Psychological conditions for the formation of pedagogical teams

Makeeva G.A.

Institute for the Development of Professional Education
Russia, Moscow
e-mail: gamlet.75@yandex.ru

Introduction

The effectiveness of teachers as a cohesive teaching team presents a particular challenge for improving modern education. The pedagogical process is being modernized due to the dynamic nature of the education system in response to rapidly changing socioeconomic conditions. At the same time, the implementation of educational innovations requires the ability of educational institution leaders to unite teachers to achieve operational and strategic goals. Psychological unity characterizes a high level of development of interpersonal relationships among teachers, which is, firstly, a strong motivator for work and, secondly, creates opportunities for integrating the potential of individual teachers to address the common challenges of educational institution development. Russian social psychology possesses an impressive arsenal of theoretical approaches and practical methods for analyzing the development of interpersonal relationships. At the same time, taking into account modern competence requirements for the professional personality of teachers, previous approaches and concepts that reveal the socio-psychological mechanisms of unification of teachers, as well as the psychological conditions for the functioning of the "social psyche" [30] for past educational conditions, are becoming insufficient in modern realities. To solve the problem of the "internal unity of teachers", the so-called team approach is being actively developed in psychology, the foundations of which are the key provisions of pedagogical management and management of educational systems [6; 13; 28; 38, etc.], management psychology [5; 8; 9; 26, etc.], organizational psychology [7; 10; 23; etc.], social educational psychology [14; 29, etc.]. The team approach to management ensures the effective activity of the teaching staff in dynamically changing conditions, and also creates favorable conditions for the development of professional interpersonal relationships of teachers, promotes their unity. A number of modern psychological and pedagogical dissertations are devoted to various aspects of the formation of pedagogical teams [32; 33; 36, etc.]. However, a systematic justification for the approach to the analysis of psychological mechanisms and conditions for the formation of pedagogical teams is absent in these works, which determines the relevance of studying the discussed psychological and pedagogical problem.

Psychological specificity of the teaching staff

Traditionally, in Russian social psychology, the concept of a collective has been used to characterize the highest level of development of relations in the context of joint work [8; 26]. Moreover, the term collective has several meanings. In relation to our study, it is first necessary to determine the meaning in which the term "teaching staff" is used. According to the Pedagogical Encyclopedic Dictionary, the first meaning of a teaching staff is determined by a formal feature: it is the staffing structure of an educational institution, including administration, teachers, school psychologists, and technical personnel. The second meaning: a teaching staff, in terms of content, is an association of "like-minded people who create their own educational system, build the educational process on the interaction between teachers and students, and respect the personality of each pupil" [25, p. 192]. To overcome possible discrepancies, it is proposed to use the term "work collective" for the first meaning, and "teaching staff" for the second. Given the psychological and pedagogical focus of our study, it is appropriate to use the second, psychological definition, but with a slight modification: the teaching staff, in its socio-psychological aspect, is viewed as the highest level of development of professional interpersonal relationships among teachers, characterized by a shared purpose in their joint activities and a high degree of cohesion. Of course, this definition does not claim to be exhaustive, as the collective psyche is much more meaningful, "deeper and richer." However, in relation to our work, the definition formulated appears convenient and easy to understand for the readership.

The psychological characteristics of a teaching staff can be revealed using the conceptual framework of small group social psychology [2; 24]. A key tenet of the socio-psychological approach is the thesis that the real objective connections of employees are reflected in their interpersonal relationships. Moreover, interpersonal relationships themselves influence both the staff and the individual. When analyzing the phenomenon of a team, it is important to consider a whole range of socio-psychological parameters, such as: common goal, specific interactions, sense of belonging, degree of trust in relationships, openness/closedness of the group, communicative structure, psychological climate, cohesion, etc. [Ibid.].

A comprehensive critical analysis of the psychological specifics of teachers' collective activities, implemented using a socio-psychological approach, made it possible to identify the following key features of the teaching staff: a) the teaching staff is an open social group, since it carries out its activities within a wider community (students, parents, administration); b) the ineffectiveness of the teachers' communication system, which is manifested in the fact that teachers mainly communicate with each other "through students" [29, p. 306], since each one implements his or her own subject program; this circumstance levels out the team-forming factor, since the success/failure of one teacher does not become a factor in the success/failure of another; c) the effectiveness of the teaching staff is conditioned by the continuity of educational stages, when the achievement of the goals of teachers working with high school students depends on how effectively teachers worked with them in the lower grades; d) the lack of optimal scientific criteria for the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the teaching staff's activities, combined with the unsatisfactory "percentage of academic success" criterion.

