نقش مرزگستری دانشگاهیان در نوآوری سازمانی با میانجی‌گری چابکی سازمانی در دانشکده‌های فنی و مهندسی دانشگاه‌های دولتی شهر تهران
محورهای موضوعی : یافته های جدید علمی در حوزه های نوآوری و کارآفرینی
سعید نوراللهی
1
(دانشجوی دکترای مدیریت آموزشی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران )
سیروس قنبری
2
(استاد گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران )
کلید واژه: مرزگستری, چابکی سازمانی, نوآوری سازمانی,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف از انجام پژوهش بررسی نقش مرزگستری دانشگاهیان در نوآوری سازمانی با میانجی‌گری چابکی سازمانی در دانشکده‌های فنی و مهندسی دانشگاه‌های دولتی شهر تهران بود. روش پژوهش آمیخته-اکتشافی (کیفی-کمی) بود. در بخش کیفی شناسایی ویژگی‌های اعضای هیأت علمی مرزگستر در دانشگاه‌های دولتی مدنظر بود. بدین منظور 15 نفر از اعضای هیأت علمی دانشگاه‌های دولتی به‌صورت هدفمند انتخاب و مورد مصاحبه قرار گرفتند. مصاحبه‌ها با استفاده از کدگذاری تحلیل شدند که 48 کد باز، 9 کد محوری شناسایی شده و در سه طبقه ویژگی‌های فردی، ویژگی‌های شغلی و ویژگی‌های سازمانی مرزگستر دانشگاهی قرار گرفتند. روش پژوهش در بخش کمی توصیفی- همبستگی بود. جامعه آماری اعضای هیأت علمی دانشکده‌های فنی و مهندسی دانشگاه‌های دولتی شهر تهران به تعداد 2189 نفر در سال 1402 بود که با استفاده از فرمول کوکران حجم نمونه به تعداد 327 نفر تعیین و با استفاده از روش تصادفی طبقه‌ای (نسبی) نمونه‌گیری انجام شد. داده‌ها با پرسشنامه‌های محقق‌ساخته مرزگستری اعضای هیأت علمی، نوآوری سازمانی و چابکی سازمانی گردآوری شد. برای تعیین روایی پرسشنامه‌ها از تحلیل عاملی تأییدی و جهت بررسی پایایی ابزارها از ضریب آلفای کرانباخ استفاده شد. تحلیل داده‌ها با آزمون همبستگی پیرسون و تکنیک مدلیابی معادلات ساختاری و با نرمافزارهای SPSS و LISREL8.80 انجام شد. یافته‌ها نشان داد؛ مرزگستری بر نوآوری و چابکی سازمانی تأثیر مثبت دارد، چابکی سازمانی نیز اثر معناداری در نوآوری سازمانی دارد. همچنین نقش میانجی چابکی سازمانی در تأثیر مرزگستری بر نوآوری سازمانی تأیید شد. در نتیجه آموزش عالی به‌منظور بقاء خود در محیط رقابتی باید با استفاده از استراتژی مرزگستری و بهبود چابکی سازمانی به نوآوری در فرایندهای آموزش و پژوهش و تولیدات علمی بپردازد
The purpose of the research was to investigate the role of academics' boundary-spanning in organizational innovation by mediating organizational agility in technical and engineering faculties of public universities in Tehran. The research method was mixed-exploratory (qualitative-quantitative). In the qualitative part, it was considered to identify the characteristics of academics' boundary-spanning in state universities. So, 15 faculty members of public universities were purposefully selected and interviewed. The interviews were analyzed using coding, and 48 open codes, 9 central codes were identified and they were placed in three categories: Personal characteristics, Job characteristics, and Organizational characteristics of academics' boundary-spanning were placed in three categories. The research method in the quantitative part was descriptive-correlation. The statistical population of technical and engineering faculty members of public universities in Tehran was 2189 people in 1402, which was determined by using Cochran's formula, the sample size was 327 people, and sampling was done using stratified (relative) random sampling. The data was collected using the researcher-made questionnaire of academic's boundary-spanning, questionnaire of organizational innovation and the organizational agility. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and confirmatory factor analysis were used to determine the reliability of the tools. Data analysis was done with Pearson correlation test and structural equation modeling technique with SPSS and LISREL 8.80 software. The findings showed that boundary spanning has a positive effect on organizational innovation and organizational agility, and organizational agility has a significant effect on organizational innovation. Also, the mediating role of organizational agility in the effect of boundary spanning on organizational innovation was confirmed. As a result, in order to survive in a competitive environment, higher education should innovate in the processes of education, research and scientific production by using the strategy of boundary spanning and improving organizational agility
1. باقری‌کراچی، امین. و عباس‌پور، عباس. (1391). چابکی؛ رهیافتی نوآورانه در مدیریت دانشگاه‌ها. فصلنامه نوآوری و ارزش‌آفرینی، 1، 1، 61-70. 2. حبیب‌زاده، شیوا.، مهاجران، بهناز.، قلعه‌ای، علیرضا.، حسنی، محمد. (1400). تبیین نقش میانجی تعهد سازمانی در رابطه بین چابکی و هوش سازمانی با عملکرد سازمانی. فصلنامه نوآوری و ارزش‌آفرینی، 20، 10، 57-74.
