The Study of the Socio-Psychological Climate and the Level of Satisfaction of Employees with their Work in the Apparatus of the Government of the Krasnoyarsk Territory

Rostovtseva Marina Viktorovna Doctor of Philosophy Professor, Siberian Federal University 660030, Russia, Krasnoyarskii Krai oblast', g. Krasnoyarsk, ul. Vil'skogo, 18a, kv. 58 marin-0880@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Artyukhova Tat'yana Yur'evna PhD in Psychology Associate Professor, Department of Developmental Psychology and Counseling, Siberian Federal University 660028, Russia, Krasnoyarsk oblast', g. Krasnoyarsk, ul. Svobodnyi, 79 tartjuhova@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Ben'kova Oksana Anatol'evna PhD in Psychology Associate Professor, Department of Developmental Psychology and Counseling, Siberian Federal University 79 Svobodny Prospekt str., Krasnoyarsk, 660041, Russia shulakovaoa@mail.ru Fedorova Elena Prokop'evna PhD in Psychology Associate Professor, Department of Psychological Anthropology, Moscow Pedagogical State University 119435, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Malaya Pirogovskaya, 1/1 epfedorova@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Garibyan Elena Robertovna not working temporarily 354383, Russia, Krasnodar Krai region, Verkhneveseloe village, Voroshilovgradskaya str., 8g hehine@yandex.ru

Introduction. Today, the effectiveness of the functioning of an enterprise or organization largely depends on psychological factors. In conditions of high competition, the socio-psychological climate in the labor collective and the problems associated with the condition of its formation and maintenance take the first place among such factors.The unfavorable socio-psychological climate in the team becomes a source of many production problems, violations of labor discipline by employees, disruptions of the production process, and a decrease in the results of the organization's activities.

Karl Marx also spoke about the importance of industrial relations and their impact on productivity.

In any team there are certain interactions that cannot be accurately displayed in the staffing tables. The socio-psychological climate arises as an informal component of the organization structure, which is based on acceptance or rejection, sympathy or antipathy of the members of the labor collective ^{[2, 12]}.

For example, interpersonal intra-group conflicts arise in the informal part of the organization's structure, and then leave their mark on the labor productivity of employees, preventing the effective performance of work duties.

The integrity, cohesion, and coherence of the workforce depends on the consistency and unity of formal and informal structures. The more favorable the socio-psychological climate and atmosphere, the greater the result and greater success the team can achieve. In this regard, the issues of studying the socio-psychological climate of the collective as a factor of the effectiveness of the organization's activities are becoming relevant ^[1].

Joint, non-conflicting decision-making on various issues increases the creative potential of employees, helps to reduce stress levels; related problems are better solved in the working group, possible consequences of unclear distribution of responsibilities and mismanagement, conflicts at the interpersonal level are smoothed out, which is facilitated by a favorable psychological climate.

In the process of political interaction of subjects of political communication, the socio-psychological climate determines a lot. Assessing the current situation, some politicians and sociologists note the need for purposeful formation of a socio-psychological climate for more productive and effective work, since it can be a tool that helps not only to build relations between politicians with each other, but also to correct the socio-political state, improve the psychological climate in society, regulate public relations.

In the process of political communication, the socio-psychological climate in a team can serve as a basis between political groups of different levels, determine the mood of a civil servant, and therefore the effectiveness of his work in the process of communication with the public. Thus, the adoption of important decisions affecting the people and the state as a whole may depend on the characteristics and nature of the socio-psychological climate ^[4].

The problem of identifying the features of the socio-psychological climate in state apparatuses of different levels has not been sufficiently developed, which is usually due to the specifics of the object of research, the need to observe state secrets in certain cases, the status of inviolability of a civil servant, etc.

We have undertaken a study, the purpose of which was to determine the nature of the socio-psychological climate in the team at the apparatus of the government of the Krasnoyarsk Territory and to establish its relationship with employee satisfaction with their work.

The subject of this study is the peculiarities of the socio-psychological climate in the apparatus of the Government of the Krasnoyarsk Territory and the satisfaction of employees with their work.

Theoretical review.

The concept of "climate" was first mentioned in social psychology. Often synonyms of climate are such concepts as atmosphere, collective spirit, mood.

Today, in Russian science, there are four approaches to understanding what a socio-psychological climate is.

In the first approach (L.P. Bueva, E.S. Kuzmin, N.N. Obozov, etc.), scientists understand the socio-psychological climate as a special state of collective consciousness. It implies reflection in the mass consciousness of the specifics of relationships, working conditions, methods and means of labor, incentive processes, etc. ^{[2, 6, 9]}

Representatives of the second approach (A.A. Rusalinova, A.N. Lutoshkin) emphasize the general emotional mood, saying that it is an important characteristic of the socio-psychological climate. Here the climate is the mood of the people ^{[8, 12]}.

