Informal relationships. Topic: Types of informal relationships in various organizations

Along with the formal (official) status-role system of relations in organizations, informal relationships arise that are built on unformalized socio-cultural elements - traditions, customs, moral norms and sanctions, likes, dislikes, etc.
Unfortunately, there is confusion in science about the informal layer of relationships. In our opinion, in the layer of informal relations we can roughly distinguish three layers:
1) informal norms, traditions of performing official functions by persons of various official statuses.
For example, no law or instruction regulates the relationship between a student and the rector (teacher), but it is accepted that the style of these relationships must be taken into account on the part of the student. This is the unwritten tradition of relationships;
2) the informal structure of social interactions, which can complement the official structure, and sometimes oppose it. We are talking about those aspects when unofficial statuses and roles arise in relation to group goals (informal leader, emotional leader, etc.). This informal structure may in some ways coincide with the official one (boss-leader), may exist in parallel, occasionally opposing the official structure, and may even oppose it. The presence of an informal structure for organizing the life of a group significantly complements group interactions - it plays a significant role in group control, creates a system of protection from the administrative arbitrariness of the official structure, allows one to express and defend the interests of group members before the official leadership, and creates the possibility of participation of unofficial statuses in real management of the organization. The interaction of the official and informal structure of the organization is the law of effective development of the organization, although they differ in the nature of the tasks,
306
the degree of responsibility to external bodies, resources of influence, the level of development of group “egoism”;
3) informal relationships between group members, which, unlike the first two layers of informal relationships, are in no way related to group goals. We are talking about spending free time together, relaxing, sports, entertainment, studying, etc. As a result, informal microgroups can be created within the organization, which (unlike the first two layers) are not associated with solving the group’s problems. However, these informal microgroups of employees who are emotionally particularly close and trust each other may well turn (or may not turn) into an element of the informal structure of the organization, which has a significant impact on the work of the organization as a whole.
The Hawthorne experiment revealed special role small groups of workers who spent their free time together. But these microgroups turned out to be capable of influencing the production activities of the entire plant. Despite management's attempts to control output by setting standards, these groups themselves informally regulated the pace of work. Those whose work pace was too fast (they were called “upstarts”) were subject to social pressure from the group, which, according to F. Roethlisberger and W. Dixon, was often so strong that workers deliberately worked slower and refused bonuses for exceeding production standards.
Research by P. Blau, conducted in 1963, showed that informal relationships develop at all levels of the organization, and at the top of the pyramid, personal informal connections can play even more important role in the real structure of power and in decision-making than in formal ones.
“Non-tie meetings” can be much more effective than formal negotiations. For example, personal meetings between directors and entrepreneurs often determine the policies of business corporations. Managers of large companies often consult each other informally, spending their leisure time together. Several board members of a corporation often direct its activities, making informal decisions.
The effectiveness of informal connections depends on the direction of the informal decisions made. If they proceed from the priority of the interests of the team (firm, state, etc.), then informal connections contribute to solving problems; if personal interests and benefits prevail, then informal contacts can cause a deterioration in the position of the company, the state, etc.
In a real group, formal and diverse informal relationships are closely intertwined. Friendship, personal affection
307
ity can become the basis for creating strong relationships influencing (both positively and negatively) the real course of affairs in the organization.
GROUP LEADER
The most important factor ensuring the effective functioning of the group as a whole is the activity of the leader and (more broadly) the management bodies of group activities. A group leader is necessary not only to coordinate the activities of individual group members and control.
A leader is a personal-role embodiment and personification of the interests of the group as a social subject, its integrity. The function of a leader is the constant, regular implementation and monitoring of tasks and interests of the group as a whole. He is directly responsible for the prestige, cohesion, and integration of the group. His activities, powers, rights and responsibilities primarily express precisely this group solidarity task, function. The synthesis of these components (coordination, control, expression of the interests of the group as an integrity) gives the effect of “the leader is the creator of the “group”.
Without a leader, a group is only an association of people with coinciding goals, norms, and criteria, which is doomed to collapse.
The leader is endowed with power, which exists wherever there is joint activity; this is a necessary attribute of social relations, “the essence of which is the translation of material and spiritual interests and forces into joint action”*.
Previously, we considered only the mechanism of power, abstracting from its content and tasks performed; when considering group interactions, we come close to this task. The concessions that each member of the group makes, submitting to the power decisions of the leader (government bodies), make sense and will be recognized by him as justified in cases where this power provides individuals with the opportunity to act as a single whole and receive the expected reward from this. Since participation in the group is necessary for the Actor, it means that he must obey the requirements, orders, ensuring the coordination of the actions of individual individuals (to avoid chaos), obey rational decisions adopted in the interests of the entire group as a system. And at the same time, the Actor must give up his rights, freedom, and sovereignty. Consequently, power is the most effective means developed and selected by people.
