基于人格因素的机车司机配班组合研究
Study on the Combination of Locomotive Drivers’ Shift Assignment Based on Personality Factors
摘要: 目的:探究人格因素对机车司机配班组合的影响,为机车司机的配班组合提供参考。方法:随机抽取西南地区某铁路局标准班机车司机高低绩效班组各48组(每组一正一副2名司机,共192名司机),采用由Morrison修订的大五人格测评量表进行测量。结果:(1) 高绩效班组在责任感、自律性上均显著高于低绩效班组(P < 0.05);(2) 高绩效班组在脆弱性和坦诚(正直性)上的异质性显著低于低绩效班组(P < 0.01),在活跃性上的异质性显著高于低绩效班组(P < 0.01)。结论:(1) 班组内正副司机在责任感和自律性上的表现是影响团队绩效的重要因素,在进行配班组合时应选择在这两个因素上表现较好的正副司机;(2) 班组内正副司机在脆弱性、坦诚(正直性)、活跃性上的异质性是影响团队绩效的重要因素,在进行配班组合时正副司机在脆弱性、坦诚(正直性)上的异质性不宜过大,在活跃性上的异质性不宜过小。
Abstract:
Objective: To explore the influence of personality factors on locomotive drivers’ shift assignment combination, and to provide reference for locomotive drivers’ shift assignment combination. Methods: A total of 192 drivers were randomly selected from 48 high and low performance teams of standard flight drivers in a railway bureau in Southwest China, and the Big Five Personality Assessment Scale revised by Morrison was used to measure. Results: (1) The sense of responsibility and self-discipline of high performance team were significantly higher than those of low performance team (P < 0.05); (2) the heterogeneity of vulnerability and honesty (positivity) in high-performance shift group was significantly lower than that in low-performance shift group (P < 0.01), and the heterogeneity of activity was significantly higher than that in low-performance shift group (P < 0.01). Conclusion: (1) The sense of responsibility and self-discipline of drivers and co-drivers are important factors that affect team performance, and the drivers and co-drivers with better performance in these two factors should be selected in team assignment. (2) The heterogeneity of team drivers in vulnerability, honesty (integrity) and activity is an important factor affecting team performance. The heterogeneity of team drivers in vulnerability and honesty (integrity) should not be too large, and the heterogeneity in activity should not be too small when the team is assigned.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
霍勇燕, 高锴, 刘隆华, 李继红(2002). 列车乘务员心理健康状况的调查分析. 预防医学情报杂志, 18(1), 74-75.
|
|
[2]
|
匡艳, 肖贵平, 聂磊(2004). 基于心理因素的机车司机组合研究. 铁道劳动安全卫生与环保, 31(6), 277-277.
|
|
[3]
|
李慧(2014). 铁路机车司机人格特质及其对工作绩效的影响研究. 硕士学位论文. 北京: 北京交通大学.
|
|
[4]
|
廖友国, 何伟, 吴真真(2017). EPQ人格维度与中国人心理健康关系及其影响因素的元分析. 中国临床心理学杂志, 25(2), 342-346.
|
|
[5]
|
琳达•希尔(2019). 管理者怎样化解团队冲突. 北方牧业, 31(22), 29-29.
|
|
[6]
|
凌喜凤, 杨蓉, 黄渠(2005). 铁路运输人员的抑郁调查. 预防医学情报杂志, 21(3), 364-366.
|
|
[7]
|
龙云芳, 李昌吉, 詹承烈, 殷秀琴, 钱荺(1999). 列车乘务员SCL-90评定结果分析. 预防医学情报杂志, 15(2), 74-776.
|
|
[8]
|
吕伟萍(2011). 大五人格与科研人员工作绩效的相关性研究. 中国人力资源开发, 1(8), 103-106.
|
|
[9]
|
王亚斌, 崔金玲, 秦磊, 霍伟, 牟宇, 薛淑娟, 何朝霞, 胡英琴(2010). 机车乘务员自测健康与抑郁焦虑情绪的相关性. 现代预防医学, 37(22), 4221-4223.
|
|
[10]
|
于艳, 丁玲, 程美斌(2013). 企业员工的责任感与工作绩效: 中介效应与调节效应(pp. 2083-2084). 南京: 全国心理学学术会议.
|