مهندسی بنگاه کارآفرین در مقایسه با سازمان یادگیرنده در راستای توسعه ورزش از دیدگاه مدیران ادارات ورزش و جوانان استان چهارمحال و بختیاری
محورهای موضوعی : علوم ورزشی و سلامت
محمود همتیان دهکردی
1
(دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت ورزشی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران)
علی همتیان دهکردی
2
(کارشناسی ارشد، مدیر تربیت بدنی، واحد شهرکرد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شهرکرد، ایران)
کلید واژه: ادارات ورزش و جوانان, ورزش, مدیران, بنگاه کارآفرین, استان چهارمحال و بختیاری, سازمان یادگیرنده,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی وجوه اشتراک و افتراق دو نظریه بنگاه کارآفرین و سازمان یادگیرنده از دیدگاه مدیران ادارات ورزش و جوانان استان چهارمحال و بختیاری و چگونگی مشارکت ابعاد و برساخت‌های اصلی نظریه سازمان یادگیرنده در تکامل نظریه بنگاه کارآفرین است. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل کلیه مدیران و معاونین ادارات ورزش و جوانان استان چهارمحال و بختیاری بوده و نمونه مورد مطالعه به دلیل محدود بودن جامعه آماری، برابر با حجم جامعه و تعداد 50 نفر در نظر گرفته شد. نتایج نشان داد که برساخته‌های الگوی کاربردی دوّم و یادگیری دوحلقه‌ای، نقشی با اهمیت در اکتشاف و بهره‌برداری از فرصت‌ها ایفا می‌کنند، از این‌رو در تکامل‌بخشی به نظریه بنگاه کارآفرین نقش با اهمیت داشته و توسعه ورزش را درپی دارد.
The purpose of the present research is to study commonality and differences between two theories of entrepreneurial agency and learning organization from the view of executives in sport and youth administrations in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiyari province and also review the impact of main constructs in the first theory on the completion of the second one. The research statistical population consisted of all executives and deputies in sport and youth administrations in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiyari province. Due to limited statistical population, the sample of study was considered to be equal to the whole population including 50 members. The results showed that constructs of the second practical model and double-loop learning have a significant role on recognition and usage of opportunities. Therefore, they complete the theory of entrepreneurial agency and expand sport activities.
Addleson, M. (1996). Resolving the spirit & substance of organizational learning. Journal of organizational change management, Vol. 9, No. 1, p.32-41.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey – bass.
Argyris, C. & Schon. D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, addison – Wesley publishing co.
Argyris, C. (1967). Single loop & double – loop models in research on decision – making. Administrative science quarterly, 21(3), p.363-377.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning learning & action: individual & organizationa. jossey – Bass, Inc.
Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: the characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic management Journal, Vol. 18, p.229-507.
Burgelman, R.A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship & strategic management: insights from a process study. Management science, Vol.29, p.1349-1364.
Cangelosi, V.E. & Dill, W.R. (1965). Organizational learning: Observations toward a theory. Administrative science quarterly, Vol. 10, p.175-203.
Cole, A.H. (1968). Meso – economics: A contribution from entrepreneurial history. Explorations in entrepreneurial history, Vol. 6. No.1, p.3-33.
Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory & practice, Vol. 16, p.7-25.
Daft, R.L. & Weick, K.E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretations systems. Academy of management review, Vol. 9, No. 2, p.284-295.
DeGeus, A. (1997). The living company. Harvard University Press, Boston: Ma.
Dess, G.G. & Lumpkin, G.T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of management executive, Vol. 19, No. 1, p.147-156.
Durant, R.A. & Cashman, J.F. (2003). Theorizing limits: an exploration of boundaries, learning & emancipation. Journal of organizational change management, Vol. 16, No. 6, p.650-665.
Fulmer, M.R. & Keys, J.B. (1998). A conversation with chris Argyris: The father of organizational learning. Organizational dynamic, Vol. 27, No. 2, p.3-77.
Guth, W.D. & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest Editors introduction: corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic management Journal, Vol.11, No. 5, p.5-15.
Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty & profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Leibenstein, H. (1978). General x – efficiency & economic development. Oxford University press.
Levitt, B. & March, J.G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, Vol.14, p.319-340.
Lietch, M.C. & Harrison, T.R. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: researching the interface between learning & the entrepreneurial context, entrepreneurship. Theory practice,29(4), p.351-371.
Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct & linking it to performance. Academy of management review, Vol. 21, p.135-172.
March, J.G. & Olson, J.P. (1976). Ambiguity & Choice in organizations. Oslo, Norway: Universite Tsforlaget.
Mcclelland, D.C. (1967). The Achieving Society. New York: Free Press.
Nevis. E.C., Debella, A.J. & Gould, J.M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan management review, p.73-85.
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper & Row.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development Cambridge. University Press.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning organization. London: Century business.
Senge, P.M. (2003). Tacking personal change seriously: The impact of organizational learning on management practice. Academy of management executive, Vol. 17, No. 3, p.47-50.
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, p.217-226.
Stevenson, H.H., Roberts, M.J. & Grousback, H.I. (1985). New business ventures and the entrepreneur. Homewood, IL, Irwin.
Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic & The spirit of capitalism. New York: Allen & Unwin.
_||_