Another important characteristic of pedagogical work is teachers' communicative overload, which creates the preconditions for their emotional burnout. The psychological preconditions for communicative overload include the need for teachers to perform their professional activities verbally [21]. This factor exacerbates the imperfections of the school's communication system, as teachers' unfavorable emotional state reduces the "intensity of professional communication" [24, p. 84] and also contributes to teachers' professional and personal alienation. Taken together, these factors lead to ineffective work not only for the individual teacher but also for the entire workforce [19, p. 54].

A brief critical analysis reveals that objective and subjective factors influence the interpersonal relationships of teachers in an educational organization. The large number of parameters proposed by the socio-psychological approach poses certain methodological and instrumental difficulties in simultaneously taking them into account when normalizing and developing interpersonal relationships among teachers. Furthermore, the multiplicity of parameters within the teaching staff creates an uncertain socio-psychological situation that hinders the achievement of collectivist relationships (in the classical understanding of A.S. Makarenko [18], K.D. Ushinsky [34]) and the creation of a team of like-minded individuals. Consequently, the teaching staff does not meet the criteria for the highest level of interpersonal relationship development.

The solution to the problem of creating interpersonal relationships between teachers that ensure the optimality and effectiveness of their work can be the substantiation and development of a team approach - a psychological concept of a pedagogical team.

Methodology of the teaching team

In domestic and foreign science, various definitions of the essence of the concept of a team are presented, formulated taking into account such criteria as: time of existence, management method, specificity of the tasks to be solved, etc. To characterize the state of the problem, we will cite only the most common approaches to the concept of a team. In foreign management psychology, it is worth highlighting the works of M. Armstrong, D. Katzenbach and D. Smith, who give similar definitions of a team - "a small group of people with complementary skills, committed to common goals, practical tasks and approaches, in relation to which they are accountable to each other" [3; 4, pp. 289-290; 41]. As can be seen, the authors focus on the correspondence between rational community and responsibility of members as an essential characteristic of a team. This approach allows us to identify a set of functional roles of team members that objectively reflect the nature of responsible and community relations of subjects.

Domestic approaches largely highlight the autonomy and equality of team members as key characteristics [11; 28; 37]. At the same time, an important condition for the functioning of a team is the maximum correspondence of the individual's personality to the position he occupies, which reinforces the feeling of his indispensability and increases the value of "his unique set of professional and personal characteristics" for others [27]. It should be noted that these interpretations are in some contradiction with the role interchangeability of team members, traditionally postulated by domestic researchers as one of the essential functional characteristics of team relations. In addition, domestic definitions are more suitable for the concept of an "autonomous work group", whose members "are given a common task, and they are given the authority to determine for themselves how this work should be done" [4, p. 322]. The team characteristics identified by the authors are also contradictory. For example, M.I. Ryskulova attributes this to the presence of a conscious common goal, a subjective position in relation to other team members, and empathy [31]. At the same time, these same characteristics of group interaction can also be attributed to a team (see [24; 26]).

A brief analysis of the current state of the problem of defining the concept of a team reveals that a unified approach to understanding its essence is currently lacking. A solution may be to consider the team phenomenon from the perspective of an activity-based approach [15; 16], as well as using key tenets of organizational psychology [17; 23].

The activity-based approach allows us to view a social group from the perspective of collaborative activity. People come together to accomplish a task. Collaboration is necessary because it is difficult for individuals to satisfy their own needs alone. Essentially, any activity is collective. A key prerequisite for effective collaborative activity is the presence of a common goal among participants. A goal is the intended result of transforming an object in the surrounding environment. This shared goal is achieved through the participants' understanding of common methods and techniques for transforming the object. This is possible through communication among participants, during which various ideas are discussed, intentions are formulated, and future actions are coordinated.

