Responsibility features at different job satisfaction level of multiprofile assistance organization specialists
https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2024-12-196-207
Abstract
Responsibility features of multiprofile assistance organization specialists (on the example of Sistema-112 operators) with different job satisfaction level have been considered. The direct comparison of groups of specialists with low, average, and high job satisfaction on separate scales of the OTV-70 questionnaire has been carried out, and interrelations among OTV-70 scales, I.G. Senin’s questionnaire of terminal values, and E.V. Kharitonova’s questionnaire of socio-professional demand for personality, as well as S.R. Pantileev’s methodology of self-relationship research have been revealed. It has been shown that operators with low job satisfaction in comparison with their colleagues with average and high levels more superficially understand the essence and significance of responsibility in the life of a human and society, less often do tasks, receive less positive emotions while doing it, are less eager to do it out of the desire to be a part of their team, and are less interested in the tasks result both for others and for themselves. In the correlative pleiad, the system-forming element in them is the emotional component of responsibility. In operators with average job satisfaction the responsibility components are correlated with the subjective professional demand indicators, in operators with high level - with negative self-esteem and subjective professional demand indicators.
Keywords
About the Authors
Yu. A. AbdulinaRussian Federation
Yulia A. Abdulina, Postgraduate Student
Moscow
A. A. Aldasheva
Russian Federation
Aigul A. Aldasheva, Dr. Sci. (Psy.), Leading Researcher
Moscow
References
1. Gutsykova S.V. Complex approach to professional activity effectiveness prognosis. Priority scientific directions: from theory to practice. 2012;1:84–88. (In Russian).
2. Bodrov V.A. Job satisfaction as subjective marker of professional suitability. Human factor: Psychology and ergonomics problems. 2007;3(40):24–26. (In Russian).
3. Aldasheva A.A., Pervachova O.A. Value and meaning sphere in System-112 operators’ representations. Methodology of modern psychology. 2023;18:15–28. (In Russian).
4. Ermolaeva E.P. Psychology of social implementation of professional. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2008. 353 p. (In Russian).
5. Bicheva I.B., Danilova E.G., Noskova Yu.N. Responsibility as personality and professional characteristics of pre-school teacher. Modern pedagogical education problems. 2022;77-1:76–79. (In Russian).
6. Zhuravlev L.A., Zinchenko Yu.P., Kitova D.A., Pervachova O.A. Value and meaning determinants of professional responsibility in ordinary representations of Russians. National psychological journal. 2024;1(19):56–76. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2024.0104
7. Perevozny A.V. Responsibility as personality quality: essence, forming, meaning. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. 2021;1(21):101–105. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18500/1819-7671-2021-21-1-101-105
8. Pryadein V.P. Responsibility as system personality quality. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University; 2001. 209 p. (In Russian).
9. Astemirov A.Zh. Responsibility as personality result of FGOS education in the context of major psychological concepts. In: Psychological maintenance of school education environment safety in situation of new educational and professional standards’ implementation: Proceedings of the Russian Extramural Scientific Internet Conference, Moscow, October 2, 2015. Moscow: Emergency psychological help of MGPPU; 2015. Pp. 7–12. (In Russian).
10. Rudakova O.A., Kodenko I.Yu. Responsibility in structure of Higher School students’ personality. Humanitarian sciences. 2022;4(60):133–138. (In Russian).
11. Karapetyan L.V. Responsibility as emotional and personality well-being predictor. In: Well-being and safety in situation of social transformations: Proceedings of the X International Symposium, Ekaterinburg, July 9–10, 2019. Ekaterinburg: Gumanitarnyi universitet; 2019. Pp. 44–53. (In Russian).
12. Kudinov S.S., Arkhipochkina K.V. Personality self-actualization of teachers with different level of professional activity satisfaction. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogy. 2013;1:19–27. (In Russian).
13. Kupchenko V.E. Relationship of personality responsibility, life aims, emotional saturation of present time, past satisfaction level. Bulletin of the Omsk University. 2003;2:85–88. (In Russian).
14. Berzin B.Yu., Zykina N.E. Process motivation and social psychological adaptation in the personnel management system. Management issues. 2016;2(39):221–229. (In Russian).
15. Fetiskin N.P., Kozlov V.V., Manuylov G.V. Social psychological diagnostics of personality and small groups. Moscow: Institute of Psychotherapy; 2002. 339 p. (In Russian).
16. Senin I.G. Terminal values questionnaire: manual. Yaroslavl: Psikhodiagnostika; 1991. 20 p. (In Russian).
17. Pantileev S.R. Self-attitude study methods. Moscow: Smysl; 1993. 29 p. (In Russian).
18. Kharitonova E.V. Psychology of personality social professional demand. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2014. 411 p. (In Russian).
19. Okhotenko O.V. Influence of value and meaning directions and self-conscious on job satisfaction of school teacher: Abstr. Dis. … Cand. Sci. (Psy): 19.00.07. Мoscow: Moscow Psychological Social Institute; 2010. 24 p. (In Russian).
20. Banshchikova T.N. Conscious self-regulation in the system of cognitive and personality predictors of job satisfaction. In: Self-regulation psychology in the context of actual educational tasks. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2021. Pp. 187–193. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Abdulina Yu.A., Aldasheva A.A. Responsibility features at different job satisfaction level of multiprofile assistance organization specialists. Vestnik Universiteta. 2024;(12):196-207. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2024-12-196-207