دوگانه سیاست-اداره: شناسایی و طبقه‌بندی شاخص‌های تمایز میان مشاغل سیاسی و اداری در نظام مدیریت دولتی ایران

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی (با رویکردهای آمیخته)

نویسنده

استاد، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف: طراحی و اعتبارسنجی مقیاسی به منظور سنجش و جانمایی صندلی‌های اداری در طیف سیاسی-حرفه‌ای.
طراحی/روش‌شناسی/رویکرد: پژوهش حاضر با رویکرد قیاسی-استقرایی و در دو مرحله انجام گرفته است. در مرحله کیفی با مراجعه به مبانی نظری و انجام مصاحبه نیمه‌ساختاریافته با خبرگان گویه‌های مقیاس شناسایی شده است . در مرحله کمی با بهره‌گیری از روش‌های روایی صوری و محتوا و پایایی به روش‌های آلفای کرونباخ و آزمون-آزمون مجدد نسبت به اعتبار سنجی ابزار طراحی شده اقدام گردید.
یافته‌های پژوهش: پس از مرور ادبیات و انجام مصاحبه و انجام اصلاحات پیشنهادی خبرگان پرسشنامه اولیه با 72 گویه تنظیم شد. در بررسی روایی صوری 5 گویه حذف شد. پس از محاسبه شاخص روایی محتوا 4 گویه و پس از محاسبه نسبت روایی محتوا 6 گویه دیگر نیز حذف و به این ترتیب پرسشنامه نهایی با 61 گویه در ده بعد تنظیم شد.
محدودیت‌ها و پیامدها: کمبود پژوهش‌های میدانی بومی پیرامون موضوع پژوهش با هدف بهره‌گیری از یافته‌های آنها در تحقیق.
پیامدهای عملی: با بهره‌گیری از مقیاس معرفی شده می‌توان به تعیین نوع صندلی‌ها در سازمان‌های اداری کشور پرداخت و بر اساس نتایج به دست آمده به بازنویسی شرح مشاغل سیاسی و حرفه‌ای متناسب با هر صندلی اقدام نمود. پیامد این کار ممانعت از تغییرهای فله‌ای در مناصب دولتی پس از هر انتخابات و استقرار سیستم برنامه‌ محوری بجای فرد محوری در کشور و در نتیجه تحقق اهداف تعیین شده در اسناد بالادستی است.
ابتکار یا ارزش مقاله: ارائه شاخص‌هایی عملیاتی برای مشخص کردن حرفه‌ای یا سیاسی بودن سمت‌ها در نظام مدیریت دولتی.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Identify and Classify the indicators of differentiation between Political and Administrative Jobs in Iran Public Administration System

نویسنده [English]

  • Gholamali Tabarsa
Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Purpose: Design and validation of a scale to measure and position administrative seats in the political-professional spectrum.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The present study has been done with the deductive-inductive approach in two stages. In the qualitative stage, by referring to the theoretical foundations and conducting structured interviews with experts, scale items have been identified. In the quantitative stage, using face and content validity and Cronbach’s alpha and test-retest methods, the designed scale was validated.
Research Findings: After reviewing the literature and conducting interviews and making corrections suggested by the experts, the initial questionnaire was prepared with 72 items. In the face validity review, five items were removed. After calculating the CVI, four items were removed, and after calculating the CVR, another six items were removed, and thus, the final questionnaire was adjusted with 61 items in 10 dimensions.
Limitations & Consequences: Lack of local field research on the subject of study in order to use their findings in the research.
Practical Consequences: Using the introduced scale, it is possible to determine the type of seats in the Iran administrative organizations, and based on the obtained results, rewrite the descriptions of the political and professional job description to each seat. The consequences of this work are to prevent significant changes in administrative positions after each election and the establishment of a program-based system instead of a person-centered one, and, as a result, the realization of the goals set out in the high-level documents.
Innovation or value of the Article: Providing operational indicators to determine the professional or political positions in the public administrative system.
Paper Type: Research Article