If we are talking about a common goal of joint activity, then its achievement is quite accessible by rational (reflexive) means. And does not present any particular difficulties for the subjects, provided that communication is constructed constructively. The situation is different with the motives of the subjects. A common goal of joint activity does not guarantee common motives [22]. And herein lies the key socio-psychological difference in the states of group relations. After all, with different motives of the subjects of joint activity, it will be difficult to achieve group cohesion, reveal their psychological compatibility, overcome conflict in relationships, etc. However, all this is possible if goal and motivational unity are ensured. In those conditions that are perceived and evaluated by the subjects of joint activity as similarly as possible. Based on this position, leading criterion The unity/disunity of the goals and motives of the subjects is used to determine the nature of the relationships between members of a joint activity.

To reveal the organizational and psychological mechanisms for achieving goal and motivational unity, let us turn to the concept of organizational culture [39]. According to E. Schein, organizational culture is «a pattern (scheme, model, framework) of collective basic ideas acquired by a group in solving problems of adaptation to environmental changes and internal integration, the effectiveness of which turns out to be sufficient to consider them valuable and to transmit them to new members of the group as the correct system of perception and consideration of the named problems» [Ibid., pp. 31-32]. The meaning that is extracted from this definition for understanding the mechanisms of value-motivational unity is that something, unifying People's unity, expressed consciously, behaviorally, and motivationally, arises during the confrontation and resolution of external problematic influences on a social group. In other words, periods of crisis, critical situations, and direct or perceived threats to the group's existence unite its members internally and externally to resolve or prevent them. The key to successful problem resolution is the accumulation and integration of employees' potential, their unification into a team-like entity characterized by a unified social psyche. It is in this case that psychological unity arises, and it is possible to speak of group cohesion. Moreover, the duration of team unity is directly proportional to the impact of external destructive factors. Resolving crises and existential threats marks a transition to group functioning based on the multi-motivated nature of its members, i.e., to collective rather than team-based relationships. Summarizing the above, we can draw a brief accompanying conclusion: constructive influence on a social group leads to rational, conscious unity, while destructive influence integrates group members, including at the motivational level.

Using different manifestations of the relationship between the degree of commonality of goal and motivational unity, we can identify the following types of state of interpersonal relations in a social group (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Types of interpersonal relations in a social group

Crowd A crowd lacks either goal or motivational unity. It is a gathering of people who share no common goals but are bound by a similar emotional state and focus. As B.D. Parygin notes: "In a crowd, the conscious personality thus disappears, while the feelings and thoughts of all participants acquire a single direction" [24, p. 310]. Without a conscious component, it is impossible for a person to plan goal-oriented behavior or define the purpose of an activity. Motive is inherent in activity, not behavior, which is primarily understood as external and internal activity in response to environmental influences. In relation to behavior, it is correct to consider the needs of the individual, but not motives. Consequently, a crowd is driven by emotions and basic needs.

Quasigroup is characterized by the similarity of motives of its members. The essence of a quasi-group is that it is «an unintentionally and spontaneously emerging social group in which there are no stable expectations and conscious understanding of the opposition of its interests and goals to the interests and goals of another (other) group» [40]. For members of a quasi-group, unifying motives are either outside of joint activities (extrinsic motivation), or based on the life position of the individual, his aspirations and drives (intrinsic motivation) [12; 35]. Examples of quasi-groups are a fan group, an audience, participants in role-playing games, a rally, etc. It should be noted that the members of a quasi-group do not have common goals. By the way, the phenomenon of a quasi-group, as well as extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, should be considered for the analysis of the phenomenon of professional amateurism. Which will undoubtedly be carried out in our next studies.

Team – is a group of like-minded people with a common goal of joint activity, strategy, plans, and a common understanding of the means and methods of achieving this goal. A.S. Makarenko defined the essence of a team as follows: «A team is a free group of workers united by a common goal, a common action, organized, provided with management bodies, discipline, and responsibility» [18, p. 16]. As can be seen, collective relations are characterized by the subjects« awareness of the common goal of joint activity, reliance on the distribution of labor functions, planning, organization, and control. A team as a psychological state is inherent in many groups of employees who ensure the functioning of an organization under »normal« conditions. People work together, understand what is required of them, and adequately realize their personal and professional potential. At the same time, the motives of team members vary. After all, no matter how highly a person identifies with a social group, he will still have a desire for individuality, a need not to »dissolve” personally in society. And this is possible only on the basis of personal motives. Thus, the team is characterized by a common goal of joint activity, but different motives.