* Zdravomyslov A.G. The problem of power in modern sociology. In the book: Problems of theoretical sociology. - St. Petersburg, 1994, p. 200.
308
a comprehensive solution to issues of coordination and organization of a social group, ensuring the ability of disparate people to act as a single whole and thereby receive appropriate rewards.
In accordance with the identification of two spheres of affirmation of group interests (external - assertion of authority, positions of groups in confrontation with competing and in unity with allied groups; internal - organization of the most effective system solidary interactions between group members), the following areas of leader activity can be distinguished*:
implementation of external contacts, cooperation and confrontation with other groups, search for the most profitable external relations, defending the interests of the group before higher organizations, i.e. ensuring the best external conditions for the activities of groups;
response to calls external environment and putting forward relevant new ideas, goals for the development of the group in changed external conditions, reorganization of the internal structure of the group, norms, standards of solidarity relations in accordance with external requirements;
programming, coordinating the activities of group members in order to effectively solve problems of intra-group development, its individual participants, strengthening cohesion, group solidarity, overcoming conflicts, etc.
To carry out these functions, the leader needs certain intellectual, psycho-volitional, moral-emotional, physical-image resources; he is endowed with certain rights, privileges (power) and considerable responsibilities. Formal - informal leader.
In an informal (small) group, the leader is naturally informal. His powers, the form of realization of privileges and power, are, as a rule, of a rather diffuse, vague nature (for example, the leader of a group of friends).
In a formal group, there is often a problem of the relationship between the formal leader, officially vested with power, and the informal authority, the spokesman for group opinions and interests.
The relationship between formal and informal leader are built according to a competition scheme. Firstly, sometimes the informal leader is the leader of “emotional sympathies”, the leader public opinion, which are not competitors of ru-
* See: SchutzU. Complementary function of the leader. In the book: Modern foreign social Psychology. - M., 1984, p. 162-168.
309
I
leader (and, as a rule, do not claim this role), although they can have a serious impact on him and force him to adjust his behavior.
Sometimes an informal leader (for example, a prominent scientist) actually retains leadership positions, but formally they go to his student - when all decisions are made important issues he is guided by the opinion of his teacher.
Sometimes (in rare cases) happy occasions) the same person is a formal and informal leader.
We would like to draw attention not so much to the psychological drama that characterizes competition, and perhaps conflict, between formal and informal leaders, but to the different scope of tasks and responsibilities caused by different types of leadership.
Informal and formal leadership are two different social phenomena. First of all, the informal leader relies on the informal structure of relations between people; his tasks of influencing the situation are diffuse; it expresses primarily the interests of the group members themselves from within (“group egoism”), and responsibility for the consequences of actions is reduced.
The formal leader always develops a goal, makes decisions in accordance with many various circumstances, far beyond the scope of this group. The leader always comprehends the group in a broader macro context, exercises his powers based on official standards, and organizes the official structure of relationships between employees.
What should an effective leader be like?
For sociology there are no inherently unsuitable or inherently effective methods management. A leader must first of all correspond to the type of social reality, the type of organization of social interactions.
The main leadership styles are known, which we will present as certain “ideal” types:
authoritarian, which is built on the unconditional authority of a leader who makes individual decisions, suppresses the initiative of others, and absolutes control over subordinates. An authoritarian type of leadership can also be forced when group members have little initiative and the degree of self-organization and responsibility is low;
democratic - the desire to involve group members in management, encouraging initiative, joint discussion and decision-making, control is present,
370
but not a priority. The democratic type is appropriate and possible in conditions of highly developed personal development and high organization of individuals; the conniving style is not a leadership style in the full sense of the word; the role of the leader is extremely reduced - he is limited to signing documents and being present at meetings. The group is actually left without leadership. Solidarity ties are reduced; in fact, there is not a group, but an aggregation of people.
A general sociological analysis of an effective leadership style primarily distinguishes individual psychological, functional and social-typical characteristics of leadership. But in all cases, it is necessary to take into account that the choice of an acceptable leadership option is determined not only and not so much by the personality of the leader, the characteristics of his character, but by the willingness of group members to accept this or that type of relationship between the leader and them as acceptable.
The functional characteristics of a leader are different in different groups. In an informal group of friends, the leader cannot be authoritarian, much less despotic, in contrast to the formal leader - the manager; the leader of a research team, by definition, cannot behave with his wards in the same way as is allowed to the head of a team of low-skilled workers; leadership in a military team will, by definition, differ from leadership in a group of actors, etc.
It is especially important to distinguish between individual psychological and social typical aspects. The king may be “cruel and formidable,” or he may be “quiet,” but regardless of the personal and individual characteristics of the reigning person, the power of the king as a socially typical type of leadership most often remained unchanged. The general sociological approach proceeds from the fact that the social-typical aspect of leadership is determined primarily by the type of social motivation acceptable in a given society, in a given environment.
Traditional motivation will correspond to a very specific type of organization of leadership and power. The leader and his wards will consider an authoritarian form of relationship with unconditional unity of command, concern for the wards, etc. to be acceptable and reasonable. An attempt to introduce a democratic type of leadership in an environment where traditionalist-patriarchal foundations prevail is naive and utopian.
A democratic type of leadership is possible and appropriate for both the leader and subordinates in an environment where the priority is the individual, his independence, independence and
311
responsibility. It is naive to introduce a democratic leadership style if group members have an insufficiently developed sense of personal responsibility and independence, if they constantly expect instructions from their leader, if the level of self-organization and self-control is low.
In other words, the type of leadership must be adequate to the dominant types of social motivation accepted in a given environment, i.e. must correspond to the socio-historical, socio-cultural situation.
Another circumstance is important for understanding the problem of effective leadership.
According to one of the most significant provisions of J. Homans, put forward by him on the basis of an analysis of the results of the Hot Thorne experiment, the higher the social rank in the group, the more his actions are consistent with the norms of this group, and vice versa, i.e. only third-rank workers (unrecognized, disrespected persons in the group) can be nonconformists. They are not recognized by the group because they have not accepted group norms, since the group is not authoritative for them, and the group, in response to their nonconformism, deprives them of its trust, respect, etc. It would seem that everything is clear - the leader must be an example of fulfilling group norms.
However, based on other studies, J. Homans subsequently established the following empirical pattern: members of social groups with a high rank (leaders) and low rank (disrespected, unrecognized) are the least inclined to conformity, and members of a middle-ranking group are most inclined to conformity *.
So, from an effective leader we must expect readiness (courage) for innovation, non-conforming behavior, originality in assessments and approaches. He is more responsive to external threats, new proposals and opportunities. A leader prone to conformism is not able to propose and support, with the help of his authority, new, more appropriate patterns of behavior for the current situation. In this sense (and not just in the intellectual, emotional and charismatic sense), the leader is somewhat opposed to the bulk of the group members.
Possessing power and authority, a leader is to a large extent capable of forming new patterns of behavior in a group and creating a certain culture of organizing society. Supporting people whose behavior may be somewhat unusual for the group,
I
* See for more details: Turner J. The structure of sociological theory, p. 309-313. 312
but more adequate to the new conditions, shaping in many ways the culture of the group, the leader thereby shapes the “spirit of the group, business and organizational culture its members."
GROUP CONTROL
An important condition for the functioning of a group as a system of institutionalized solidary connections is the formation of group deindividualized norms of solidary relations and group control over their implementation.
Different groups develop different norms of solidarity behavior. The degree of implementation of mutual assistance, mutual support, the manager’s willingness to protect his employee, willingness to be faithful to his customs, etc. V decisive degree depends on the level of group control over the individual, the compliance of his behavior with certain norms and standards.
Thus, for the functioning of a stable system of solidary interactions, group control in its various types is needed, which, with the help of group “supervision” over the behavior of group members, as well as positive or negative sanctions, becomes an additional guarantor of intra-group solidarity, compliance with group norms and standards of behavior; prevents actions that destroy the unity and solidarity of group members.
It is no coincidence that the highest level of group integration is achieved with a very high level of control (sects, castes, military groups, formal organization).
Group control turns out to be the main condition for the development of conformity (voluntary or forced). Group control is temporarily able to overcome the disintegrative effect of the low authority of the group for some of its participants.
This control can be exercised in the form of external control of the group over the individual (public opinion): approval or rejection (criticism), avoidance of cooperation or encouragement. It can be expressed weakly or strongly (ostracism, reprimand, dismissal from work). The presence of external control, its timeliness, and functional accuracy are the most important condition and evidence of the development of the group as an integral social organism.
Self-control plays a special role - a modified form of external control of the group, its leaders, and public opinion over its members. The main mechanism of self-control is the inclusion of one’s “I” in “We”. The leading forms of self-control are feelings of conscience, guilt and shame in front of comrades, internal repentance, etc.
313
An important indicator of an individual’s attitude towards the group (how authoritative she is for her, how much she identifies with the group) is the depth of her feelings and repentance for her wrongdoings before “We”.
However, people may strive to avoid criticism from the group not only because the group is highly referential and highly significant for them. There are many intermediate states between being enthusiastic about a group and completely disdainful of it.
It is quite possible (especially in formal and large groups) that another group is more referent for a person, but he is not sure that he will be accepted into it, so he remains in the previous group, where certain rewards are guaranteed (maybe not very high). As a result, a certain level of self-control arises - determined not so much by a sense of conscience, but by the fear of being expelled from the group and losing, albeit not the most effective, but guaranteed support of one’s employees (let’s call this a form of forced self-control).
Concluding the description of the main characteristics of a social group, we note:
all of the listed characteristics are associated and interdependent; in this case, the main role belongs to the institutionalization of solidary interactions;
the ability of a group to act as a single whole is determined by the significant complication of the internal organization of group activity. A group is a complex organized community, regardless of its size and area of ​​functioning.