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Politics-administration dichotomy
  • scale design
  • validation
  • Political seats
  • Professional Seats
  1. Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86.
  2. Bausell, R. B., & Waltz, C. F. (1981). Nursing Research: Design, Statistics, and Computer Analysis.
  3. Bigdeli, S., & Pourezzat, A. (2009). Designing logical model of dimensions of interaction between political and administrative subsystems in truth-centered government based upon “nahjolbalgha” of imam ali (peace be upon him). Organizational Culture Management, 7(19), 89–118, (in Persian).
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
  5. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (2019). Reliability and Validity Assessment (H. Nayebi, trans.). Tehran: Ney Publication, (in Persian).
  6. Connaughton, B. (2017). Political-administrative relations: The role of political advisers. Administration, 65(2), 165–182.
  7. Danaee Fard, H. (2013). Public Administration Challenges in Iran. Tehran: Samt Publication, (in Persian).
  8. Danaee Fard, H., Alvani, S. M., & Azar, A. (2015). Quantitative Research Methodology in Management: A Comprehensive Approach. Tehran: Saffar Publishing, (in Persian).
  9. Danaee Fard, H., Sadeghi, M. R., & Mostafazadeh, M. (2015). Exploring and Analyzing the Consequences of Politicization of the Bureaucracy in Political Systems. Strategic Management Thought, 9(2), 57–86, (in Persian).
  10. Farazmand, A. (2009). Bureucracy, Administration and Politics: an Introduction. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Bureucracy and Administration. CRC Press.
  11. Grant, B. (2014). Leadership and the Politics-Administration Dichotomy: A Comparative Study of Political Influences in Four Florida State Agencies.
  12. Haghshenas, M., & Nargesian, A. (2018). Identify the reasons for the interference of politics - Administration of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Case study: the relationship between the executive and the legislature in the years 2009-2013. Public Policy, 3(4), 151–166, (in Persian).
  13. Hosseini, Z., Ghorbani, Z., & Ebn Ahmady, A. (2015). Face and Content Validity and Reliability Assessment of Change Cycle Questionnaire in Smokers. Journal of Mashhad Dental School, 39(2), 147–154, (in Persian).
  14. Ikeanyibe, O., Obiorji, J., Osadebe, N., & Ugwu, C. (2020). Politics, Peer Review And Performance Management In Africa: A Path To Credible Commitment For Nigerian Politicians? Public Administration Issues, (5), 35–58.
  15. Joensuu, M., & Niiranen, V. (2018). Political leaders and public administrators: Interaction patterns and pictures in Finnish local government decision-making processes. Public Policy and Administration, 33(1), 22–45.
  16. Khanian, Z. S., Ghaffari, F., Alipoor, Z. J., & Fotokian, Z. (2020). Designing and validating the empowerment scale for the older individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ESOCOPD). Heliyon, 6(5), e03909.
  17. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A Quantitative Approach To Content Validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575.
  18. Mir Mohammadi, S. M., & Hasanpour, A. (2012). Iran Administrative System: An Analysis to Problems and Challenges. Public Administration Perspective, 2(4), 9–22, (in Persian).
  19. Mohammadi, H., Alvani, S. M., Memarzade Tehran, G., & Hamidi, N. (2017). Explain and Evaluate the Components Affecting the Political Dimension of the Iranian Administrative System. Public Administration Perspective, 8(4), 15–40, (in Persian).
  20. Mostafazadeh, M., Amiri, A., Danaeefard, H., & Yazdani, H. (2018). Understanding the Dimensions of Public Administration Politicization from Citizens’ Perspectives. Public Policy, 3(4), 79–104, (in Persian).
  21. Nafari, N. (2012). A Theorical Model: Exploring Administrative and Political Domain. Journal of Public Administration, 4(10), 153–172, (in Persian).
  22. Overeem, P. (2017). The Politics-Administration Dichotomy. In The Politics-Administration Dichotomy.
  23. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2004). Politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective: The quest for control. In Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective: The Quest for Control.
  24. Shafritz, J. M., Russell, E., Borick, C. P., & Hyde, A. C. (2016). Introducing Public Administration (9th edition). New York: Routledge.
  25. Svara, J. H. (2006). Complexity in Political-Administrative Relations and the Limits of the Dichotomy Concept. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 28(1), 121–139.
  26. Tabarsa, G. A., Amirkhani, T., & Nani, S. (2018). Identifying and Prioritizing the indicators for distinguishing between political and administrative jobs. Quarterly Journal of Public Organzations Management, 6(4), 93–106, (in Persian).
  27. van Dorp, E. J., & ’t Hart, P. (2019). Navigating the dichotomy: The top public servant’s craft. Public Administration, 97(4), 877–891.
  28. Wilson, W. (1887). The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.