Team – a group of specialists characterized by a common goal of joint activity, as well as motivational unity that arose in the course of solving current problems of their existence and functioning as a social community.

In relation to the problem we are studying, we will formulate a definition of the phenomenon teaching team – is a group of teachers who have a common consciousness in relation to the difficulties that arise in the educational process, which are perceived as disruptors of joint pedagogical activity and encourage integration to resolve them.

In support of the formulated approach to the concept of a pedagogical team, we can cite a number of definitions given by some representatives of Russian pedagogical science, and partly similar to the one postulated by us. For example, in defining a pedagogical team, N.A. Solova points to the importance of common motives, goals, and values of joint pedagogical work [33]. E.A. Aleksandrova highlights such key characteristics of a pedagogical team as common goal settings and motivation for teamwork [1]. It should be noted that these authors consider a pedagogical team in relation to project activities, which directs the understanding of this phenomenon within the framework of the distribution of roles and functional responsibilities. This, in our opinion, significantly negates the semantic psychological content of the concept of a pedagogical team.

Thus, the psychological condition for the formation of team relations is the achievement of the target and motivational unity of the subjects of joint activity.

Organizational and activity-based game as a method of forming a pedagogical team

Investigating the psychological mechanisms of collective mental states is a complex scientific task due to the fact that reliable results can only be obtained under conditions as close to natural as possible. In other words, experimental procedures must be conducted while subjects are engaged in joint professional activities. When applied to a teaching staff, this task is complicated by the specific nature of pedagogical activity. After all, although teachers work with a single subject (the student's personality), each teacher plans and implements individual pedagogical activities. Teachers' understanding of collective work is often limited to discussing current school issues at teachers' councils. In this case, in the teacher's mind, joint professional activity is represented as a combination of individual forms of labor, which poses a professional and personal barrier for the researcher-practitioner when fostering the goal-oriented and motivational unity of teachers.

To address this problem, it is necessary to select appropriate research methods. The primary focus of experimental work is the creation of specific psychological conditions for teachers to "reflectively exit" their current professional situation and "look at it from the outside," as if it were the past. This methodological approach allows for an objective assessment of the potential of both collective and teamwork, as well as the development of a model of the "needed future" [20, p. 125]. The optimal method for solving this problem is an organizational activity game. During the organizational activity game, teachers can form collective understandings of the purpose of joint activities and achieve motivational unity in the search for solutions to reduce the risks of potential disruption to shared work.

Conclusion

The conducted theoretical study shows that there is currently no unified approach to understanding the phenomenon of the pedagogical team. In psychological and pedagogical literature, the pedagogical team is primarily defined as a special form of collective. Existing definitions do not provide clear criteria for distinguishing between the concepts of collective and team.

The methodological basis for defining the phenomenon of a pedagogical team is the general psychological theory of activity and the organizational-psychological concept of joint activity. Taking into account the key provisions of these methodological foundations, a team is defined as a group of specialists characterized by a common goal of joint activity, as well as motivational unity arising from solving the current problems of their existence and functioning as a social community. The determining criterion is the target and motivational unity of the subjects of joint activity, the achievement of which is psychological condition formation and functioning of team relationships.

An organizational activity game is proposed as the primary method for forming a teaching team. This method enables participants to reflectively analyze a current professional situation, as well as to develop collective understanding of the purpose of joint activities and foster motivational unity among participants.

