Kuzatish- tadqiqot bir uslubi bo’lib, tadqiqotchi insonlarni axloqi va madaniyatini tushunish maqsadi bilan ishlatadi. Kuzatish

Kuzatish bu tadqiqot ochiq-oydin axloqni tekshirganida qo’llanadigan uslub. Tabiiy muhitda, axloq juda uzoqqa cho’zilgan vaqt mobaynida kuzatilishi mumkin, keyin yozib olinishi va kategoriyalashtirilishi mumkin. Tadqiqot uzlubi sifatida, kuzatish uslubi, sanoatda tashkiliy psixologiyasida ko’p ishlatilmaydi, eng avvalo ko’p vaqt va quvvat talab qilganligi bois ham.

Komaki (1986) samarali va samarasiz ish boshqaruvchilarini farqlovchi xulqni aniqlash uchun izlangan. Unda 24 ish boshqaruvchilarning kuzatilgan axloq normalari bor edi: 12 tasi avvallari bsohqalarni rag’batlantirishda samarador deb va boshqa 12 tasi nisbatan samarasiz deb

Topilgan. Taxminan yigirmata 30-minutlik kuzatuvlar qilingan har bir ishboshqaruvchi xulq atvori ustida yeti oy mobaynidagi davr ichida. (jami 232 soat). Ish boshqaruvchilar kundalik yumushlarini bajarayotganlarida kuzatilgan. Kuzatuvchi yaqqol namoyon bo’lmagan, ammo eshitib turish uzoqligida bo’lgan, hamda va kuzatmalarni yozish va kodlash uchun maxsus dizayn qilingan formani ishlatgan. Komaki samarador va samarasiz ish boshqaruvchilarni farqlashga yordam bergan ilk xulq-atvor tez takrorlanuvchi va ular ishchilarining ijrosini nazorat qilishda qo’llagan xususiyat (omil) bo’lganligini aniqladi. Samarasir ish boshqaruvchilar bilan taqqoslaganda, samarador ish boshqaruvchilar ko’p vaqtini o’z ishchilarini ishlariga namuna sifatida ko’rsatib berishga (prototiplashtirishga) sarflashgan. Topilmalar samarador ish boshqaruvchilarni yetishtirib berishda nazorat qilishni tanqidiy xossasini ahamiyatini yetarli baholamaslikda deb izoh berildi. Ammo, bu xulosa amaliy dalil bilan tasdiqlanishini talab qiladi, chunki ish boshqaruvchilarining ikki guruhi taxminan natijaga ehtimolki ta’sir ko’rsatadigan boshqa omillar (xususiyatlari)ga nisbatan biror nazorat qilishga urunishsiz kuzatilgandi.

Kuzatish bu ko’pincha fikrlar hosil qilish uchun foydali uslub bo’lib, keyinchalik boshqa uslublar bilan bu fikrlarni sinovdan o’tqazilsa bo’ladi. Kuzatish uslubi savoldagi xulq-atvor paydo bo’lgan muhitda ma’lumot ta’minlab berishga boy manbadir. Ammo“devordagi pashshalar” dek harakatlansa kuzatuvchilar qanday qilib muvaffaqiyatli bo’lishadi, xulq atvorni kuzatishsayu, unga ta’sir ko’rsatmasa? Komakining izlanishida, ish boshqaruvchilar kuzatilayotganliklarini bilishardi. Shuni misol qila turib, ish boshqaruvchilar ijtimoiy talab qilingan axloqni namoyish qilib berishda qaysi darajada o’zlarining tutishlarini o’zgartirisharkin (misol, ishchilarini nazorat qilishda)? Ehtimol samarador ish boshqaruvchilar ijtimoiy signallarga samrasiz ish boshqaruvchilardan ko’ra ko’proq ta’sirchandirlar; va shuning uchun ham ijobiy uslubda tushunib olish ularni yaxshiroq amalga oshar. Eslab olingki biz xulq-atvorni izohlari bilan shug’ullanyapmiz ( “nega” bilan), xulq-atvorni o’zi bilan emas

(“ nima” bilan). Taklif qilinishicha, tadqiqot qatnashchilari tomonidan kuzatuvchining qabul qilishi va ishonchi tadqiqot uslubining muvaffaqiyatiga tanqidiy olingan.

Stanton va Rogelberg (2002) taklif qilishdiki, internet mexanizmi xulq-atvorni tadqiqot qilib o’rganish uchun juda samarador mezanizmdir, ayniqsa webkameralar va aqlli kartalarni ishlatishda.

2-1 tablitsasi tadqiqotning ikki asosiy yo’nalishda ilk to’rt uslublarini taqqoslaydi: tadqiqotchi nazorati va haqiqatiga asosan. Hech qaysi uslub har ikkala omillarda ham yuqori natija ko’rsatmaydi. Har doim ham bu yerda murosa qilinadi, izlanishning maqsadiga muvofiq,

tadqiqotchi nazorat uchun yoki aksincha, haqiqatni qurbon qilib yuborishi mumkin. Strategiya tanlovi tadqiqot maqsadi bilan boshqarilishi kerak va manbalarni yaroqli qilish kerak. Yaxshi tayyorlovdan o’tgan sanoat tashkiliy psixologi har bir uslubni yutuq va kamchiliklarini biladi.

Komaki (1986) sought to identify the behaviors that differentiate effective and ineffective work supervisors. She had observers record the behaviors of 24 managers: 12 previously had been judged as effective in motivating others and 12 judged as relatively ineffective. Approximately twenty 30-minute observations were made of each manager’s behavior over a seven-month period (232 hours of observation in total). The managers were observed as they conducted their normal day-to-day job duties. The observer stood out of sight but within hearing distance of the manager and used a specially designed form for recording and coding the observations. Komaki found the primary behavior that differentiated the effective and ineffective managers was the frequency with which they monitored their employees’ performance. Compared with ineffective managers, effective managers spent more time sampling their employees’ work. The findings were interpreted as underscoring the importance of monitoring critical behaviors in producing effective supervisors. However, this conclusion requires corroborating empirical evidence because the two groups of managers were merely observed with no attempt to control for other variables that might account for the results.

Observation is often a useful method for generating ideas that can be tested further with other research methods. The observation method is rich in providing data from environments where the behavior in question occurs. But how successful can observers be in acting like “flies on the wall,” observing behavior but not influencing it? In the Komaki study, the managers were aware that they were being observed. Given this, to what degree did the managers modify their conduct to project socially desirable behaviors (e.g., monitoring of their subordinates)? Perhaps effective managers are more sensitive to social cues than ineffective managers and thus are better able to be perceived in a positive fashion. Note that we are dealing with interpretations of the behavior (the “why”), not merely the behavior itself (the “what”). It has been suggested that acceptance and trust of the observers by the study participants are critical to the success of this research method. Stanton and Rogelberg (2002) suggested that the Internet may become a fruitful mechanism for conducting observational research through the use of webcams and smartcards.Table 2-1 compares the four primary research methods on two major dimensions: researcher control and realism. No method rates high on both factors. There is always a tradeoff; a researcher may sacrifice realism for control or vice versa, depending on the study’s objectives. The choice of a strategy should be guided by the purpose of the research and the resources available. A well-trained I /O psychologist knows the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Psychology Applied to Work, Eighth Edition Paul M. Muchinsky, 2006. . p. 30