3. عزیزیان، مجتبی.، بهرامی، شهاب.، نقشبندی، سیدصلاح الدین. و جلیلوند، محمد. (1399). ارائة مدل توسعة مرزگستری در سازمان‌های ورزشی ایران. مدیریت و رفتار سازمانی در ورزش، 9، 2، 43-56
4. قریشی خوراسگانی، مریم‌سادات.، و نظرزاده‌زارع، محسن. (1400). نگاهی به چالش‌های رهبران مرزگستر دانشگاهی. آموزش عالی ایران. ۱۳ (۲) :۷۲-۹۵.
5. میقانی‌نژاد، علیرضا.، تسلیمی، محمدسعید.، محمدی، مهدی. و الیاسی، مهدی. (1400). مرزگستری در پروژه‌های کلان پژوهشی شرکت ملی نفت: فراترکیب ادبیات موضوعی و ارائه جهت‌گیری تحقیقات آتی. مطالعات راهبردی در صنعت نفت و انرژی، 12(50)، 23-42. 6. Abdel Qader, M. A., Harahshe, F., & Abu
Qulah, M. (2021). The Role of Organizational Agility and its Impact on Achieving Organizational Commitment a Field Study: Jordan Cement Company. Nat. Volatiles & Essent. Oils, 8, 4, 2858-2876.
7. Abdel-Aty, Y., & Deraz, H. (2022). The Mediating Role of Organizational Agility on the Relationship between Environmental Uncertainty and Innovation in Hotels. Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Sadat City University, 6, 2, 33-54.
8. Adams, K. R. (2014). The Exploration of Community Boundary Spanners in University–Community Partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18, 3, 113-118.
9. Al-Ajri, D. F. I. (2017). Organizational agility and its role in enhancing the relationship between business intelligence and organizational performance by applying to the pharmaceutical sector, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Commerce, Al-Azhar University (Cairo).
10. Al-Hattami, A., & Al Malki, F. (2019). Faculty Members' Job Satisfaction and Their Innovative Teaching. International Journal of Current Research, 11, 3, 2636-2641.
11. Al-Omoush, Kh. S., Simón-Moya, V., & Javier Sendra-García, J. (2020). The impact of social capital and collaborative knowledge creation on e-business proactiveness and organizational agility in responding to the COVID-19 crisis, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5, 4, 279-288.
12. AlTaweel, I.R., & Al-Hawary, S. I. (2021). The Mediating Role of Innovation Capability on the Relationship between Strategic Agility and Organizational Performance. Sustainability, 13, 7564.
13. Baas, M., Schuwer, R., van den Berg, E., Huizinga, T., van der Rijs, R., & Admiraal, W. (2022). The role of brokers in cultivating an inter-institutional community around open educational resources in higher education. Higher Education. 1-21. Doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00876-y.
14. Baškarada, S., & Koronios, A. (2018). The 5S organizational agility framework: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 26, 331-342.
15. Cao, N., Wang, J., Wang, Y., &Yu, L. (2021). Towards Enterprise Sustainable Innovation Process: Through Boundary-Spanning Search and Capability Reconfiguration. Processes, 9, 2092. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9112092
16. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature, Journal of Management Studies, 47, 6, 1154-1191.
17. Delozier, J. L. (2018). Boundary Spanners and Trust Development Between Stakeholders in Integrated Water Resource Management: A Mixed Methods Study. Dissertations & Theses in Natural Resources. 266. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natresdiss/266
18. Engesbak, V., & Ingvaldsen, J. A. (2019). Please Use Our Ideas: Making Parallel Organizations Work. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 26(3/4), 183–195.
19. Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The Evolution of the Entrepreneurial University. International Journal of Technology & Globalization, 1, 64-77.
20. Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. J Bus Res, 67:1285–1292
21. Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of production economics. 133, 2, 662-676.
22. Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: a special issue introduction, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 2, 129-145.
23. Keij, L., & van Kranenburg, H. (2022). How organizational leadership and boundary spanners drive the transformation process of a local news media organization. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849221105721
24. Keszey, T. (2018). Boundary spanners’ knowledge sharing for innovation success in turbulent times. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22, 5, 1061-1018. DOI 10.1108/JKM-01-2017-0033
25. Kim, S. L., Lee, D., & Yun, S. (2022). Leader boundary-spanning behavior and creative behavior: the role of need for status and creative self-efficacy, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43. 6, 835-846.
