طراحی مدل پیشایندهای دوسوگرایی رفتار شهروندی سازمانی در سازمانهای دولتی

محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت منابع انسانی

سعیده آهنی ¹ , حمید رضایی فر ² , محمد محمدی ³ , حسین حکیم پور ⁴

1 - دانشجوی دکتری گروه مدیریت ، واحد بیرجند، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بیرجند، ایران.
2 - استادیار،گروه مدیریت، واحد بیرجند، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بیرجند، ایران.
3 - استادیار،گروه مدیریت، واحد بیرجند، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بیرجند، ایران.
4 - استادیار،گروه مدیریت، واحد بیرجند، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بیرجند، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1403/07/11 تاریخ پذیرش : 1403/08/12 تاریخ انتشار : 1403/11/15

کلید واژه: دوسوگرایی, رفتارشهروندی, رفتارشهروندی سازمانی,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: امروزه رفتارشهروندی نقش بسزایی در عملکرد فرد و سازمان دارد و عموماً در کارکنان تمایل زیادی  به انجام رفتار شهروندی سازمانی دیده می شود. تحقیقات نشان داده که رفتارشهروندی سازمانی می تواند در برخی شرایط برای سازمان ها مضر باشد. لذا هدف این تحقیق طراحي مدل پیشایندهای دوسوگرایی رفتارشهروندی سازمانی در سازمان های دولتی می باشد.

روش تحقیق: روش تحقیق حاضر کیفی، و استراتژی مورد استفاده ، تحلیل مضمون می باشد. مشارکت کنندگان 8 نفر از مدیران دستگاه های اجرایی دولت و 5 نفر از اساتید دانشگاهی بودند. روش نمونه گیری از نوع هدفمند و گلوله برفی انتخاب بود و تجزیه و تحلیل داده‏ها، از طریق کدگذاری باز و محوری انجام شد. جهت اعتبار مدل کیفی از ضریب توافق دو کدگذار استفاده گردید که عدد 784/0 بدست آمد که نشان دهنده اعتبار مدل می باشد.

یافته ها: یافته های تحقیق دربرگیرنده 4 مضمون فراگیر به نام های مضمون شناختی، ساختاری، اجتماعی، عاطفی و فردی می باشد و تعداد مضمون های سازمان دهنده 12 مضمون فراگیر و 152مضمون پایه بودند.

نتیجه گیری: عوامل شناسایی شده نقش مهمی در ایجاد دوسوگرایی رفتارشهروندی سازمانی در سازمان های دولتی دارند که راهکارهایی جهت کاهش آن پیشنهاد می گردد. 

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and purpose: In contemporary workplaces, citizenship behavior significantly influences both individual and organizational performance. Employees typically exhibit a strong inclination to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors. However, the research indicates that, in certain circumstances, such behaviors may have adverse effects on organizations. Therefore, this study aims to develop a model that identifies the antecedents of ambivalence regarding organizational citizenship behavior within government organizations.

Research method: The current research methodology is qualitative, employing thematic analysis as the strategic approach. The participants consisted of eight managers from government executive bodies and five university professors. A purposeful and snowball sampling technique was utilized, and data analysis was conducted using open and axial coding. To assess the validity of the qualitative model, the agreement coefficient between two coders was calculated, yielding a value of 0.784, which indicates a strong level of validity for the model.

Findings: The research findings identify four themes: cognitive, structural, social, and emotional, along with individual themes. In total, there are 12 overarching themes and 152 basic themes identified within the study.

Conclusion: The identified factors significantly contribute to the ambivalence surrounding organizational citizenship behavior in government organizations, prompting the need for proposed solutions to mitigate this issue.

