خوانشی استعاری از پدیده بی حسی سازمانی در سازمان‌های دولتی: واکاوی راهبردها و پیامدها

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی ( با رویکردهای کمی)

نویسندگان

1 کارشناشی ارشد رشته مدیریت دولتی، گرایش تحول، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران

2 دانشیار، مدیریت منابع انسانی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران

3 استادیار، مدیریت آموزشی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران

چکیده

پژوهشِ حاضر با هدف درک بهتر مفهوم بی­حسی سازمانی و شناسایی راهبردها و پیامدهای آن در سازمان­های دولتی صورت گرفته است. روش بکار رفته در پژوهش، روش آمیخته بوده است. روش­های آمیخته دارای دو بخش کیفی و کمی هستند. بخش کیفی با استفاده از روش گرندد تئوری و بخش کمی با استفاده از مدل­سازی معادلات ساختاری و با الگو از مدل اشتراوس و کوربین انجام گرفته است. نمونه آماریِ بخش کیفی 15 نفر از خبرگان و مطلعین و بخش کمی 183 نفر از کارکنان سازمان­های دولتی هستند. ابزار جمع­آوری اطلاعات در بخش کیفی مصاحبه­های نیمه ساختاریافته و در بخش کمی پرسشنامه محقق­ساخته بوده که روایی و پایایی آن بررسی شده است. نتایج حاصل از بخش کیفی پژوهش، 198 کد باز، 25 کد محوری و 9 کد انتخابی بودند که با استفاده از نرم­افزار MaxQda2018 انجام شده و در سه پارادایم محوری، راهبردها و پیامدها مفهوم­سازی شدند. به­منظور بررسی فرضیه­های بخش کمیِ پژوهش از مدل­سازی معادلات ساختاری استفاده شد و نتایج نرم افزار SmartPls3 نشان داد که مدل کلی پژوهش مقادیر RMS و GOF مناسبی دارد و فرضیه­ها نیز همگی تأیید شدند.

عنوان مقاله [English]

A metaphorical interpretation of the phenomenon of organizational insentience in governmental organizations: analysis of strategies and consequences

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ahmad khamshaya 1
  • Ardeshir Shiri 2
  • Ali Yasini 3
1 MSc. Student., Public Administration, Evolution Management, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of ilam, ilam, iran
2 Associate Prof., Human resources management, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Ilam, ilam, iran
3 Assistant Prof., Education Management, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of ilam, ilam, Iran
چکیده [English]

The purpose of this study was to better understand the phenomenon of organizational insentience and identify its strategies and consequences in governmental organizations. The method used in this research has been mixed. The mixed methods have two qualitative and quantitative parts. The qualitative part is carried out using the Grounded theory and the quantitative part using structural equations modeling with the model of Strauss and Corbin. The statistical sample of the qualitative part is 15 experts and the knowledgeable, and there are 183 the staff of government agencies for quantitative part. The data gathering tool was a semi-structured interview in the qualitative part and for quantitative part we used a researcher-made questionnaire whose validity and reliability have been investigated. The results of the qualitative research part included 198 open codes, 25 pivot codes and 9 selective codes that were performed using MaxQda2018 software and conceptualized in three paradigms included central, strategies and outcomes. In order to investigate the hypotheses of the quantitative part, Structural Equation Modeling was used. The results of SmartPls3 software showed that the overall research model has good RMS and GOF values and all the hypotheses of the research have been confirmed.

• Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2017). On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. Journal of Management, 0149206317691575.‏
• Barclay ,D.; Higgins, C.; Thompson,R.(۱۹۹٥),The Partial Leastn Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Use as an Illustration, Technology, Vol. ۲, No.
• Berthod, O., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2017). Making Sense in Pitch Darkness: An Exploration of the Sociomateriality of Sensemaking in Crises. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1056492616686425.
• Brown AD, Colville I, Pye A. (2014). Making sense of sensemakingin Organization Studies. Organization Studies 36(2): 265–277.
• Campbell, Donald T . (1988) “ Definitional versus multiple operationism. ” In E. Samuel Overman (ed.), Methodologyand Epistemology for Social Science: 31 – 36. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Campbell, Donald T. (1979)“ A tribal model of the social system vehicle carrying scientifi c knowledge. ” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1: 181 – 201.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334 (28,307 citations in Google Scholar as of 4/1/2016).
• de Graaff, M. C., Giebels, E., Meijer, D. J., & Verweij, D. E. (2016). Sensemaking in Military Critical Incidents: The Impact of Moral Intensity. Business & society, 0007650316680996.
• Duncan, R. B. 1972. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived uncertainty. Admin. Sci. Quart. 17 313 – 327.
• Dutton, J. E. 1993. The making of organizational opportunities: An interpretive pathway to Organizational-Change. Research in organizational behavior, 15, 195-226.
• Fornell, Claes; Larcker, David F. (۱۹۸۱), Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Vol. ۱۸ Issue ۱.
• Gephart RP, Topal C, Zhang Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities andinstitutional legitimation. InProcess, Sensemaking, and Organizing, Hernes T, Maitlis S (eds).Oxford University Press: Oxford; 275–312.
• Gioia, D. A. (1992). Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics: A Script Analysis of Missed Opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics 11: 379 – 389.
• Gustafsson, R., Jääskeläinen, M., Maula, M. and Uotila, J. (2016). ‘Emergence of industries: A review and future directions’. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 28-50.
• Helmling, Steven (2008). Sensual and insentience perception: Adorno, Hegel, and false consciousness (critique). Translate by: Vaqfipur, Shahryar (2008). Zibashenakht, 9 (10): 179-185. (in Persian).
• Jennings, P. D., R. Greenwood. (2003). Constructing the iron cage: Institutional theory and enactment.
• Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.‏
• Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Admin. Sci. Quart. 25 226 – 251.
• Lu, X., Lu, X., & Li. (2017). Managing uncertainty in crisis. Springer.
• Magner, N.; Welker, R. B; Campbell, T. L. (۱۹۹٦), Testing a model of cognitive budgetary participation -processes in a latent variable structural equations framework, Accounting and Business Research, ۲۷(۱), ٤۱-٥۰.
• Maitlis S, Christianson M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward.The Academy of Management Annals 8(1): 57–125.
• Maitlis S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking.Academy of Management Journal48(1): 21–49.
• Mandler, G. (1997). Human Nature Explored . Oxford, New York.
• Mills, J. H. (2003). Making Sense of Organizational Change . Routledge, London, UK.
• Nunnaly, J. (۱۹۷۸), Psychometric theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Orlikowski, W. J., D. C. Gash. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans. Inform. Systems 2 174 – 207.
• Patriotta, G. (2003). Sensemaking on the shop fl oor: Narratives of knowledge in organizations. J. Management Stud. 40(2) 349 – 376.
• Russell, D. M., Convertino, G., Kittur, A., Pirolli, P., & Watkins, E. A. (2018, April). Sensemaking in a Senseless World: 2018 Workshop Abstract. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. W19). ACM.
• Sadeqpur, B., Moradi, V. (2011). Statistical analysis by Using SPSS and AMOS software. First edition, Babolsar: Mazandaran University Press. (in Persian).
• Sobhanifard, Y. (2016). Fundamentals and Application of Factor Analysis and Modeling of Structural Equations. Tehran: Imam Sadiq University. (in Persian).
• Stigliani, I., & Elsbach, K. D. (2018). Identity Co Formation in an Emerging Industry: Forging Organizational Distinctiveness and Industry Coherence Through Sensemaking and Sensegiving. Journal of Management Studies.‏
• Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Researcg Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. (2nd ed.). CA: Sage.
• Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational statistics & data analysis, 48(1), 159-205.‏
• Warglien, M. (2002). Intraorganizational evolution. J. A. C. Baum, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Organizations . Blackwell, Malden, MA, 98 – 118.
• Weick, K. E. (2012). Organized sensemaking a commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human Relations, 65(1), 141-153.
• Weick, K. E. (2010). Reflections on enacted sensemaking in the Bhopal disaster. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 537-550
• Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409-421.‏
• Weick, K. E., K. M. Sutcliffe. (2003). Hospitals as cultures of entrapment: A re - analysis of the Bristol Royal Infi rmary. California Management Rev. 45(2) 73 – 84.
• Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage.
• Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS quarterly, 177-195.
• Wry, T., Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M. A. (2011). ‚Legitimating nascent collective identities: Coordinating cultural entrepreneurship‘. Organization Science, 22, 449-63.