26. Kulangara, N. P., Jackson, S. A., & Prater, E. (2016). Examining the impact of socialization and information sharing and the mediating effect of trust on innovation capability. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36(11), 1601-1624.
27. Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. (2011). Understanding the Link between Information Technology Capability and Organizational Agility: An Empirical Examination, MIS Quarterly, 35, 4, 931-954.
28. Markides, C., & S. Crainer, S. (2010). Innovating globally, Bus. Strategy Rev., 21, 24–27.
29. Meng, H. (2022). Analysis of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Educational Management in Higher Education Based on Deep Learning. Hindawi, Special Issue.
30. Muduli, A. (2016). Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: an empirical study, Management Research Review, 39, 12, 1567-1586.
31. Nafei, W. A. (2016). The Role of Organizational Agility in Enhancing Organizational Excellence: A Study on Telecommunications Sector in Egypt, International Journal of Business and Management, 11, 4, 121-135.
32. Nazarzadeh zare, M., & Ghoraishi khorasgani, M. S. (2022). Boundary-spanning leadership as a necessity for academic administrators. International Journal of Educational Management. 4, 527-540.
33. Needham, C., Mastracci, S., & Mangan, C. (2017). The emotional labour of boundary spanning, Journal of Integrated Care, 25, 4, 288-300.
34. Özkan, H., & Salepçioğlu, M. A. (2022). Does Organizational Agility Affect Sustainable Quality Perception? The Mediating Role of Innovation Orientation. International Journal of Business, 27(4), 1-20.
35. Park, S., & Cho, K. (2022). Agility and Innovativeness: The Serial Mediating Role of Helping Behavior and Knowledge Sharing and Moderating Role of Customer Orientation. Behav. Sci. 12, 274.
36. Purcell, J., Pearl, A., & Van Schyndel, T. (2020). Boundary spanning leadership among community-engaged faculty: An exploratory study of faculty participating in higher education community engagement. Engaged Scholar Journal, 6(2), 1–30.
37. Ravichandran, T. (2018). Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27, 1, 22-42.
38. Romero-Hidalgo, J. A., Isiordia-Lachica, P. C., Valenzuela, A., & Rodríguez-Carvajal, R. A. (2021). Knowledge and Innovation Management Model in the Organizational Environment. Information. 12(6):225.
39. Rosenkranz, Ch., & Kautz, K. (2014). Supporting organizational agility in a software company through boundary spanning and knowledge brokering. 23 RD International Conference on Information Systems Development (Isd2014 Croatia) (pp. 58-67). Croatia: University of Zagreb.
40. Salem, M., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Besiou, M. (2018). How field office leaders drive learning and creativity in humanitarian aid: Exploring the role of boundary-spanning leadership for expatriate and local aid worker collaboration. J. Organ. Behav. 39, 594–611.
41. Samimi, M., Cortes, A. F., Anderson, M. H., & Herrmann, P. (2020). What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 101353. Doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101353
42. Schneckenberg, D., Truong, Y., & Mazloomi, H. (2015). Microfoundations of innovative capabilities: the leverage of collaborative technologies on organizational learning and knowledge management in a multinational corporation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 356-368.
43. Seoin, Y. (2018). Boundary Spanning Leadership and Creative Performance: Exploring Psychological Mechanisms and Boundary Conditions. Theses (Master's Degree, College of Business Administration/Business School.
44. Silva, J. J., & Cirani, C. B. S. (2020). The capability of organizational innovation: systematic review of literature and research proposals. Gestão & Produção. 27, 4.
45. Van Lancker, J., Mondelaers, K., Wauters., & Huylenbroeck, G. V. (2015). The Organizational Innovation System: A systemic framework for radical innovation at the organizational level. Technovation, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.11.008i
46. Vrontis, D., Belas, J., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G., & Christofi, M. (2022). Strategic agility, openness and performance: a mixed method comparative analysis of firms operating in developed and emerging markets. Rev Manag Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00562-4
47. Williams, P. (2010). Special Agents: The Nature and Role of Boundary Spanners. (Presentation ESRC research seminars series - Collaborative Futures: New insights from intra and inter-sectoral collaborations). University of Birmingham. Retrieved from https://docplayer.net/43248650-Special-agents-the-nature-and-role-of boundaryspanners.html
48. Ze, R., Kun, Z., Boadu, F., & Yu, L. (2018). The Effects of Boundary-Spanning Search, Network Ties, and Absorptive Capacity for Innovation: A Moderated Mediation Examination. Sustainability, 10, 3980.
49. Zhang, Q., & Li, J. (2021). Can employee's boundary-spanning behavior exactly promote innovation performance? The roles of creative ideas generation and team task interdependence, International Journal of Manpower, 42, 6, 1047-1063.
50.Žitkiene, R., & Deksnys, M. (2018). Organizational Agility Conceptual Model, Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), 14(2), 115-129.