Proponents of the third approach (V.M. Shepel, V.A. Pokrovsky, B.D. Parygin) investigate the socio-psychological climate from the point of view of people's relationships that determine the social and psychological well-being of each member of the group ^{[10, 15]}.

The authors of the fourth approach (V.V. Kosolapov, A.N. Shcherban, L.N. Kogan) analyze the climate through the concepts of social and psychological compatibility of group members, their moral unity, cohesion, the presence of common opinions, customs and traditions ^[6].

In American social psychology, they talk about the "organizational culture" in organizations, about the relationship between workers and managers. The study of the influence of climate on labor productivity was carried out by such scientists as: 70. Harris P.R., Hempton D., Charles E. and Ross A. , Marlou C. and others ^{[16, 17, 18]}.

Today, various scientists and researchers have studied and are studying the problem of the formation of a socio-psychological climate, approaches to the development of a favorable psychological climate in the team are being formed, the structure, factors, the relationship between the psychological climate and the performance of their role by employees of the organization, the attitude of employees to work are being determined. Thus, N.V. Grishina ^[4] defines the factor of formation of the optimal psychological climate – the immediate conditions and content of work activity, which includes the level of coincidence of official and unofficial job responsibilities ^[3]. Such scientists as A.G. Zdravomyslov, Popova L. G. Tisunova, V. N. et al. were engaged in the study of the problem of the relationship between job satisfaction and its effectiveness ^[14]. These scientists proved that there is a close relationship between the efficiency of labor activity and human satisfaction with work.

The socio-psychological climate in the structure of the management of the State Service for Combating Economic Crimes under the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic is studied by Salmorbekova R.B., Karabaeva I.B. ^[13]

The formation of a favorable socio-psychological climate based on the development of soft and hard competencies in the conditions of digitalization of the economy is studied by Vereshchagina L.S. ^[3]; social and legal factors affecting the socio-psychological climate of student groups of the Financial University under the government of the Russian Federation is studied by Guskova K.V. ^[5].

Research and methods: "Express methodology" for the study of the socio-psychological climate in the team of O.S. Mikhalyuk and A.Y. Shalyto; N.P. Fetiskin's methodology; "Integral satisfaction with work"; assessment of the psychological atmosphere in the team (according to A.F. Fiedler);.

The study was conducted on the basis of the Government of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, in three x numbering 62: 1 (U1) - 24, management 2 (U2) - 17, management 3 (U3) - 18 people. For natural reasons, the sample elements were encrypted.

The methodology of O.S. Mikhalyuk and A.Y. Shalyt allows to identify emotional, behavioral and cognitive components of relationships in a team. The survey was conducted according to the methodology in Departments 1, 2, 3, all forms were filled out anonymously. No one has openly expressed a desire to fill in. The results of the study according to the methodology are presented in Figures 1, 2, 3.

Figure 1 – Individual assessments of individual components in Management 1.

Based on the results of the study, the atmosphere in the team of Y1 is unsatisfactory, since the average components of the assessment by indicators are included in the third group – negative. All components (emotional, cognitive, behavioral) are in the negative group from -1 to -0.33.

Figure 2 shows the results of a study on the methodology in Management 2.

Figure 2 – Individual assessments of individual components in Management 2

Management 2 is also dominated by an uncertain psychological climate, since the average scores on indicators are included in the negative second (according to the methodology) group. All components, except emotional, are negative.

Figure 3 shows the results of a study on the methodology in Management 3. An uncertain psychological climate also prevails here, since the average estimates are insignificant in magnitude (0.11), although they have a positive orientation. The emotional, cognitive, behavioral component is expressed slightly positively.

Figure 3 – Individual assessments of individual components in UP 3.

Thus, the psychological climate according to the methodology of O.S. Mikhalyuk and A.Y. Shalyto in the apparatus of the Government of the region can be characterized as unfavorable. In teams, many would not like to get to know each other better, spend time together not only within working hours, are not interested in each other besides work.

According to the results of the methodology for assessing the psychological atmosphere in the team (according to A.F. Fiedler), the average percentage of the psychological atmosphere was determined in all three Departments, which is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4– Psychological atmosphere in the collectives U1, U2, U3.

Based on the results, we can conclude that the psychological atmosphere in the three teams is closer to negative. The lowest is in Y1, the highest is in Y2. Since according to this method, the lower the percentage obtained, the more favorable the psychological atmosphere.

According to the method of N.P. Fetiskin "Integral satisfaction with work", it is possible to evaluate not only the overall satisfaction with one's work, but also its components. The survey using this method was also conducted anonymously. Figures 5, 6, 7. The results of the study are presented.

Symbols:

1 – interest in work; 2 – satisfaction with achievements in work; 3 – satisfaction with relationships with employees; 4 – satisfaction with relationships with management; 5 – the level of claims in professional activity; 6 – preference for high earnings; 7 – satisfaction with working conditions; 8 – professional responsibility; 9 – overall job satisfaction

Figure 5 – Results of the survey using the method of N.P. Fetiskin "Integral job satisfaction" in U1

The results of the survey reflect the disadvantage of the individual in the workforce, employees are not satisfied with the work they do, there is no satisfaction with relationships with employees and management, since almost all indicators have a low and below average percentage of satisfaction and are in group 1 (according to the methodology – up to 44%).

