Hello Veronika,

I don't know if there is anything of help here:

Biggs, D. M., Swailes, S., & Baker, S. (2016). The measurement of worker relations: the development of a three-component scale. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(1), 2-12.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294276965

Quoidbach, J., & Hansenne, M. (2009). The impact of trait emotional intelligence on nursing team performance and cohesiveness. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(1), 23-29.

https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/9259/1/Jordi%20Mitch%20JPN%202009.pdf

Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small group research, 31(1), 71-88.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.873.4851&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Very best wishes,

Mary

For relationships between leaders and followers, there is Leader-Member Exchange, or LMX.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843%2895%2990036-5

Leader-Member Exchange or LMX will certainly help you.

The paper below should be of help. It works on LMX, which would be highly useful to you.

• A multidimensional scale (the SLMX-MDM) of supervisor LMX was developed based on Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) multidimensional subordinate LMX scale (the LMX-MDM). Confirmatory factor analyses supported a multidimensional factor structure for both supervisor and subordinate LMX scales with four distinct dimensions: affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect. Additionally, results indicated that multidimensional LMX scales measured from both supervisor and subordinate perspectives predict important individual and organizational outcomes above scales that are either unidimensional or measured from just one perspective. (quoted from the paper's abstract)
• Greguras, G. J., & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the multidimensionality of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader‐member exchange. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 433-465. - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.563&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Also do check out "The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange" especially Chapters 2 and 4. There are scales, from which which you could choose.

Thanks a lot for your suggestions! I guess something like the affect subscale of LMX-MDM will be best for the subordinate-supervisor relation. For the relation between collegues I think I have to take items from some of the scales you suggested, f.e.

• I enjoyed belonging to this group because I think I could be friends with many of its members. (Group Cohesion Scale, Buchanan, 1998)
• I find that I generally do not get along with the other members of my group. (Group Cohesion Scale, Buchanan, 1998)
• I like to spend time together outside of work hours with other members of the team (adjusted item from Revised Scale of Cohesion from Carless & de Paola, 2000)

For me, it is important that the items reflect the quality of relationships of one team member to the other team members (and not the general relationship between all team members).

Thanks again for your time you spent answering me!

Most welcome!

Hi Veronika,

Two of the factors that shape team-management relationships and inter-team relationships are trust and equity. There are many types of each factor. Trust is context sensitive as is equity. For example, equity can apply to various role issues like feeling your role responsibilities in a particular situation are equitable. Equity has referents against which a person judges the situation, which you may or may not be interested depending on your goals. It is also important whether your research objectives are nomothetic or idiographic. Are you trying to make generalizations about constructs or predictions for a specific group?

George

George Schiro

Thanks for your answer! I expect from a theoretical perspective that a psychological construct (perceived inclusion) will be associated with high quality workplace relations. These kind of relations I expect to play a mediating role in the explanation of stress perception: plus perceived inclusion > plus quality relationships (= ressource to deal with work stressors) > minus stress perception. This hypothesis will be examined for a specific group of employees.

So it is important for me not to measure the quality of relations between all members of the group but to measure the perceived quality of relations of one member of the group to the other members. And for theoretical reasons I don't want to examine the actual helping behavior (f. e. "My collegues help me a lot with my work demands") but more the emotional aspect of the relationship.

Best regards, Veronika

Hi Veronika,

Regarding perceived and actual stress, and how it relates to performance, see:

McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D.

Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology

He nicely dissects the components of performance related stress using a novel research environment. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy to hand to send you.

You might also look at:

Jimmieson, N. L., McKimmie, B. M., Hannan, R. L., & Gallagher, J.

(2010). An investigation of the stress-buffering effects of social

support in the occupational stress process as a function of team

identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14,

350–367

George

George Schiro Thank you so much! Veronika

Two more thoughts. Take a look at agent-based modeling for intra-team dynamics. Also see:

Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP): a Theory of Groups (1991) McGrath, Joseph

George

From the LBDQXII:

F 8: Consideration depicts to what extent the manager regards the comfort, well-being, status and contributions of followers.

CO7. Is friendly and approachable

CO17. Does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group

Chinese version 17. 不关心成员在集体中是否愉快

Does not care whether the members are happy or not within the group/collective. –REVERSE SCORED

CO27. Puts suggestions made by the group into operation

CO37. Treats all group members as his/her equals

CO47. Gives advance notice of changes

CO57. Keeps to himself/herself (reverse scored)

CO67. Looks out for the personal welfare of group members

CO77. Is willing to make changes

CO87. Refuses to explain his/her actions (reverse scored)

CO97. Acts without consulting the group (reverse scored)

F 11: Integration reflects to what degree the manager maintains a closely-knit organisation; resolves inter-member conflicts.

IN19. Keeps the group working together as a team

IN39. Settles conflicts when they occur in the group

IN69. Sees to it that the work of the group is co-ordinated

IN79. Helps group members settle their differences

IN99. Maintains a closely knit group