انحراف سازنده بحث‌‌انگیز: برساخت نظریه‌‌ای داده‌‌بنیاد در سازمانی دولتی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی کیفی

نویسندگان
ریحانه یاوری 1
مصطفی هادوی نژاد 2
1 کارشناس ارشد، گروه مدیریت، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه ولی‌عصر (عج)، رفسنجان، ایران.
2 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه ولی‌عصر (عج)، رفسنجان، ایران.
چکیده
این پژوهش با هدف کاوش فرایند معنابخشی رفتارهای انحرافی سازمانی سازنده بحث‌انگیز به‌وسیله کارکنان یک سازمان دولتی در چارچوب طرح ساخت‌گرای نظریه داده‌بنیاد انجام شده است. اینها رفتارهایی هستند که هنجارهای موجود سازمان را به چالش می‌‌کشند و مقررات را می‌‌شکنند تا به سازمان یاری رسانند. به‌این‌منظور با 15 نفر از کارکنان دانشگاه ولی­عصر رفسنجان (که از رهگذر نمونه­‌گیری نظریه دعوت به همکاری شده بودند) مصاحبه‌هایی عمیق انجام شد. تحلیل داده­‌های گردآوری ­شده از سه مرحله کدگذاری اولیه، متمرکز و نظریه گذشت و براساس یافته‌ها چنین دریافت شد که به‌دلیل کاستی‌های موجود در قوانین و مقررات مجریان آنها دچار ناکامی و بحران هویت می‌شوند. آنها ناگزیر از انتخاب فلسفه اخلاق خود در عمل هستند و نتیجه­‌گرایی را برمی‌گزینند تا از رهگذر خدمت به سازمان حتی با تخطی از قانون و مقررات، هویت خود را بازیابند و به این‌ترتیب فراخوان انحراف انجام می‌دهند. در این میان یادگیری اجتماعی رفتارهای انحرافی سازنده در سازمان در کنش انحرافی ایشان مؤثر است. تأیید اجتماعی ادراک‌شده در کاهش ناهمگونی شناختی متعاقب رفتار انحرافی سازنده بحث‌­انگیز به‌وسیله کنشگر تأثیر دارد. افزایش بهره­‌وری سازمانی و رضایت ارباب­‌رجوع از دیگر پیامدهای به‌روز رفتارهای انحرافی سازمانی سازنده بحث­‌انگیز در قلمرو مکانی پژوهش شناخته شدند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
رفتارهای انحرافی
رفتارهای انحرافی سازنده
انحراف سازنده بحث انگیز
نظریه داده بنیاد
طرح ساخت گرا

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

The challenging constructive deviation: Constructing a grounded theory in a public organization

نویسندگان English

Reyhaneh Yavari 1
Mostafa Hadavinejad 2
1 Msc, Department of Management, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economy, Vali-e-Asr University, Rafsanjan, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Management, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economy, Vali-e-Asr University, Rafsanjan, Iran.
چکیده English