What are the good and bad things about informal relationships at work? What is the importance of informal communication for effective team management? And how to find that line that should never be crossed? Oleg Bykov, head of the network operations department of a telecommunications company, tried to answer these questions.

“Laws that are too strict are like strings that are too tight to play with. Laws that are too soft resemble completely loose strings, from which it is no longer possible to extract sound.”

Xu Xuemo. Selected aphorisms, collection “Aphorisms of Old China”

“Superiors have the right to give orders to subordinates and must check their compliance. Subordinates are obliged to obey their superiors unquestioningly.”

Charter of the Internal Service of the Armed Forces of the USSR

“And yet... Where is this guy’s button?”

From the movie "The Adventures of Electronics"

There is probably not a single manager who does not understand the importance of informal relationships in the arsenal of methods for managing a production team. Among the mass of modern methods and recommendations, there is probably not a single one that would be based purely on formal relations in the leadership process.

It may very well be that it is the ratio of formal and informal management techniques in a particular technique that determines the difference between them.

Obviously, the best option is a combination of formal and informal management methods. Their ratio is determined by common sense and the leader’s ability to act in a specific situation. And the implementation of informal management methods is ensured by informal relationships.

For a better understanding, let’s define some basic terminology:

Group- a relatively isolated association of people who are in fairly stable interaction and carry out joint actions over a fairly long period of time.

Supervisor- official status (position) of a person who is obliged to influence others (subordinates) so that they the best way performed the assigned work.

Leader- a person in a group (organization) who enjoys great, recognized authority and has influence, which manifests itself as control actions; a member of the group, to whom she recognizes the right to make decisions in situations that are significant to her, that is, the most authoritative person who plays a central role in organizing joint activities and regulating relationships in the group.

Formal leadership- the process of influencing people from the position of their position.

Informal leadership- the process of influencing people using one’s abilities, skills and other personal resources.

Informal communication is a connection with a person that involves mutual acceptance of personal qualities, understanding, agreement and psychological intimacy

Communication- the process of establishing and developing contacts between people, generated by joint activities, including the exchange of information and attempts to influence each other. Communication is the process of realizing certain relationships.

Formal communication- communication in which both the content and means of communication are regulated and instead of knowing the personality of the interlocutor, they make do with knowledge of his social role.

Informal communication- your unique connection with another person, built on the mutual acceptance of personal characteristics and advantages, which presupposes a certain level of understanding, agreement, and psychological intimacy.

This article is an attempt to consider the importance of informal communication in the arsenal of effective management tools of a manager-leader.

Each manager, during his work, accumulates a certain set of tried and tested effective management methods and techniques. Attempts to formally manage an individual or group of people quite often encounter their resistance. Informal management will either avoid such a situation (in most cases), or at least soften the control action so that it does not raise objections.

As psychologist N. Tertychnaya points out in her article “Features of informal communication at work,” informal relationships arise and exist on the basis two levels of psychological intimacy: primary and rational.

Primary level occurs already at the first contact (long acquaintance is not required, it feels as if you have known each other for a hundred years). It is characterized by high spontaneity of emotional perception, unconsciousness and is little amenable to volitional regulation. This level of intimacy is characterized by ease, a high degree of trust and understanding, a correct forecast of the partner in the situation and, finally, acceptance of him with all his strengths and weaknesses.

Rational level is based on an understanding of the similarity of attitudes, values, norms, and life experiences. It arises at a certain stage of a relationship with a person, is recognized and regulated by us.

It is believed that relationships based on common values ​​and interests (rational level) are more stable at work than relationships based on likes and dislikes.

It is impossible to unambiguously assess the pros and cons of informal communication at work. Almost always the line between formal and informal is blurred

I think you will not deny the presence in your company, as in any formal group, of informal relationships that largely determine the microclimate and internal atmosphere in the team.

It is impossible to unambiguously assess the pros and cons of informal communication at work. Almost always the line between formal and informal is blurred. On the one hand, no formal procedures can supplant informal relationships and eliminate personal interests from interaction in the production team. On the other hand, in informal communication there will always be moments that negatively affect your work and the work of your colleagues.

In the above-mentioned article by N. Tertychnaya it is given A short list of such contradictions:

1. Public opinion. A friendly relationship with a colleague often evokes jealous feelings among others, especially if your relationship is not approved. Your friend's failures may be exaggerated, and you may be accused of concealment and inaction.

2. Friendship with the leader. Such relationships inevitably cause suspicion, rumors, speculation and even envy on the part of colleagues. All your actions are examined under a microscope, and they are judged much more harshly than the actions of those who are not marked with special favor by the leader.

3. Friendly manipulations. It’s unpleasant, but true: “old friendship” often becomes an excuse for a colleague who works carelessly or allows himself to be late, be sick a lot, delay the completion of tasks and at the same time ask: “Be in my position, cover me, you know what I’m like now.” situation…"

The optimal thing for a leader is to combine the qualities of a formal and informal leader. But it is difficult to combine these social roles in one person

4. Emotional codependency. Informal communication requires constant emotional return from partners. And this, unfortunately, is a difficult task. Remember how alarming a sudden cold tone from someone approaching you can cause. This tone and detachment force you to look for the reason for the change in relationships, reconsider your actions and behavior in the recent past, and look for ways to get closer. Such a discrepancy often brings emotional instability to contacts and interferes with work.

5. Ethical issues. You may have access to confidential information negative consequences. Having learned about the organizational crisis, misunderstandings with the tax inspectorate, protracted financial problems, you will have to make a difficult choice - to stay or think about your own well-being and look for another place. Moreover, in such a situation you will have to hide the unpleasant truth from your colleagues.

This does not mean at all that you cannot work with friends or that it is necessary to clearly draw a line: “Before six we work with you, and after six we are friends.” In some cases, it is simply necessary to formalize the relationship- even if not in the form job description, but in the form of a fixed range of responsibilities and powers. In addition to white and black, there are also options in between, so you will have to be creative in choosing control methods.

At the same time, we must always remember that people unite in groups not only to perform a certain job, obtain a result and be rewarded for it. Group- this is an environment of self-affirmation and self-knowledge, an objective human need for communication.

Formal groups are created to carry out production activities in accordance with the chosen strategy at the will of the organization’s leaders. They have a formally appointed leader, a formal structure, a position within the group, their tasks and functions are described and formally enshrined in relevant documents. For a manager, informal communication in a group is an additional informal channel for receiving important information concerning both the situation at the enterprise and outside it.

How to find and not cross the line friendly relations at work - depends on wisdom, tact and character colleagues and friends

The manager cannot but be interested in the state of interaction in the group, because the effectiveness of management depends on it. Since informal relationships often play a greater role than formal ones, the manager must know the laws of group dynamics and ways to influence the development of informal interactions. This influence must be targeted.

Effective group- this is a group in which interactions are characterized by cohesion, mutual respect, and understanding. This is a group rallied around a leader. And leadership differs in the power of influence on members of the group (organization). People obey one leader unquestioningly, while they follow the advice or instructions of another only as long as they do not conflict with their own interests and attitudes.

The optimal thing for a leader is to combine the qualities of a formal and informal leader. However, combining these social roles in one person, especially the role of a manager and an emotional leader, is difficult to achieve. For maximum efficiency of personnel management, it is necessary that the manager at the same time be at least a formal leader.

In general, full-fledged leadership allows you to manage people without their resistance and discontent, formal control, fear and punishment.

According to many scientists, leaders are born, but they become even more so through training, persistent individual work, illuminated by knowledge practical experience and the skills acquired therein. Based on all this, in principle, almost every competent leader can become a business leader, and in many ways an emotional leader (though this is not always required) leader.

The practice of informal relations by the manager will ensure the involvement of employees in the regulation of formal relations within the apparatus, the resolution of almost inevitable frictions and conflicts, and assistance in establishing informal contacts that will not turn employees into a closed corporation, but will contribute to the growth of management efficiency.

What are informal relationships in an organization? These are the relationships that stop being just business and become personal. This happens all the time. After all, sometimes you can see colleagues even more often than family members. It is not surprising that a person tries to build relationships at work that will make him want to go to the office.

Definition

Informal relationships are relationships that can hardly be called business. They usually occur in small organizations. Employees of such companies communicate too closely, and sometimes they are relatives or best friends. There are often cases when good acquaintances begin to build. Young people welcome familiarity in the team, they even encourage it. What can it be expressed in? In joint celebrations of holidays, corporate events and simply spending the weekend in a close circle.

Employees who maintain informal relationships know not only the business acumen of their colleagues, but also their personal lives. People know who is dating whom, who has how many children, and who spends their leisure time. Informal relationships are more common in women's groups. This is not surprising when you consider that intimacy between employees is achieved through frequent, frank conversations.

Formation

People who are forced to be in close contact with their colleagues 5 days a week, willy-nilly, become part of the same team. Some offices manage to avoid establishing informal relationships, while others do not. What determines the formation of too close a connection?

• A sense of belonging. The person enjoys being part of a team. The very awareness of the fact that you are not just an individual, but a cog in the mechanism of a common cause, raises self-esteem. A person consoles himself with the thought that his colleagues cannot cope without him, and often this really happens.
• Interest. When a person likes workplace and the entire organization as a whole, he will direct all his efforts to help the company develop. Interest in a common cause greatly unites people.
• Mutual assistance. A person feels sympathy for those who come to his rescue. And when a team member is confident in his colleagues, he develops trust. And trust is the basis for any close relationship.
• Close communication. People who communicate with each other every day over a cup of tea or coffee simply cannot keep personal problems to themselves. They share them with others, ask for advice and work together to find a solution.
• Mutual protection. When a person feels sympathy and trust in his colleague, he will try to protect the person. Mutual covering for each other in front of superiors brings us closer together.

Characteristic

In any close-knit team, its members will maintain good relationships. How can you characterize informal communication?

• Identification with the group. People working in a team of close friends will perceive the fruit of the activity not as their own, but as a group one. From the members of such a team you can hear not the word “I”, but the word “we”. A person will identify himself as a member of one big family.
• Personal contact. In what kind of team can warm relationships be created? One in which everyone has the opportunity to talk frankly with each other. If people do not ingratiate themselves with their friends, their relationships will be informal.
• Distribution of roles. As in any team, in an informal one there will be a clear gradation of personalities. Every person is unique and it will show. One individual will behave warily, another too openly, and a third will find it difficult to hide his frankness.

Behind

Both formal and informal relationships have their advantages and disadvantages. Below are the advantages of those teams in which close communication is encouraged.

• Nice atmosphere. People go to work with pleasure. They perceive their service as going to a cafe with friends. Thanks to this, there are rarely discords and quarrels in the team. The general mood of colleagues is most often positive.
• Dedication to the company. Good specialists, who have found true friends in the company, will think twice before quitting their job. Even if a qualified craftsman is offered higher wages in another organization, he will most likely refuse the offer, since he will not be interested in creating new social connections.
• Commitment to developing the company. Each member of a team in which informal relationships dominate will strive to develop their organization. Why? A good relationship with management and colleagues will contribute to more effective work.

Against

Informal relationships are not what you should strive for. This is what most managers think. Why do they hold this opinion?

• Lack of self-realization. When a person knows that he is loved and appreciated, he loses interest in development. The team is like a family. If one of your colleagues does not succeed, everyone else will look at the flaws with their eyes closed. This situation often happens: an employee is a good storyteller, but a bad worker.
• Gossip. Where there is close communication, there is always room for rumors and omissions. Not only women, but also men like to tell each other gossip. Slander and slander can undermine healthy relationships in any team.
• Slowing down progress. A close-knit team often resists any innovations. It seems to people that their fragile world, which they have worked hard to build, could collapse if the boss hires several more employees, sends someone for training, or purchases new equipment.

Structure

Informal relationships in an organization can be seen as both a blessing and a curse. The close connection between colleagues influences their work activities and, as a result, their effectiveness. To successfully manage such a team, the boss must be good psychologist. The director must analyze the relationships between his subordinates. The structure of informal relations is as follows:

• Ours and others. In a group in which reigns there is a clear boundary that runs between them and the rest. Members of the team have their own roles, which are unofficially assigned. It is difficult for an outsider to enter such a social circle, and sometimes it is simply impossible to do so.
• Promotion up the hierarchical ladder. Every group has leaders and outsiders. In a team where informal communication reigns, it will not be difficult to change your social role.
• Oppression of the lower classes. Authorities often take advantage of their privileged position. Therefore, newcomers or those people who have not yet become members of the team are often oppressed by others.
• Compliance with unspoken rules. The “Code of Honor” that all team members must abide by is not written down anywhere, but violating it can lead to serious disagreements within the team.