Figure 6 shows the results of the study in Management 2.

In U2, the situation is better than in U1. The U2 team is in the second group in terms of satisfaction with their work by large indicators (45% or more according to the methodology. The average percentage of job satisfaction is 55%), which means that the team is on average satisfied with their work. The overall satisfaction with the work of the U2 team has a high satisfaction index (Fig.6).

Symbols:

1 – interest in work; 2 – satisfaction with achievements in work; 3 – satisfaction with relationships with employees; 4 – satisfaction with relationships with management; 5 – the level of claims in professional activity; 6 – preference for high earnings; 7 – satisfaction with working conditions; 8 – professional responsibility; 9 – overall job satisfaction

Figure 6 – Results of a survey using the method of N.P. Fetiskin "Integral job satisfaction" in U2

Figure 6 shows the results of the study in U3.

Overall job satisfaction in U3 is quite low, its percentage is 43.6, which is in the low group. Accordingly, the team at U3 is not satisfied enough with their work, the team, the organization of work, relationships with employees and management.

Figure 7 shows the results of integral job satisfaction in U3.

Symbols:

1 – interest in work; 2 – satisfaction with achievements in work; 3 – satisfaction with relationships with employees; 4 – satisfaction with relationships with management; 5 – the level of claims in professional activity; 6 – preference for high earnings; 7 – satisfaction with working conditions; 8 – professional responsibility; 9 – overall job satisfaction

Figure 7 – The results of a survey using the method of N.P. Fetiskin "Integral job satisfaction" in U3.

If we graphically present data only on the last indicator from the methodology – 9 – overall job satisfaction (Fig.8), then we will see that employees are satisfied with their work in the U2 team, in the U1 and U3 teams, on the contrary, employees are less satisfied with their work.

Figure 8 – Overall job satisfaction in the collectives U1, U2, U3.

We assumed that the level of employee satisfaction with their work affects the socio-psychological climate of the team. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a correlation analysis on two variables: the level of SEC (A.F. Fiedler's method) and job satisfaction (N.P. Fetiskin's method).

Table 2 shows the results of correlation analysis in Y1, Y2 and Y3 using the Spearman coefficient.

The relationship between feature Y and factor X is strong and direct

Table 2 – Correlation analysis in Y1, Y2 and Y3

Based on the results of the correlation analysis, we see that the relationship between the variables is strong and direct, which means that the level of socio-psychological climate depends on the level of satisfaction with the work of the team. Correlation analysis proves that in a favorable socio-psychological climate, the level of satisfaction with work in the team is high, in an unfavorable socio-psychological climate - low.  

Conclusion. Thus, having conducted a study of the socio-psychological climate and the level of satisfaction of employees with their work, in three departments of the Government of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the following conclusions were made.

In the apparatus of the Government of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, an unfavorable socio-psychological climate prevails in two departments (negative values according to the methodology of O.S. Mikhalyuk and A.Y. Shalyto). According to the survey results, many employees do not want to get to know each other better, spend time informally together, and maintain friendly ties.

According to the results of the methodology for assessing the psychological atmosphere in the team (according to A.F. Fiedler), in all three managements, the psychological atmosphere is closer to negative. The lowest is in Y1, the highest is in Y2. This also confirms the data obtained by the first method.

Integral (according to the N.P. methodology) is also at a low level in two departments, which indicates the disadvantage of employees in this team, dissatisfaction with work is observed, which means that employees do not make special efforts to achieve the best result of their work, employees are not satisfied with the relationships in the team and prefer to work alone.

 In management 3, the level of employee satisfaction with their work is higher than in the first two. Employees are satisfied with their average level.

It was suggested that the level of employee satisfaction with their work affects the socio-psychological climate of the team. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a correlation analysis on two variables: the level of SEC (A.F. Fiedler's method) and job satisfaction (N.P. Fetiskin's method) using the Spearman coefficient. Correlation analysis showed the existing relationship: that in a favorable socio-psychological climate, the level of job satisfaction in the team is high, in an unfavorable socio-psychological climate, it is low.

In order to establish a favorable edge in the team, we can offer the following recommendation to the management of three departments.

Purposeful systematic psychological work is needed to create a favorable socio-psychological climate in the departments in five main areas: the creation of favorable psychophysiological; the work of the management of the departments to optimize and improve the system of recognition of employees' activities; providing management employees with great opportunities; to ensure continuous professional development; to reflect on their own style, highlighting the pros and cons.

Work in these areas will, in our opinion, improve the socio-psychological climate in the staff of the Government of the region, however, the main factor in the formation of a prosperous psychological climate is still the mutual motivated desire of both management and employees to work and interact together, cohesively and harmoniously, striving to achieve high work results.