الگوی روابط بین پیشایندهای رهبری شبکهای
محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت تحقیق و توسعهروح اله شریفی 1 , حسن الوداری 2 , رضا رسولی 3 , محمد منتظری 4
1 - دانشگاه پیام نور
2 - دانشگاه پیام نور
3 - دانشگاه پیام نور
4 - دانشگاه پیام نور
کلید واژه: پیشایند رهبری شبکهای دیمتل فازی دانشگاه پیام نور,
چکیده مقاله :
توسعه تئوری رهبری شبکهای در حوزه فعالیتهای دانشگاهها یک گام مهم در جهت توسعه ادبیات شبکهها محسوب میشود. در این راستا، پژوهش حاضر کوشیده است تا ضمن شناسایی پیشایندهای رهبری شبکهای در دانشگاه پیام نور، شبکه روابط علت و معلولی میان این پیشایندها را با استفاده از تکنیک ديمتل فازی کاوش نماید. اين پژوهش از نظر هدف، كاربردي و از نظر نحوه گردآوري داده‌ها، توصيفي است. برای گردآوری داده‌ها از نظر خبرگان که از طریق نمونه‌گیری هدفمند انتخاب شده بودند، استفاده گردید و حجم نمونه برای تکمیل پرسشنامه 12 نفر از اعضای هیأت علمی تمام وقت دانشگاه پیام نور با مرتبه علمی حداقل دانشیار و 10 سال سابقه علمی از مناطق ده گانه دانشگاه پیام نور تعیین شد. پس از شناسایی پیشایندهای رهبری شبکهای در دانشگاه پیامنور از دل پیشینه موضوع، برای تعیین وضعیت روابط علّی میان این عوامل از فن دیمتل فازی طی 6 گام استفاده شد. نتایج تحلیل داده ها نشان داد که از میان 10 پیشایند استخراج شده از ادبیات، توانمندسازی بنیادی ترین عامل در سامانة پیشایندهای رهبری شبکهای در دانشگاه پیامنور محسوب می شود. همچنین دو عامل توانمندسازی و پویایی رهبری، اثرگذارترین عوامل در میان دیگر پیشایندهای رهبری شبکهای در دانشگاه پیامنور بوده، و در نقطة مقابل آن، اثرپذیرترین شاخصها، فرهنگ و روحیه مشارکت هستند. با توجه به نتایج پژوهش، مدیران دانشگاه پیام نور در راستای پیادهسازی و اعمال بهینه رهبری شبکهای بایستی به توانمندسازی و پویایی رهبری به عنوان دو عامل اصلی تاثیرگذار توجه ویژهای داشته باشند.
The development of network leadership theory in the field of university activities is an important step towards the development of network literature. Due to the wide range of communication of Payame Noor University with internal and external organizations as well as the qualitative and quantitative goals of the university, network leadership is the best leadership style to maximize the control, control and maximum utilization of Payame Noor University's communication capacity.In this regard, the present study has attempted to identify the network leadership antecedents at Payame Noor University and to investigate the causal relationships between these antecedents using Fuzzy DEMATEL technique.This research is applicable in terms of purpose, and descriptive in terms of data collection. In order to collect data we used the viewpoints of experts which selected by purposeful sampling and Sample size for completing the questionnaire of 12 full-time faculty members of Payame Noor University with a minimum associate degree and 10 years of academic background from ten areas of Payame Noor University. After identifying Network Leadership antecedents at Payam-e-Noor University from the literature, to determine the status of causal relations among these factors, Fuzzy DEMATEL technique was used over 6 steps. The results of data analysis showed that among the extracted antecedent from literature, empowerment is the most fundamental factor. Also, the two factors of empowerment and leader proactivity are the most influential factors among other network leadership antecedents at Payam-e-Noor University, and on the opposite side are the most influential indicators, culture and spirit of participation. According to the results of the research, Payam Noor University administrators should pay special attention to empowerment and leader proactivity as the two main factors influencing the implementation and optimal implementation of network leadership.
1. تقوائي، مهدي؛ خوراکيان، عليرضا؛ رحيم نيا، فريبرز و مرتضوي، سعيد (1398). شناسايي مؤلفههاي رهبري معنوي و بررسي تأثير آن بر سلامت سازماني(مورد مطالعه: دانشگاههاي شمال شرق ايران). مديريت فردا، شماره 58، ص 122- 109.
2. حاجیکریمی، عباسعلی و کریمنژاد، المیرا (1394). تأثیر مدیریت دانش بر متغیرهای سازمانی و موفقیت اجرای مدیریت ارتباط با مشتری. چشمانداز مدیریت بازرگانی، شماره 22، ص 139- 123.
