Organizacionnaâ psihologiâ (Organizational Psychology)

Editorial office

Address: 20, Myasnitskaya, 101000 Moscow, Russia

Email: orgpsyjournal@hse.ru

Our Partners






Alexander Bulgakov 1
  • 1 Russian State University for the Humanities, 6, Miusskaya Square, Moscow, 125993, GSP-3, Russia

Organizational Humanity Index: rationale, measurement, and use

2020. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 8–37 [issue contents]
Purpose The purpose of the study is to substantiate the possibility of using the humanity index in an organization on the basis of theoretical analysis, conducting an empirical study, present the first empirical results, and outline further areas of use. Method. A comparative qualitative theoretical analysis of the concepts of humanity, the concept of Allophilia, the psychology of intergroup adaptation in organization, human development indices (HDR), organizational health (OHI), humanity at work (HI). Conducting psychometric procedures to determine the reliability and validity of the questionnaire “Index of humanity in the organization”, a comparative analysis of the data of American, Italian, Spanish scientists on the adaptation of the “A scale (Allophilia)”. The sample consisted of 297 people: 165 malesand 132 females, aged 20 to 30, six organizations, including law enforcement officers, builders, managers, teachers, students. Results. The concept of “humanity in an organization” is substantiated, the expediency of using a network two factorial (ambivalent) model in the space of components of intergroup relations “others - boss - colleague” for its measurement. Revealed reliability-consistency of all scales at a level of more than 0.8 for Cronbach’s α. A sufficiently high constructive validity of the questionnaire was determined: by factor analysis for all measurements, four factors were extracted with a load on factor1 — 68.7%, with indicators with r = .432, α = .935 in each variant of the question. The factor structure of the “A scale” remains unchanged in comparison with the American, Spanish, Italian context, despite the change in language and taking into account historical and socio-cultural characteristics. It was found that respondents, regardless of professional and organizational affiliation, have a similar profile imagein assessing relationships. Differences were revealed (Kruskal - Wallis test for independent samples) by gender-role, with the exception of indicators “to another group (ethnic)” — subscale Comfort, Involvement; to a colleague — Sympathy, Closeness. The difference from the results of European studies on gender invariance testing was revealed, in which no gender differences were found in the “A scale”. Comparison of the “A scale” among graduates of departmental and humanitarian universities showed significant differences at the level of p ≤ .001 (F-test). It is shown that, depending on the sex-role composition, thedigital indicator of the HDI grows from the male to female sample. The dynamics of the profile gives anon-linear result: in relation to the other group, the difference on all scales is not statistically different (U= .62 ÷ .132, according to the Mann — Whitney U-test for independent samples), in relation to the boss among women, there is an absolute difference (U = .002 ÷ .004). In relation to colleagues, the Sympathy and Intimacy subscales do not differ; they have differences (U = .002 ÷ .004) in the Comfort, Involvement,and Enthusiasm subscales. The value of the results. The significance of the results obtained for sciencelies in the fact that they expand the understanding of intergroup relations in organizations. This study provides empirical evidence to support that tolerance is not enough to address the human problem of an organization. The modernized and adapted “scale A” makes complex multi-level interactions in it more transparent, reduces the level of uncertainty in making managerial decisions on the development of the human potential of organizations. The developed version of the “A scale” could be a suitable tool for measuring interactions in Russian-speaking organizations both in Russia and in other countries.

Citation: Bulgakov A. (2020) Indeks chelovechnosti v organizatsii: obosnovanie, izmerenie, primenenie [Organizational Humanity Index: rationale, measurement, and use]. Organizacionnaâ psihologiâ (Organizational Psychology), vol. 10, no 3, pp. 8-37 (in Russian)
Rambler's Top100 rss