The purpose of this research was to explore the process of sensemaking of challenging constructive deviant behaviors among the employees of a public organization, within the framework of the constructivist design of grounded theory. These are the behaviors that challenge the existing norms of the organization and break the rules to help the organization. For this purpose, in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 employees of Vali-Asr University of Rafsanjan who were invited to cooperate through theory sampling. Data analysis was done during three stages of primary, focused and theory coding. According to the findings, it was concluded that due to the deficiencies in the laws and regulations, their implementers suffer from identity crisis. They are forced to choose their philosophy of ethics in practice and in this regard choose result-orientation in order to regain their identity by serving the organization, even if they violate the law and regulations. In this way they call for deviance. Meanwhile, social learning of constructive deviant behaviors in the organization is effective in their deviant actions. Perceived social approval has an effect in reducing cognitive dissonance following controversial constructive deviant behavior by the actor. The increase in organizational productivity and the satisfaction of clients were recognized as other consequences of the challenging constructive deviant behaviors in the studied organization.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Deviant Behaviors
Constructive Deviant Behaviors
Challenging Constructive Deviation
Grounded Theory
Constructivist Design
[1] Appelbaum S. H., Iaconi G. D., & Matousek A. "Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions", Corporate Governance, 7(5), 2007, pp 586-598.
[2] Yildiz B., Alpkan L., Ates H., & Sezen B. "Determinants of constructive deviance: the mediator role of psychological ownership", International Business Research, 8(4), 2015, pp 107-121.
[3] Coccia C. "Avoiding a" toxic" organization", Nursing Management, 29(5), 1998, pp 32-33.
[4] Bennett R. J., & Robinson S. L. "The past, present, and future of workplace deviance research", In: J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, pp 247-281.
[5] Sharma N. "Fostering positive deviance: A potential strategy to an engaged workforce", Strategic Direction, 36(8), 2020, pp 1-3.
[6] Spreitzer G. M., & Sonenshein S. "Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing", In: K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds), Positive organizational scholarship, San Francisco, CA, 2003, pp 207-224.
[7] Galperin B. L. "Determinants of deviance in the workplace: An empirical examination in Canada and Mexico", Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Concordia University, Montreal, 2002.
[8] Galperin B. L., & Burke R. J. "Uncovering the relationship between workaholism and workplace destructive and constructive deviance: An exploratory study", International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 2006, pp 331-347.
[9] Herington M. J. & van de Fliert E. "Positive deviance in theory and practice: A conceptual review", Deviant Behavior, 39(5), 2018, pp 664-678
[10] O’Neill T. A., Lewis R. J., & Carswell J. J. "Employee personality, justice perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance", Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 2011, pp 595-600.
[11] Vadera A. K., Pratt M. G., & Mishra P. "Constructive deviance in organizations: Integrating and moving forward", Journal of Management, 39(5), 2013, pp 1221-1276.
[12] Robbins S. L., & Galperin G. B. "Constructive deviance: striving toward organizational change in healthcare", Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 5, 2010, pp 1-11.
[13] Peterson D. K. "`Deviant workplace behaviour and the organization's ethical cimate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 2002, pp 47-61.
[14] Skarlicki D. P., Folger R., & Tesluk P. "Personality as a moderator of the relationship between fairness and retaliation", Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 1999, pp 100-108.
[15] Barclay L. J., Skarlicki D. P., & Pugh, S. D. "Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation", Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (4), 2005, pp 629-643.
[16] Ryan R. M., & Deci E. L. "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being". American Psychologist, 55, 2000, pp 68-78.
[17] Oldham G. R., & Cummings A. "Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work", Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1996, pp 607-634.
[18] Blau P. M. "Exchange and power in social life". NY: Wiley, 1964.
[19] Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. "Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 2004, pp 439-459.
[20] Chung Y. W. & Moon H. K. "The moderating effects of collectivistic orientation on psychological ownership and constructive deviant behavior", International Journal of Business and Management, 6(12), 2011, pp 65-77.
[21] Forsyth D. R. "Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of personal moral philosophies", Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5-6), 1992, pp 461-470.
[22] Singhapakdi A., Vitell S. J., & Franke G. R. "Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 1999, pp 19-36.
[23] McHoskey J. W. "Authoritarianism and ethical ideology", The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(6), 1996, pp 709-717.
[24] Liu J., Wang H., Hui C., & Lee C. "Psychological ownership: How having control matters", Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 2012, pp 869-895.
[25] Spreitzer G. M., & Doneson D. "Musings on the past and future of employee empowerment", In: T. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Development, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, 2005, pp 311-324.
[26] Bowman B. "Positive deviance in the workplace: Expanding the boundaries of dissent", Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Baylor University, Waco, 2013.
[27] Bodankin M., & Tziner A. "Constructive deviance, destructive deviance and personality: How do they interrelate?", Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 11(26), 2009, pp 549-564
[28] Barrick M. R., & Mount M. K. "The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis", Personnel Psychology, 44, 1991, pp 1-26.
[29] LePine J. A., & Van Dyne L. "Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability", Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 2001, pp 326–336.
[30] Liao H., Joshi A., & Chuang A. "Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work", Personnel Psychology, 54, 2004, 969-1000.
[31] Salovey P., & Grewal D. "The science of emotional intelligence", Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 2005, pp 281-285.
[32] Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis", London: Sage Publications, 2006.
[33] Creswell J. W. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
[34] Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory, Los Angeles: Sage, 2014.
[35] Creswell J. W., Miller D. L. "Determining validity in qualitative inquiry", Theory into Practice, 39, 2000, 124-130.
[36] Elangovan A. R., Pinder C. C., & McLean M. "Callings and organizational behavior", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 2010, pp 428-440.‌
پژوهش های مدیریت منابع سازمانی
دوره 14، شماره 3
آذر 1403
صفحه 143-170