Leaders

The informal nature of relationships contributes to the emergence of individuals in the group who occupy a dominant position. Such a person is informally considered a leader. He resolves all issues that arise, he is the one they turn to for help, and he is the one who communicates better than others with his superiors. What qualities does a leader have? He must be active and be able to gain trust. A sociable person knows everything about everyone. It is he who spreads rumors and creates the mood in the team. If necessary, the leader can force his colleagues to “be friends” against one or another member of their downed group. No one chooses leaders. Therefore, if the team doesn’t like something, the person may lose his authority, and someone else will take the vacant position.

Chiefs

Informal labor Relations forms leadership. It is the director who helps bring his subordinates closer together. If management does not support informal communication, then it will not be able to take root. It's another matter when the director is a liberal. He can encourage familiarity and communicate with his subordinates on a first-name basis without any embarrassment. Such close relationships result in the boss becoming a direct participant in the group. He will know the weak and strong points of each member of the work team. The boss will also be aware of all personal problems. The director can help all of his wards overcome life’s difficulties both morally and financially.

Novels

The scenario of informal relationships usually includes love triangle, which is formed from colleagues. Employees take liberties with each other, as a result of which a whirlwind romance begins between two colleagues. But usually such stories do not have a happy ending. The employee or employee already has a husband or wife, as well as a child. An affair at work is perceived as entertainment or an affair. There is even sympathy that arises between two colleagues who are not married; they are not destined to live a long and happy life together. Constant communication at work, gossip and misunderstandings, problems that will be transferred from the office to home will quickly destroy people's happiness. And further communication between former lovers will be very tense.

Examples

There are many examples of scenes of informal relationships. Female colleagues who work in the office more than a year, can spend their weekends together. They will meet as families, visit each other, or go to the sea together during vacation.

An example of informal communication in a team is frequent corporate events. Such events do not take place in a restaurant, where the opportunity to socialize is minimized, but directly in the office itself. The director, together with his subordinates, can drink alcoholic beverages, joke, tell obscene jokes and discuss funny cases from their practice.

Good or bad

Whether or not to have informal communication is up to management to decide. And most often, company directors come to the conclusion that friendship is friendship, and service is service. Only inexperienced businessmen encourage familiarity. A director who wants to have a strong and stable business will demand respect from his subordinates. In turn, the manager will ensure that each employee respects each other. People come to work to work, not to discuss personal problems. Specialists should primarily focus on improving their skills rather than discussing pressing matters. Only small business, whose management does not seek expansion, may allow informal communication between subordinates.

Relationships are one of the levels of influence or mutual influence. All relationships are divided into “Relationship to...” and “Relationship with...”.

When people talk about their attitude towards something or someone, they talk about their most general program of behavior and their state of readiness for it.

“I love my mother, I like tomatoes, but I hate lessons” - this is “an attitude towards...”. See Attitude

“Relationships with...” is the answer to the question “Who is who?” or "What what what?"

My relationship with my mother is excellent, with my teacher we don’t understand each other, and with my girlfriend the relationship is very different...

This article is about “Relationships with”, “relationships between”, about Relationships.

Types of relationships

Relationships are natural, social and individual (personal).

Natural relations are the relations of natural objects, determined by the laws of nature. They include spatial relationships (I am to the right, he is to the left), physical (I am lighter, he is heavier), nutritional (grass and herbivores) and others.

When an animal eats grass or another animal, it does so as naturally and naturally as you breathe or blink. Nothing personal.

Social relations - relationships social individuals, are set by social rules, traditions and regulations. These relations are administrative (I am the boss, he is a subordinate), legal (I am a creditor, he is a debtor), national and international, civil and army.

Social relations create their own psychological relationships: the traditional psychology of superior and subordinate, creditor and debtor, features of national psychology and interethnic relations.

Personal, individual relationships, or simply relationships - the relationships of people as carriers of individual cultural experience. Such relationships (friend or foe, loved or hated, persecutor and victim) are determined by individual decisions or emotions, established views, attitudes and habits between people. Speaking about relationships with someone or something, they usually describe possibilities and limitations, desires and protests, rights and obligations of mutual influence. Formal and informal relationships

Formal relationships are the name of social relationships when people expect personal relationships. Relationships when people turn off their personalities and begin to be guided only by rules and conventions. Informal relationships are those where there is a personal moment. Formal relations are relations that strictly and automatically follow from formally established rules and norms.