Literature

1. Alexandrova E.A. Pedagogical teams as a means of activating innovative activities of educational institutions: Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Pedagogical Sciences) dissertation. St. Petersburg, 2007. 27 p.
2. Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. Textbook for Higher Education Institutions. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2001. 376 p.
3. Armstrong M. Fundamentals of Management. How to Become a Better Leader. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1998. 512 p.
4. Armstrong M. Human Resource Management Practice. 10th ed. / Translated from English. Ed. by S. K. Mordovin. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2010. 848 p.: ill.
5. Bazarov T.Yu. Personnel Management / edited by T. Yu. Bazarov, B. L. Eremin. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. Moscow: UNITY, 2002. 560 p.
6. Vasiliev Yu.V. Workshop on control theory / ed. Yu. V. Vasilyeva, V. N. Parakhina. M.: Finance and Statistics, 2005. 304 p.
7. Vikhansky O.S., Naumov A.I. Management. 4th ed., revised and enlarged. Moscow: Economist, 2006. 670 p.
8. Dontsov A.I. Psychology of the collective: methodological problems of research. Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1984. 208 p.
9. Zbrodin Yu.M. Psychology of personality and human resource management. Moscow: Finstatinform, 2002. 360 p.
10. Zankovsky A.N. Organizational psychology: a textbook for universities. Moscow: Flinta: MPSI, 2000. 648 p.
11. Zinkevich-Evstigneeva T.D. Theory and Practice of Team Building. Modern Technology of Team Creation / T.D. Zinkevich-Evstigneeva, D.F. Frolov, T.M. Grabenko. Ed. by T.D. Zinkevich-Evstigneeva. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2004. 304 p.
12. Ilyin E.P. Motivation and motives. St. Petersburg: Piter, 512 p.: ill.
13. Konarzhevsky Yu.A. Pedagogical analysis of the educational process and school management. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1986. 144 p.
14. Kuzmina N.V. Methods of systemic pedagogical research. Moscow: Narodnoe obrazovanie, 2002. 208 p.
15. Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Moscow: Politizdat, 1977. 2nd ed. 304 p.
16. Lomov B.F.Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. 448 p.
17. Lutens F. Organizational behavior / translated from English. 7th edition. Moscow: INFRA-M, 1999. 692 p.
18. Makarenko A.S. Works: in 7 volumes. M.: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the RSFSR, 1952. T. 7. 216 p.
19. Mitina L.M. Psychology of development of competitive personality. Moscow: Moscow Psychological and Social Institute, 2002. 400 p.
20. Myskin S.V. Psychological features of the organizational culture of an educational institution: diss. … candidate of psychological sciences. Moscow, 2005. 213 p.
21. Myskin S.V. Structure and content of professional communication // Questions of psycholinguistics. Moscow: Institute of Languages of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Medical Academy, 2020. No. 1 (43). P. 54-63.
22. Myskin S.V. Generalization strategy as a factor in conflictogenicity of communication // Organizational psycholinguistics. Moscow: OOO "Agency of social and humanitarian technologies", 2022. No. 1 (17). P. 10-24.
23. Newstrom J.V., Davis K. Organizational behavior. St. Petersburg: Piter-Yug, 2000. 446 p.
24. Parygin B.D. Social Psychology. Textbook. St. Petersburg: SPbGUP, 2003. 616 p., 4 p. ill.
25. Pedagogical Encyclopedic Dictionary / ed.-in-chief B.M. Bim-Bad. Moscow: Bolshaya Rossiyskaya Encyclopedia, 2003. 527 p.
26. Petrovsky A.V. Psychological theory of the collective. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1979. 240 p.
27. Pilipchevskaya N.V. Formation of the pedagogical team of the educational organization // Sevastopol Cyril and Methodius Readings. Sevastopol: SSU, 2022. No. 15. Pp. 268-274.
28. Potashnik M.M. On the formation of a pedagogical team at school // School technologies. Moscow: Public education, 2012. No. 5. pp. 12-18.
29. Rean A.A., Kolominsky Ya.L. Social educational psychology. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2000. 416 p.
30. Rudensky E.V. Social Psychology. Lecture Course. Moscow: INFRA-M; Novosibirsk: NGAEiU, "Siberian Agreement", 1999. 224 p.
31. Ryskulova M.N. Key aspects of the integrative-faceted method of developing students' teamwork skills // Global scientific potential. St. Petersburg: International Public Organization "Fund for the Development of Science and Culture", 2019. Pp.
32. Svetenko T.V. Strategic management in education: a teaching and methodological set of materials for training tutors / T.V. Svetenko, I.V. Galkovskaya, E.N. Yakovleva. Moscow: APKiPPRO, 2007. 76 p.
33. Solovova N.A. A study of the effectiveness of forming pedagogical teams in educational institutions through training // Conference Proceedings of the Research Center Sociosphere. Czech Republic, Prague: Vedecko vydavatelske centrum Sociosfera-CZ sro., 2015. No. 29. P. 293-
34. Ushinsky K.D. Selected Works. In 4 books. Book 3. Man as a Subject of Education. Experience of Pedagogical Anthropology (1) / compiled, notes and commentary by E. D. Dneprov. Moscow: Drofa, 2005. 557 p.
35. Heckhausen H. Motivation and activity: In 2 volumes. Vol. 2. M: Pedagogy, 1986. P. 234-
36. Tsinareva T.A. Formation of pedagogical teams as a means of increasing the human resources potential of a university: diss. … Cand. of Pedagogical Sciences. Moscow, 2010. 152 p.
37. Chanko A.D. Teams in Modern Organizations (+CD): textbook. Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University. St. Petersburg: Graduate School of Management Publishing House, 2011. 408 p.
38. Shamova T.I. Educational Systems Management: A Textbook for Students of Higher Educational Institutions / T. I. Shamova, T. M. Davydenko, G. N. Shibanova; edited by T. I. Shamova. 3rd ed., reprinted. Moscow: Academy, 2006. 384 p.
39. Shane E. Organizational Culture and Leadership / Translated from English edited by V.A. Spivak. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2002. 336 p.: ill.
40. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy [Electronic resource]. URL: https://psychology_pedagogy.academic.ru/ (date accessed: 15.05.22).
41. Katzenbach J., Smith D. The Magic of Teams, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1993.

References

1. Aleksandrova EA. (2007) Pedagogical teams as a means of activating innovative activity of educational institutions: author's dis. cand. ped. sciences. St. Petersburg, 27 p.
2. Andreeva GM. (2001) Social psychology. Textbook for higher educational institutions. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 376 p.
3. Armstrong M. (1998) Fundamentals of management. How to become a better leader. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix. 512 p.
4. Armstrong M. (2010) Human resource management practice. 10th ed. / Translated from English. Ed. by SK Mordovina. St. Petersburg: Piter. 848 p.: il.
5. Bazarov T.YU. (2002) Upravlenie personalom [Personnel management] / ed. T. YU. Bazarova, BL Eremina. 2nd ed., revised and enlarged. M.: YUNITI. 560 p.
6. Vasil'ev YU.V. (2005) Praktikum po teorii upravleniya [Practical Practice on Management Theory] / edited by YU. V. Vasil'eva, VN Parahinoj. Moscow: Finance and Statistics. 304 p.
7. Vihanskij OS, Naumov AI. (2006) Management [Management]. 4th ed., revised and enlarged. M.: Economist». 670 p.
8. Doncov AI. (1984) Psychology of the collective: methodological problems of research. Moscow: MGU Publishing House. 208 p.
9. Zabrodin YU.MPsychology of personality and human resource management. Moscow: Finstatinform, 2002. 360 pp.
10. Zankovskij AN. (2000) Organizational psychology: studies. handbook for universities. M.: Flinta : MPSI. 648 p.
11. Zinkevich-Evstigneeva TD. (2004) Theory and practice of team building. Modern technology of creating teams / TD Zinkevich-Evstigneeva, DF Frolov, TM Grabenko. Ed. by TD Zinkevich-Evstigneeva. SPb: Rech'. 304 p.
12. Il'in EP. (2002) Motivaciya i motivy [Motivation and motives]. SPb.: Piter. 512 p: il.
13. Konarzhevskij YU.A. (1986) Pedagogical analysis of the educational process and school management. Moscow: Pedagogika. 144 p.
14. Kuz'mina NV. (2002) Methods of systematic pedagogical research [Methods of systematic pedagogical research]. Moscow: Narodnoe obrazovanie. 208 p.
15. Leont'ev AN. (1977) Deyatel'nost'. Soznanie. Lichnost' [Activity. Conscience. Personality]. Izd-e 2-e. M.: Politizdat. 304 p.
16. Lomov BF. (1984) Metodological and theoretical problems of psychology. Moscow: Nauka. 448 p.
17. Luutens F. (1999) Organizacionnoe povedenie [Organizational behavior] / per. s engl. Izd-e 7-e. M.: INFRA – M. 692 p.
18. Makarenko AS. (1983) Pedagogical works. Moscow: Pedagogika. 368 p.
19. Mitina LM. (2002) Psychology of competitive personality development. Moscow: Moscow Psychosocial Institute. 400 p.
20. Myskin SV. (2005) Psychological features of the organizational culture of an educational institution: dis. … cand. psihol. nauk. M. 213 p.
21. Myskin SV. Structure and content of professional communication // Questions of psycholinguistics. Moscow: IYAz RAN, MMA, 2020. No. 1(43). P. 54-63.

