رابطه متقابل رهبری اشتراکی با تاکتیک‌های نفوذ نرم و سخت بر اساس مدل کارسون (مورد مطالعه: کارکنان ذوب آهن اصفهان)
محورهای موضوعی : خطمشیگذاری عمومی در مدیریتمحمد ملک محمدی فرادنبه 1 , محمدرضا دلوی 2
1 - دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت دولتی گرایش منابع انسانی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد دهاقان
2 - دانشیار، گروه مدیریت دولتی، واحد دهاقان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، دهاقان، ایران
کلید واژه: رهبری اشتراکی, تاکتیک نفوذ نرم, تاکتیک نفوذ سخت, ابهام وظیفه, انسجام وظیفه,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: یکی از نظریات جدید رهبری که تاکید بر مشارکت فعال همه کارکنان در فعالیت‌های مختلف دارد، رهبری اشتراکی می باشد. در رهبری اشتراکی همه کارکنان نقشی فعال داشته و در جهت پیشبرد اهداف سازمان تلاش می‌کنند و در این بین یکی از مهمترین عوامل تعیین کننده در مدیریت و رهبری اثر بخش، موفقیت در نفوذ بر افراد است و مدیری موفق است که توانایی تاثیرگذاری را هم بر زیر دستان و هم بر افراد بالا دست و هم بر همپایگان بطور همزمان دارا باشد. هدف از پژوهش حاضر بررسی رابطه متقابل بین ابعاد سه گانه رهبری اشتراکی با تاکتیک‌های نفوذ نرم وسخت در بین کارکنان شرکت ذوب آهن اصفهان می باشد. روش تحقیق: روش این پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی و ازنظر روش توصیفی پیمایشی از شاخه میدانی است و جامعه آماری این تحقیق، کارکنان شرکت ذوب آهن در اصفهان می باشد. نمونه مورد بررسی با استفاده از فرمول کوکران به تعداد 538 نفر محاسبه گردیده است.ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها شامل پرسشنامه‌های محقق ساخته از طریق ترسیم نردبان انتزاعی می باشد که روایی و پایایی آنها مورد تایید قرار گرفت. یافته ها: روش الگو سازی معادلات، برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها استفاده شد و نتایج پژوهش حاکی از آن است بین ابعاد رهبری اشتراکی: ابهام وظیفه، انسجام وظیفه و محیط داخلی با تاکتیک‌های نفوذ نرم و سخت که شامل مولفه‌های تعهد، سازگاری و مقاومت می باشد رابطه وهمبستگی مثبتی وجود دارد. نتیجه گیری: می‌توان با ایجاد یک جو همکارانه و مسئولیت مشارکتی بین اعضا، بستر و شرایط مناسبی برای نفوذ در بین کارکنان ایجاد نموده و و از این طریق در جهت تحقق اهداف سازمانی حرکت نمود.
Background: One of the new ideas of leadership that emphasizes the active participation of all employees in different activities, leadership is shared. Leadership feed all employees play an active role and to organizational goals attempted and in the meantime one of the most important determining factors in leadership effectiveness, success in influencing people and managers of successful has the ability to impact both on the and on the upper arms and the Hmpaygan simultaneously be used. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the three dimensions of collective leadership with soft and hard tactics to influence the staff's Esfahan Steel Company.data were collected by a researcher-made questionnaire drawn through the ladder of abstraction that validity and reliability was approved.Results: The method equation modeling, to analyze data and research results show that the dimensions of collective leadership ambiguous task, task cohesion and indoor tactics came in soft and hard, which consists of commitment, consistency there is a positive relationship between resistance and solidarity.
Allen. N.J. & Smith, C.A. Mayer, J.P. & (1993). Commitment to organizations and Occupations: Extension and test of a three. Component Conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, No.4, PP: 538-551.
Alvin,T.S., & Stasser,S. (2015), A Longitudinal Analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 27. P: 154.
Bamarino, M. C., Pearce, C. L., & Kohles, J. C. (2006). The importance of self-and shared leadership in team based knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership dynamics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (4),PP: 296–318.
Blanchard, N.S. & Ani, R.A. (2015), Sex and Position as Predictor of organizational Commitment, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 29, No.3, P: 1-485.
Carless, S. A., & Yalk & Chavor, C. (2005). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31 (1).
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5), PP: 87–1234.
Cohen, A. (1994). Antecedents of organizational commitment, Journal of organizational Behavior, Vol.13, No.6. PP: 539-542.
Davis Stanley M. (1984). Management Corporate Culture, Ballinger Publishing Company.
Desler, Dyps. (2012). Organization theory, Chapter 12: Motivation and innovation. Building Commitment, Newyork, Prentice Hall.
Dyne, L.V. & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Contingent Workers in Singapore, Academy of Management Journal, 41 (6): PP: 692-703.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7).
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2007 (1), PP: 112–133.
Johnson, T. W., & Stinson, J. E. (1975). Role ambiguity, role conflict, and satisfaction: moderating effects of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (3), PP: 333-329.
Lee, D. S., et al. An analysis of shared leadership, diversity, and team creativity in an e-learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior (2014)10-64
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 33.
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 33.
Mason, Claire M., & Griffin, Mark A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Research, 34.
Mayer, J.P.& Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the side-Bet theory of organizational commitment, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 69, No.3, PP: 379.
Mayer, K.c & Schoorman, F.d. (1998). Differentiating Antecedents of organizational commitment: a test of march & Simons model, Journal of organizational Behavior. Vol.19.PP: 15-28.
Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (3).
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Morison, M., & Moir, J. (1998). The role of computer software in the analysis of qualitative data: Efficient clerk, research assistant or Trojan horse? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28 (1).
Morris, J. H., & Moberg, D. J. (1994). Work organizations as contexts for trust and betrayal. In T. Sarbin, R. Carney, & C. Eoyang (Eds.), Citizen Espionage: Studies in trust and betrayal. Westport, CT: Praeger 4.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. & Porter, L.M. (1979) The measurement of organizational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, pp. 224–247.
Nelson, C. (2016). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115 (2).
Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18 (1).
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6.
Podsakoff, P. M. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review ofthe Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for FutureResearch. Journal of Management, 26: PP: 513-563.
Rabinz, E. M., (2010). An analysis of predictors of team satisfaction in product development teams with differing levels of virtualness. R&D Management, (5)39.
Ryps, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2012). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. Advances in the Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 7.
Serban, A., & Roberts, A.J.B. Exploring antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in a creativecontext: A mixed-methods approach, The Leadership Quarterly (2016), http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.009.
Steers, Maron, Carson. Telsok (2016). Motivation and work Behavior, Corporations, Culture and Commitment, Newyork, Mc Graw-Hill inc.
Tidd, S. T., McIntyre, H. H., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). The importance of role ambiguity and trust in conflict perception: Unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict linkage. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15 (4), PP: 64–380
Vander berg, J. (1992). Examining the Causal order of Job Satisfaction and organizational commitment, Journal of management. Vol.28, No.1, PP: 153-156.
Wood, M. S., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2 (3), PP: 251–272.
Yamarino, F. J., Salas, E., (2012). Collectivistic leadership approaches: Putting the «we” in leadership science and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5 (4).