Научно-методические основы влияния социально-психологических свойств руководителя на управленческие решения

Аннотация

versus concrete, Conforming versus non-conforming, Self-sufficient versus dependent, Tender-hearted versus tough-minded, Uninhibited versus shy, Impatient versus relaxed, Suspicious versus trusting, Outgoing versus reserved. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Based on the results of R. Kettel’s method of identifying managerial decision- makers’ characteristics, a number of aspects of personality traits which may improve decision-making process in higher education have been shown: Factor 1. A. The leader’s “Outgoing versus reserved” is one of the key factors in his / her preparation for the activity. This feature of respondents created a positive correlation with “boldness” (4.92). It is observed that the growth in communication and leadership in decision-making (6.47) can lead to increased courage and courage in working directly with subordinates and business contacts. 2. B – factor. The low Intelligence indicator in higher education management staff (3.46) contributes to “increased emotional instability (5.21), while” intellect increases the dominance of relationships. The rise of “Intellect” index, in turn, can be seen in the formation of a trustworthy internal connection in the manager. Decrease in intelligence can lead to lower efficiency in decision-making in troubled situations. [Table 2]. Table 2 Characteristics of personality in respondents by R. Kettel’s test occurrence (in percent) INDICATORS FACTORS PERSONAL AND SOCIAL BASED FEATURES Low High The accuracy of the test True or false 46,7 53,3 А Outgoing versus reserved 4,92 6,47 В Intellectual ability 3,46 5,21 С Emotional instability versus emotional stability 6,92 6,96 Е Forceful versus submissive 6,89 7,22 F Calm versus high-strung 6,68 7,10 G Spontaneous versus restrained 8,46 6,61 H Uninhibited versus shy 5,98 7,19 I Tender-hearted versus tough-minded 6,84 6,49 L Suspicious versus trusting 8,50 5,08 M Imaginative versus practical 4,76 4,26 N impudence versus diplomacy 4,88 5,14 O Worried versus confident 6,56 7,74 Q Conservatism-radicalism 5,86 6,30 1 Q Flexible versus attached to the familiar 3,86 4,18 2 Q Self-control low or high 5,63 6,52 3 Q Stress disposition high and low 9,80 7,53 4 TOTAL: 100% 100% 3. C – factor. Emotional instability increases the susceptibility of managers to emotional activity (6.92), and that certain managerial activities increase the dependence on performance and decision-making, and reduce self-control. Emotional stability reflects the probability of developing a strong control over their behavior (6,96). 529 Жамият ва инновациялар – Общество и инновации – Society and innovations Special Issue – 4 (2021) / ISSN 2181-1415 4. E – Factor. Submissive versus forceful (6,89–7,22) is reflected in the increase of “diplomacy” in relations. 5. Factor F. The Calm versus high-strung feature F (6,68-7,10%) reported that respondents had anxiety and rigidity, characterized by their enthusiasm and general behavior. 6. E-Factor indicates that a person has these qualities, while demanding for their own behavior (6,56–7,22), independence and leadership, and also indicates that they have low self-esteem and tend to subordinate to the circumstances and situation. 7. N – factor. impudence versus diplomacy points to the strong development of some of the managerial activities (5.14 – 4.88%), the manifestation of emotion, the difficulty in communicating, the inability to understand the inner world of people, rudeness. 8. Q4 – Factor of Stress inclination and Stress resistance – Q4 (9,80–7,53) indicates that respondents have symptoms of tension. 9. M – factor. Practicality in the process of action. The results of factor M (4,26–4,76), which contribute to the analysis of M characteristics, indicate that respondents have symptoms of abstraction, avoidance of specific situations and reality, and excitement. 10. Q1 – factor. Conservatism-radicalism (5,86–6,30) points to the fact that the manager has low elasticity, the power to give in to a situation or circumstances. 11. Q2 – factor. Respondents' level of independence (4.18–34.83%) showed a high degree of community dependence. 12. Q3 – factor. Self-monitoring of behavior (6.52–54.53%) indicates low respondents’ internal conformation, irresponsibility in the implementation of established social and legal requirements. In the analysis of personality traits, we found that performance indicators (A, B, C, L, M, N, O, Q1, Q4) were significantly lower than those of management personnel. Such a development of personality traits can lead to the conclusion that management can not only influence the formation of key performance characteristics, but also impede future achievement in this area. In addition, managerial activities showed a lack of certainty in certain activities, lack of consensus, and clear direction. It was also observed that some of those involved in management activities had low tolerance to emotional factors, lack of self-confidence, rapid excitement, and nervous system weakness. When analyzing suc