22. Myskin SV. (2022) Strategy of generalization as a factor of conflictogenicity of communication // Organizational psycholinguistics. Moscow: OOO "Agency for Social and Humanitarian Technologies". No. 1 (17). pp. 10-24. (In Russ.)
23. N'yustrom J. V., Davis K. (2000) Organizacionnoe povedenie [Organizational behavior]. SPb.: Piter-YUg. 446 p.
24. Parygin BD. (2003) Social psychology. Study guide [Social psychology. Studies. Scholarship]. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University. 616 p., 4 s. il.
25. Pedagogical Encyclopedic Dictionary (2003) / chief ed. BM Bim-Bad. Moscow: Bol'shaya Rossiyskaya Encyclopedia, 527 p.
26. Petrovskij AV. (1979) Psihologicheskaya teoriya kollektiva [Psychological theory of the collective]. Moscow: Pedagogika. 240 p.
27. Pilipchevskaya NV. (2022) Formation of the pedagogical team of an educational organization // Sevastopol Cyril and Methodius readings. Sevastopol: SGU, no. 15, pp. 268-274.
28. Potashnik MM. (2012) On the formation of a pedagogical team at school // School technologies. Moscow: Narodnoe obrazovanie, No. 5, pp. 12-18.
29. Rean AA, Kolominskij YA.L. (2000) Social pedagogical psychology [Social pedagogical psychology]. St. Petersburg: Piter. 416 p.
30. Rudenskij EV. (1999) Social'naya psihologiya. Kurs lekcij [Social psychology. Course of lectures]. M.: INFRA-M; Novosibirsk: NGAEiU, «Sibirskoe soglashenie». 224 p.
31. Ryskulova MN. (2019) The main aspects of integrative-facet methods of forming students' skills to work in a team // Global scientific potential. St. Petersburg: MOO "Fund for the Development of Science and Culture", pp. 115-117.
32. Svetenko TV. (2007) Strategic management in education: studies-method. a set of materials for the training of tutors [Strategic management in education: studies-method. a set of materials for the training of tutors]/ TV Svetenko, IV Galkovskaya, EN YAkovleva. M.: APKiPPRO. 76 p.
33. Solovova NA. (2015) The study of the effectiveness of the formation of pedagogical teams in educational institutions by means of training // Collections of conferences of SIC Sociosphere. Czech Republic, Prague: Vedecko vydatátelske centrum Sociosfera-CZ sro, no. 29, pp. 293–297.
34. Ushinskij KD. (2005) Selected works. In Book 4. Book 3. Man as an object of education. The experience of pedagogical anthropology (1) / compiled, edited and commented by ED Dneprova. Moscow: Drofa. 557 p.
35. Hekkhauzen H. (1986) Motivation and activity: In 2 parts. T. 2. [Motivation and activity: In 2 parts 2]. M: Pedagogika, pp. 234–248.
36. Cinareva TA. (2010) Formation of pedagogical teams as a means of increasing the personnel potential of the university: dis. … cand. ped. nauk. M. 152 p.
37. Chan'ko AD. (2011) Teams in modern organizations (+SD): textbook [Teams in modern organizations (+CD): textbook]. Higher School of Management, St. Petersburg State University. SPb.: Higher School of Management Publishing House. 408 p.
38. Shamova TI. (2006) Management of educational systems: studies. a manual for higher education students. studies. Institutions / TI SHamova, TM Davydenko, GN Shibanova; edited by TI SHamova. 3rd ed., ster. M.: Akademiya. 384 p.

39. SHejn E. (2002) Organizacionnaya kul'tura i leaderstvo [Organizational culture and leadership]/ Per. s engl. pod red VA Spivaka. SPb: Peter. 336 p.: ill.
40. Encyclopedic dictionary of Pedagogy and Psychology [Electronic resource]. URL: https://psychology_pedagogy.academic.ru/ (data obrashcheniya: 15.05.22).
41. Katzenbach J., Smith D. (1993) The Magic of Teams, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.