شناسایی و اولویت بندی عوامل موثر بر دوسوتوانی کارکنان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه مدیریت منابع انسانی و کسب وکار، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه خوارزمی، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت عملیات و فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه خوارزمی، ایران

3 گروه مدیریت منابع انسانی و کسب وکار، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه خوارزمی

چکیده

 



طی دهه های گذشته دوسوتوانی سازمانی به عنوان یک مبحث جدید مدیریتی مورد توجه قرار گرفته است و به توانایی سازمان در توجه همزمان به دو هدف ناسازگار سازمانی یعنی بهره برداری و اکتشاف اشاره میکند. اما سازمانها برای دستیابی به دوسوتوانی به منابع مختلفی نیاز دارند که مهمترین این منابع نیروی انسانی یا کارکنان سازمان هستند که میتوانند سازمانها را در رسیدن به هدف دوسوتوانی یاری کنند، از این رو هدف این پژوهش شناسایی و اولویت بندی عوامل موثر بر دوسوتوانی کارکنان میباشد. این پژوهش به لحاظ هدف کاربردی و از لحاظ ماهیت توصیفی- پیمایشی میباشد.21 عامل به عنوان عوامل موثر بر دوسوتوانی کارکنان از ادبیات پژوهش استخراج گردید و برای تجزیه و تحلیل اطلاعات از دو روش دلفی و فازی و ISM استفاده شده است. پرسشنامه دلفی و ISM طی دو مرحله بین 15 نفر از مدیران و کارشناسان منابع انسانی بانک های تجاری شهر تهران توزیع گردید که در مرحله اول پس از تجزیه و تحلیل اطلاعات با روش دلفی 7 عامل از بین 21 عامل شناسایی شده حذف گردید و در نهایت 14 عامل به عنوان مهمترین عوامل شناسایی گردید. سپس عوامل شناسایی شده طی پرسشنامه ISM مجددا در اختیار مدیران وکارشناسان قرار داده شد تا به اولویت بندی عوامل بپردازند. بدین ترتیب عوامل در 8 سطح اولویت بندی شدند که ویژگی های شخصیتی که از عوامل فردی درونی میباشد به عنوان تاثیرگذارترین عامل و عوامل انعطاف پذیری منابع انسانی و انگیزه بیرونی که از عوامل سازمانی ساختاری میباشند به عنوان تاثیرپذیرترین عوامل شناسایی شدند

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Identify and prioritize the factors affecting employees' ambidexterity

نویسندگان [English]

  • akbar hassanpoor 1
  • reza yosefi zenouz 2
  • maryam ghorbani 3
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Human Resources and Business Management, Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Operations Management and Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University, Iran
3 Department of Human Resources and Business Management, Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University
چکیده [English]

Over the past decades, organization‘s ambidexterity has been considered as a new managerial topic, pointing to the organization's ability to simultaneously address two inadequate organizational objectives, exploitation and exploration. However, organizations need different resources to achieve ambidexterity, the most important of which are human resources or organization staff that can help organizations achieve their goals. Therefore, this research seeks to identify and prioritize the factors affecting the ambidexterity of employees. This research is applied in terms of purpose and in terms of the nature and method of descriptive-survey. 21 factors were extracted from the research literature as factors affecting employees' ambiguity and Delphi and fuzzy and ISM methods were used to analyze the information. Delphi and ISM questionnaires were distributed in two stages among 15 managers and human resources experts of commercial banks in Tehran. In the first stage, after analyzing the data by Delphi method, 7 factors were removed from the 21 identified factors and finally 14 the factor was identified as the most important factors.
The identified factors were then re-assigned to managers and experts through the ISM questionnaire to prioritize the factors. Thus, factors were prioritized at 8 levels, with personality traits that are internal individual factors being identified as the most influential factors, and human resource flexibility and external motivation being structural organizational factors being identified as the most influential factors

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Organizational Ambidexterity
  • Employees Ambidexterity
  • Exploitation
  • Exploration

مراجع

 بندریان، رضا (1392). دوسوتوانی هم‌زمان، الگوی مناسب سازمان‌دهی فعالیت‌های اکتشاف و بهره‌برداری در سازمان‌های پژوهش و فناوری، فصلنامه توسعه تکنولوژی صنعتی، شماره 22، 21-32.
جلالی، سونیا. (1397)، تجربه کارکنان(قسمت اول): مفهوم تجربه کارکنان. آکادمی تخصصی مدیریت منابع انسانی، دسترسی در سایت:   https://hrmacy.ir/index.php/tag/2018-05-21-11-40-23
دادی نخلستانی، یاسر علی؛ محمودزاده، ابراهیم؛ موسی خانی، مرتضی و الوانی، مهدی (1397). بررسی شایستگی‌های راهبردی منابع انسانی دوسوتوان در یک سازمان دفاعی، نشریه علمی-پژوهشی بهبود مدیریت. سال دوازدهم، شماره 1، پیاپی 39. 27-50.
مرادی، محمود؛ ابراهیم­پور مصطفی و ممبینی، یعقوب (1393). تبیین دوسوتوانی به‌عنوان مفهومی نوین در مدیریت سازمان‌های دانش‌بنیان، فصلنامه رشد فناوری، سال دهم، شماره 40، 18-27.
ممبینی، یعقوب؛ ابراهیم­پور، مصطفی و مرادی، محمود (1393). بررسی ابهامات و نوع شناسی دوسوتوانی سازمانی در سازمان‌های تکنولوژی­محور، فصلنامه توسعه تکنولوژی صنعتی. شماره 23. 59-72.
 