3. حميديانپور، فخريه و حصيري، زهرا (1398). بررسي تأثير مديريت استراتژيک منابع انساني بر ظرفيت نوآوري. مديريت فردا، شماره 58، ص 18- 3.
4. شریفی، روح اله و وحیدینژاد، اعظم (1397). تبیین روحیه فرهنگی تواناسازی و ادراک توانمندی مدیران آموزشی. مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی، شماره 34، ص 110- 85.
5. هادیزاده مقدم، اکرم؛ عظیمی، سیدسهیل و طهرانی، مریم (1396). تعیین الگوی تأثیرگذاری توانمندسازی ساختاری بر رفتار آوای کارکنان. مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی، شماره 32، ص 112- 91.
1. Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F. and Weber, T., (2009). Leadership: current theories, research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), pp. 421–449.
2. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
3. Bode, A. and Müller, K., 2013. The role of Social Exchange Theory in explaining cluster development. In: K. Brown, J. Burgess, M. Festing and S. Royer, ed. (2013). Resources and Competitive Advantage in Clusters. Book Series on International Human Resource Management and Strategy Research. Munich/Mering: Rainer Hampp, pp. 133–145.
4. Bowden,J & Marton,F(2004). The University of Learning: beyond quality and competence, Londan, RutledgeFlamer.
5. Bowerman, K. D. and Van Wart, M., (2011). The business of leadership: an introduction. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
6. Bowers, D. G. and Seashore, S. E., (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a fourfactor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(2), pp. 238–263.
7. Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M. and Javidan, M., (2002). Leadership made in Germany: low on compassion, high on performance. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), pp. 16– 30.
8. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing crosssector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647-663.
9. Carley, K., (1991). A theory of group stability. American Sociological Review, 56(3), pp. 331– 354.
10. Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R., (1988). The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), pp. 471–482.
11. Cullen-Lester, K. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2016). Collective and network approaches to leadership: Special issue introduction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 173-180.
12. DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N. and Humphrey, S. E., (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), pp. 7–52.
13. Dess, G. G. and Robinson, R. B., (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), pp. 265–273.
14. Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Henderson, D. J. and Wayne, S. J., (2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: the interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), pp. 1079–1098.
15. Ebbekink, M. and Lagendijk, A., (2013). What’s next in researching cluster policy: place-based governance for effective cluster policy. European Planning Studies, 21(5), pp. 735–753.
16. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V., (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), pp. 51–59.
17. Fernandez, S., (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behaviour on employee perceptions of performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance Management Review, 32(2), pp. 175–205.
18. Frese, M. and Fay, D., (2001). Personal initiative (PI): an active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In: B. M. Staw and R. M. Sutton, ed. 2001. Research in organizational behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 133–187.
19. Goh, K. T., Goodman, P. S., & Weingart, L. R. (2013). Team innovation processes: An examination of activity cycles in creative project teams. Small Group Research, 44(2), 159-194.
20. Graen, G. B. and 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. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp. 219–247.
21. Grant, A. M. and Ashford, S. J., (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, pp. 3–34.
22. Grant, A. M., Gino, F. and Hofmann, D. A., (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: the role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), pp. 528–550.
23. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A. and Parker, S. K., (2007). A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), pp. 327–347.
24. Hadizadeh Moghaddam, A., Azimi, Soheil. And Tehrani, M. (2018). Determining the Pattern of Impact of Structural Empowerment on Employees' Voice Behavior. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 8(32), pp. 91- 112. (In Persian)
25. Hajikarimi, E., & Karimnezhad, A. (2015). The impact of knowledge management on organizational variables and the successful implementation of customer relationship management. Business Management Perspective, 14(22), 123-139. (In Persian)
26. Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G. and Prussia, G. E., (2013). Ethical and empowering leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(2), pp. 133–146.
27. Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J. and Johnson, M. D., (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), pp. 1165–1185.
28. House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V., (2004). Culture, leadership, and Organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
29. Huxham, C. and Vangen, S., (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: how things happen in a (not quite) joined up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), pp. 1159–1175.
30. Huxham, C. and Vangen, S., (2005). Managing to collaborate: the theory and practice of collaborative advantage. London: Sage Publications.
31. Jungwirth, C. and Müller, E., (2014). Comparing top-down and bottom-up cluster initiatives from a principal-agent perspective: what can we learn for designing governance regimes? Schmalenbach Business Review, 66(3), pp. 357-381.
32. Jungwirth, C. and Ruckdäschel, S., (2013)b. Leadership of and in clusters: nurturing effectiveness in complex systems. In: K. Brown, J. Burgess, M. Festing and S. Royer, ed. 2013. Resources and Competitive Advantage in Clusters. Book Series on International Human Resource Management and Strategy Research. Munich/Mering: Rainer Hampp, pp. 190–210.
33. Kanter, R. M. and Brinkerhoff, D., (1981). Organizational performance: recent developments in measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 7, pp. 321–349.
34. Landsperger, J. and Spieth, P., (2011). Managing innovation networks in the industrial goods sector. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(6), pp. 1209–1241.
35. Landsperger, J., Spieth, P. and Heidenreich, S., (2012). How network managers contribute to innovation network performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(6), pp. 1–21.
36. Leonard, D., & Swap, W. C. (1999). When sparks fly: Igniting creativity in groups. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
37. Lester, T. & Reckhow, S. (2012). Network Governance and Regional Equity: Shared Agendas or Problematic Partners? Planning Theory, 12, pp. 115-138.
38. Lewis, Jenny M ; Ricard, Lykke Margot ; Klijn, Erik Hans; Bekkers, Victor (Editor) ; Tummers, Lars (Editor)., (2018). How innovation drivers, networking and leadership shape public sector innovation capacity. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(2), pp. 288-307.
39. Li, N., Liang, J. and Crant, J. M., (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), pp. 395–404.
40. Lorenzoni, G. and Lipparini, A., (1999). The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), pp. 317–338.
41. Lorinkova, N., Pearsall, M. and Sims, H., (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), pp. 573–596.
42. Mandell, M. and Keast, R., (2007). Evaluating network arrangements: toward revised performance measures. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4), pp. 574–597.
43. Mandell, M. and Keast, R., (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks: developing a framework for revised performance measures. Public Management Review, 10(6), pp. 715–731.
44. McGuire, M. and Agranoff, R., (2011). The limitations of public management networks. Public Administration, 89(2), pp. 265–284.
45. McGuire, M. and Silvia, C., (2009). Does leadership in networks matter? Public Performance Management Review, 33(1), pp. 34–62.
46. Miller, K. I. and Monge, P. R., (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: a metaanalytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), pp. 727–753.
47. Moran, J. (2010). Interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
48. Müller-Seitz, G., (2012). Leadership in interorganizational networks: a literature review and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), pp. 428–443.
49. O'Donnell, M., Yukl, G. and Taber, T., (2012). Leader behavior and LMX: a constructive replication. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), pp. 143–154.
50. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K. and Strauss, K., (2010). Making things happen: a model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), pp. 827–856.
51. Picot, A. ,Reichwald, R. ,Franck, E. and Mِslein K. M., (2014). Leadership of Networks and Performance: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis. Dissertation Universitat Passau. , ISBN 978-3-658-07032-8 ISBN 978-3-658-07033-5 (eBook)
52. Popp, J., Milward, H. B., MacKean, G., Casebeer, A., & Lindstrom, R. (2014). Interorganizational networks: A review of the literature to inform practice. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/inter-organizational-networks-reviewliterature-inform-practice
53. Quinn, R. E. and Rohrbaugh, J., (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), pp. 363–377.
54. Robertson, Jennifer., (2018). The Nature, Measurement and Nomological Network of Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), pp. 961-975.
55. Seibert, S. E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S. H., (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.
56. Sharifi, R. and Vahidinejad, A., (2018). Explaining of empowerment climate and capabilities perception of educational administrators. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 9(34), pp. 85- 110. (In Persian)
57. Song, W., & Cao, J. (2017). A rough DEMATEL based approach for evaluating interaction between requirements of product-service system. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 110: 353-363.
58. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M. and Locke, E. A., (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), pp. 1239–1251.
59. Stiver, dustin c. (2017) A dissertation submitted to the College of Business and Leadership in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
60. Sydow, J., (2010). Management von Netzwerkorganisationen – zum Stand der Forschung. In: J. Sydow, ed. 2010. Management von Netzwerkorganisationen. Beiträge aus der ‘Managementforschung’. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag, pp. 373–470.
61. Sydow, J., Lerch, F., Huxham, C. and Hibbert, P., (2011). A silent cry for leadership: organizing for leading (in) clusters. Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), pp. 328–343.
62. Uhl-Bien, M., (2006). Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), pp. 654–676.
63. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. and McKelvey, B., (2007). Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), pp. 298–318.
64. Van Thiel, S. and Leeuw, F. L., (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(3), pp. 267–281.
65. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M. and Liden, R. C., (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader- member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), pp. 82–111.
66. Youngblood, Mark (1997).Life at the Edge of Chaos: Creating the Quantum Organization, Perceval Publishing; 1 edition.
67. Yukl, G., (2012). Effective leadership behavior: what we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), pp. 66–85
68. Zhang, Z., Wang, M. and Shi, J., (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: the mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), pp. 111–130.
