. Kaluga, Kaluga Institute of Sociology Press. (In Russian)
Olson, D.H. (2000). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22 (2), 144–167.
Redlich, A. (2012). Konfliktmoderation in Gruppen. Hamburg, Windmühle. (In Russian: Redlich, A., Mironov, E. (2009). Moderatija Konfliktov v Organisatii. St Petersburg, Rech Publ.).
Redlich A. (2009). Die Soziale Architektur von Gruppen in der Teamentwicklung. Materialie 8, herausgegeben vom Alumni-Verein Psychologie Hamburg: Universität. https://doi.org//10.13140/RG..1.1113.6483
Redlich, A., Rogmann, J.J. (2012). Conflict Moderation: Facilitating Multiparty Conflict Resolution in Groups and Teams. In: Manichev, S.A., Redlich, A.(eds). Embedding Mediation in Society: Theory —Research — Practice — Training (pp. 119–130). St Petersburg, Dialogue Publ.; Frankfurt, Lang.
Samoilov, P.V., Sheremetov, A.Yu., Samoilov, V.M. (2015a). Economic-without danger as the basis for the national security of the Russian Federation. Vestnik of Samara State University of Economics, 2 (124), 6–10. (In Russian)
Samoilov, P.V., Fedoseev, A.I., Smarchkova, L.V., Zhitenev, S.L. (2015b). Conflict Management Crisis the situation in order to form the properties of the commercial organization in the conditions of market: survival. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta inzhenernykh tekhnologii (Vestnik VGUIT) , 4, 203–207. (In Russian)
Saucier, G., Ostendorf, F., Peabody, D. (2001). The Non-evaluative Circumplex of Personality Adjectives. Journal of Personality, 69, 537–582.
Steele, P.T., Beasor, T. Business Negotiation: A Practical Workbook. Moscow, 2004. (In Russian)
Tucker, R.L. (1951). A Method for Synthesis of Factor Analytic Studies. Personnel research section report no. 984. Washington, DC, Department of the Army.
Zinchenko, V.P. (1998). Psychology of trust. Voprosy Filosofii, 7, 76–93. (In Russian)
Information About the Authors
Previous month: 14
Current month: 0
Previous month: 5
Current month: 0