Formally - officially, publicly, in writing. Formally, this is about the letter, as opposed to the spirit. About the dead, as opposed to the living.

Informal relationships live by their own rules, sometimes without rules at all, at least they do not fit into the existing formally established rules and norms.

Informal is not only live. It is also something that is out of order, without order, and sometimes against order.

Informal relations include informal economic relations, hazing relations in the army, and relations between the closest people.

“Informal economic relations are the rules and norms of economic behavior that are not formally established by the laws in force in the country and differ from those described by them.” - from the dissertation of G.A. Yavlinsky, see →

Informal relationships in a team are relationships formed on the basis of personal attachments; ways of acting that differ from formally recognized methods or procedures. Informal relationships are those where there is a personal moment.

Formal relationships in a team are the name of social relationships when people expect personal relationships. Relationships when people turn off their personalities and begin to be guided only by rules and conventions.

Personal relationships are always informal. They are informal not in the sense that these are relationships without conventions and without rules, but in the fact that in addition to rules and conventions, in personal relationships there is always a moment of the personal: personal views, personal attitudes, personal emotions.

Communication plays a huge role in uniting a labor organization. In relation to a labor organization, communication is a form of interaction between members of a team and its groups in informational (cognitive), emotional and active exchange, as a result of which the unity of their value orientations, goals and behavior is formed, i.e. the organization is united.

Communication in a labor organization performs several functions:

· The cognitive function is that members of an organization or group, when communicating, exchange information about themselves, their comrades, ways and methods of solving the tasks assigned to them.

· The communicative function is that members of the organization, by communicating, form their own and the general collective emotional state. In the process of communication are born various types emotions.

· The regulatory function is manifested in the influence of organization members on their fellow workers, on their behavior, actions, activity, and system of value orientations.

The implementation of the considered functions forms a certain system of relationships in the organization, which are divided into formal (business, official) and informal (personal, informal).

Formal relationships develop between people when they perform certain production roles. They reflect functional connections between officials, employees of various categories and qualifications, managers and subordinates; they are based on norms, standards, rights and responsibilities.

Informal relationships also arise during functional connections between members of an organization, but on the basis of their individual personal qualities and are expressed in the assessment of these qualities. These relationships can arise between friends and foes, comrades and acquaintances, friends and ill-wishers, both regarding official and unofficial functions. The basis of informal relationships is attraction and rejection, attraction and repulsion, sympathy and antipathy.

Informal relations have a complex structure, the basis of which is formed by spontaneously developing stable local, small social groups. They are formed from mutual interest in various hobbies (art, sports, etc.), community territorial location work, place of residence, views, aspirations, characters, age, gender, marital status, etc. Informal groups establish their own laws of life, rules and norms of behavior for their members, form opinions on various issues, views and attitudes towards work and various aspects of the organization’s activities, towards other informal groups and the administration, and evaluate actions. Within such groups, leaders are identified who are recognized authorities for all group members, exponents of their ideas and interests.

Formal and informal relations are in close interconnection and interaction. Formal relationships can give rise to informal ones, slow down or accelerate the process of their development, and give it a certain direction and social character. Informal relationships, in turn, can actively influence formal ones, acquire a stable character and develop into formal ones. They can complement, specify, contribute to the goals of formal relations, they can be indifferent, indifferent to them, or they can contradict these goals. It is very important that informal relationships not only do not contradict formal ones, but serve as their natural complement, and in this much depends on the head of the organization.

Psychologists believe that informal relationships exist on the basis of two levels of psychological intimacy: primary and rational.

The primary level occurs already at the first contact (long acquaintance is not required, it feels like you have known each other for a hundred years). It is characterized by high spontaneity of emotional perception, unconsciousness and is little amenable to volitional regulation. This level of intimacy is characterized by ease, a high degree of trust and understanding, a correct forecast of the partner in the situation and, finally, acceptance of him with all his strengths and weaknesses.

The rational level is based on an understanding of the similarity of attitudes, values, norms, and life experiences. It arises at a certain stage of a relationship with a person, is recognized and regulated by us.

It is believed that relationships based on common values ​​and interests (rational level) are more stable at work than relationships based on likes and dislikes. If you take a close look at the informal connections existing in your team, they will most likely fit into one of five forms of interaction:

“Couple” - two people mutually sympathize with each other. Often one of them is only a complement or “companion” of the other.

“Triangle” - three people sympathize with each other and form their own small, but at the same time very close core of the team.