منابع و مأخذ:

Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453–1478. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0909
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research, 1(3), 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307
Bolino, M. B., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 229–246. doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.05.004
Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2005). The practice of nursing research; conduct, critique, and utilization. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders
Dominique, P. G., Aldona, G. N., Andrzej, L., Joanna, G., & Dawid, S. (2023). Intersections of organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors: Empirical evidence of moral licensing and cleansing theories. Human systems management. 43(3), 281-306. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-230020
Etemadi, H., Sepasi, S., & Bashaq, M.R. (2017). Business ethics, Social Responsibility and Corporate Performance. Ethics in Science and Technology, 11(3), 107-115 [In persian]. http://ethicsjournal.ir/article-1-377-fa.html
Harvey, J., Bolino, M. C., & Kelemen, T. (2018). Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the 21 st Century: How Might Going the Extra Mile Look Different at the Start of the New Millennium?. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 36, 51-110. https://doi.org/ doi:10.1108/S0742-730120180000036002
Hassanpour, A., Yousefiztouz, R., & Ghorbani, M. (2020). Identifying and prioritizing the factors affecting the ambivalence of employees. Sustainable Human Resource Management, 2(3), 175-194 [In persian]. doi: 10.22080/shrm.2020.3027
Iqbal, M., Qamari, I. N., & Surwanti, A. (2024). Literature review of the organizational citizenship behavior of employees in the public sector. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 13(4), 209-222. doi:10.20525/ijrbs.v13i4.3344
Kang, E., & Hwang, H. E. (2023). How to Enhance an Employee’s Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as a Corporate Strategy. Journal of Industrial Disribution & Business, 14(1), 29-37. doi:10.13106/jidb.2023.vol14.no1.29
Kelemen, T.K., Turnley, W.H., Bergeron, D.M., Rochford, K., & Hinz, J. (2022). Citizenship ambivalence: Its nature, causes and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 100896. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100896
Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 414–435. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0262
Korbandeh, N., Sadeghian, A., Rabbani, M., & Honary, M. T. (2023). An analysis on the phenomenon of ambivalence of citizenship in Iran's steel industry managers. Sociological Research, 17 (1), 33-62 [In persian]. https://sanad.iau.ir/ar/Journal/soc/Article/867658/FullText
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. J. Organ. Behav. 25(1),1–27. doi:10.1002/job.234
Lupina-Wegener, A. A., Liang, S., van Dick, R., & Ullrich, J. (2020). Multiple organizational identities and change in ambivalence: the case of a Chinese acquisition in Europe. Journal of organizational change management. 33(7), 1253-1275. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-08-2019-0260
Malek Shahi, F., Farhani, A. A., Shafiei, M., & Zarei Matin, H. (2017). Developing the concept of organizational citizenship behavior based on its dark aspects. Organizational Behavior Studies Quarterly, 1(92), 165-188 [In persian]. 20.1001.1.23221518.1400.10.2.6.3 .
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M. (2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S87–S119. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1911
Reich, T., Fulmer, A. G., & Dhar, R. (2022). In the face of self-threat: Why ambivalence heightens people’s willingness to act. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 168, 104106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.104106
Rezaifar, H. R., & Monzater Ataei, M. (2014). Human communication with human relations approach. Marandiz publication [In persian].
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation review, 9(5), 627-643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8500900505
Schuh, S. C., Quaquebeke, N.V., Göritz, A. S., Xin, K. R., Cremer, D. D., & Dick, R. F. (2016) .Mixed feelings, mixed blessing?How ambivalence in organizational identification relates to employees’regulatory focus and citizenship behaviors. Human Relations, 69(12), 2224–2249. doi:10.1177/0018726716639117
Sidorenkov, A.V., Borokhovski, E.F., & Vorontsov, D.V. (2022). Associations of employees’ identification and citizenship behavior in organization: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 1-35. Doi:10.1007/s11301-022-00258-9
Vakola, M., Petrou, P., & Katsaros, K. (2021). Work engagement and job crafting as conditions of ambivalent employees’ adaptation to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(1), 57-79. doi.org/10.1177/0021886320967173
Van Dyne, L., & Ellis, J. B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on organizational citizenship behavior as overfulfillment of obligations. In J. A. M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 181–205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yanjun, L., Shiyong, X., Hui, Z., Jinqiang, Z., & Yixiao, W. (2021). Love and Hate Together: The Influence of LMX Ambivalence on Employee Proactive Behavior. Foreign Economics & Management, 43 (05), 123- 136. doi:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20201115.302
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Law, K., & Zhou, J. (2022). Paradoxical Leadership, Subjective Ambivalence, and Employee Creativity: Effects of Employee Holistic Thinking. Journal of Management Studies. 59(3), 695-723. doi:10.1111/joms.12792