 Ajayi, O. M. (2013). The impact of employee ambidexterity on organisational and marketing innovations: organisational context for exploiting the present and exploring for the future (Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University).
 Ajayi, O. M., Odusanya, K., & Morton, S. (2017). Stimulating employee ambidexterity and employee engagement in SMEs. Management Decision, 55(4), 662-680.
 Alghamdi, F. (2018). Ambidextrous leadership, ambidextrous employee, and the interaction between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovative performance. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1-14.
Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M., & Holland, J. (2005). Empowerment in practice: From analysis to implementation. The World Bank.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49-61.
 Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N. R., Erez, M., & Farr, J. L. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 305–337.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305-337.
 Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and human resource management. Macmillan International Higher Education.
 Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial marketing management, 31(6), 515-524.
 CAMERON, K.S. and QUINN, R.E., 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
 Cameron, K.S., and Quinn, R.E. (1999), an introduction to changing organizational culture. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework, John Wiley & Sons. Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2006), Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture, Revised Edition, Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint, San Francisco.
 Caniëls, M. C., & Veld, M. (2016). Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work behavior: how much balance do we need? International journal of human resource management, 30(4), 565-585.
 Caniëls, M. C., Neghina, C., & Schaetsaert, N. (2017). Ambidexterity of employees: the role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1098-1119.
 Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
 Carmeli, A. and Halevi, M. Y. (2009). ‘How top management team behavioral integration andbehavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity’. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 207–18.
 Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J.-A. & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). ‘Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 835– 47.
 Eysenck, H. J. (1963). Biological basis of personality. Nature, 199(4898), 1031-1034.
 Faisal Ahammad, M., Mook Lee, S., Malul, M., & Shoham, A. (2015). Behavioral ambidexterity: The impact of incentive schemes on productivity, motivation, and performance of employees in commercial banks. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), s45-s62.
 Floyd, S.W. and Lane, P.J. (2000), "Strategizing throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal", Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154-177.
 Fu, N., Ma, Q., Bosak, J., & Flood, P. (2015). Exploring the relationships between HPWS, organizational ambidexterity and firm performance in Chinese professional service firms. Journal of Chinese Human Resources Management, 6, 5270.
 Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
 Holmqvist, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). The ambidextrous employee: Exploiting and exploring people's potential. Managing ‘human resources’ by exploiting and exploring people’s potentials. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 37, 1-23.
 Hunter, S. T., Thoroughgood, C. N., Myer, A. T., & Ligon, G. S. (2011). Paradoxes of leading innovative endeavors: Summary, solutions, and future directions. Psychology of Aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 5(1),54–66.
 Jimenez-Jimenez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2008). Could HRM support organizational innovation?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 1208-1221.
 Kahn, W. A. (1990). “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
 Kang, S. C., Morris, S. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation. Academy of Management Review, 32, 236–256.
 Kauppila, O. P., & Tempelaar, M. P. (2016). The social‐cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behaviour and the supportive role of group managers’ leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 1019-1044.
 Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management research. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 25, 217–271.
 Lubatkin, M. H., Z. Simsek, Y. Ling, and Veiga, J.F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performancein small- tomedium-sized firms. Journal of Management, 32:1-17.
 March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.    
 Minbaeva, D. B., Mäkelä, K., & Rabbiosi, L. (2012). Linking HRM and knowledge transfer via individual‐level mechanisms. Human Resource Management, 51(3), 387-405.
 Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240.
 Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top‐down, bottom‐up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of management studies, 44(6), 910-931.
 Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2003). Challenging ‘strategic HRM’ and the relevance of the institutional setting. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 56-70.
 Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1420-1442.
 Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 298-310.
 Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3): 375-409.
 Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51, 869–881.
 Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956–974.
 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
 Schuler, R. S., & MacMillan, I. C. (1984). Gaining competitive advantage through human resource management practices. Human Resource Management, 23(3), 241-255.
 Smith, W. K. and Lewis, M. W. (2012). ‘Leadership skills for managing paradoxes’. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 227–31.
 Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536.
 Taródy, D. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity as a new research paradigm in strategic management. Vezetéstudomány-Budapest Management Review, 47(5), 39-52.
 Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27, 701-721.
 Zacher, H, Robinson, AJ, Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and Employees' self-reported innovative performance: the role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24-46.
 Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2014). Ambidextrous Leadership and Employees' Self-Reported Innovative Performance: The Role of Exploration and Exploitation Behaviors, Journal of Creative Behavior, 1-25.
مدیریت منابع انسانی پایدار
دوره 2، شماره 3
آبان 1399
صفحه 194-175

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار