پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 41 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,113 |
| تعداد مقالات | 9,524 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 17,182,837 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 12,028,030 |
جنبه تاریک شایسته‌سالاری در سازمان: انباشتگی نابرابری اجتماعی از طریق کار | ||
| مدیریت سازمان‌های دولتی | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 12، شماره 3 (پیاپی 47)، تیر 1403، صفحه 21-34 اصل مقاله (841.71 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: اکتشافی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/ipom.2024.70963.4973 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| زینب مولوی* | ||
| استادیار، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| علی‌رغم اینکه شایسته‌سالاری برای ایجاد برابری در سازمان در نظر گرفته میشود، بررسی‌ها نشان می‌دهد شایسته‌سالاری در محیط کار می‌تواند منشأ نابرابری انباشته اجتماعی باشد؛ بر این اساس، هدف پژوهش حاضر شناسایی و بررسی مکانیسم‌هایی است که این نابرابری را ایجاد می‌کنند. پژوهش حاضر به روش کیفی و با روش گروه‌های کانونی اجرا شد و مشارکت‌کنندگان در گروه‌های کانونی شامل 28 نفر از صاحب‌نظران منابع انسانی در سازمان‌های بخش دولتی که با شاخص‌های گزینش و ارتقا در آشنا بوده؛ همچنین، متخصصان جامعه‌شناسی، اعضای هیئت‌علمی دانشگاه‌ها در رشته‌های مدیریت، جامعه‌شناسی و روان‌شناسی که در حوزه عدالت اجتماعی تجربه کاری و پژوهشی داشتند. این افراد به روش قضاوتی انتخاب شدند. طی برگزاری 5 جلسه گروه کانونی ده مکانیسم در چهار سطح (فردی، دوتایی، شبکه و سازمانی) با توجه به مدل پیشنهادی ون‌دیک و همکاران (2020) شناسایی شد. در سطح فردی، مکانیسم‌های مهارت، توانایی، دانش و انگیزه؛ در سطح دوتایی، مکانیزم‌های منابع در دسترس و باورهای وضعیتی؛ در سطح شبکه، مکانیسم‌های نوع ارتباطات بین فردی و سرمایه اجتماعی و در نهایت، در سطح سازمان، مکانیسم‌های بخش‌بندی سازمان و شغل و تفکر شایسته‌سالارانه شناسایی شد که منجر به انباشتگی نابرابری اجتماعی میشود. قابلیت اعتماد و اعتبار یافته‌ها با روش‌های دو کدگذار، بررسی همکار و بررسی مشارکت‌کنندگان تأیید شد. در نهایت، می‌توان گفت پژوهش حاضر توصیه نمی‌کند که سازمان‌ها نباید تلاش کنند شایسته‌سالار باشند و فرصت‌‌ها و پاداش‌‌ها را بر این اساس توزیع کنند، اما سازمان‌ها باید در نظر داشته باشند که چنین توزیع‌هایی عاری از تعصب نیستند. شایسته‌سالاری می‌تواند به‌راحتی به یک پوشش تبدیل شود برای سیستم‌هایی که در آن نابرابری‌های اجتماعی انباشته میشود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| شایسته‌سالاری؛ نابرابری اجتماعی؛ نابرابری اجتماعی انباشته | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Dark Side of Meritocracy in Organization: The Accumulation of Social Inequality through Work | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| zeinab molavi | ||
| Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The aim of this study is to analyse how emotional labor affects on the perception of service quality and customer satisfaction. The research is applied in terms of purpose, descriptive and survey in terms of nature and method, and primary information was collected using a standard questionnaire. The statistical population includes 384 people who refer to Jihad Agriculture in East Azarbaijan province, who were selected by the available sampling method. The information of the respondents was done with the methods of descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing, as well as the fitting of the conceptual model with the SEM method and Lisrel software. Based on the results of statistical analyzes and t-statistic values; 6.58, 9.12 and 7.47, respectively, the direct effect of emotional labor on the customer satisfaction and perception of the quality of service, as well as the direct effect of the perception of the quality of service by the customer satisfaction were confirmed. Investigating the impact of emotional labor on the customer satisfaction, with a path coefficient of 0.52, showed that the variable of emotional labor directly explains 52% of the changes in the satisfaction variable. Two path coefficients between emotional labor and perception of service quality 0.69 and perception of service quality with customer satisfaction 0.74 also showed that the variable of emotional labor indirectly and through the mediating variable of perception of service quality has a 51% effect on the customer satisfaction. The direct and significant effect of emotional labor on the perception of service quality and customer satisfaction was confirmed in the main hypothesis. Investigating and determining the intensity of the indirect effect using the VAF statistic, the value of 49.6% showed that almost half of the total effect of emotional labor on customer satisfaction is indirectly explained by the mediating variable of service quality perception. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Emotional Labor, Perception of Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Jihad Agriculture Organization, East Azerbaijan Province | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and Society, 20(4), 441-464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243 206289499. Bruckmüller, S., Ryan, M. K., Rink, F., & Haslam, S. A. (2014). Beyond the glass ceiling: The glass cliff and its lessons for organizational policy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8(1), 202-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12006. Bugbee, M. et al. (2022). The myth of the meritocracy in law firms and corporate legal departments. Intellectual Property Owners Association’s Diversity & Inclusion Committee. Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543-676. https://doi.org/ 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543 Castilla, E. J., & Ranganathan, A. (2020). The production of merit: How managers understand and apply merit in the workplace. Organization Science, 31(4), 909–935. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1335 Ellemers, N., Rink, F., Derks, B., & Ryan, M. K. (2012). Women in high Fehr, D., & Vollmann, M. (2022). Misperceiving Economic Success: Experimental Evidence on Meritocratic Beliefs and Inequality Acceptance, CESifo Working Paper, No. 9983, Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich. Goya-Tocchetto, D., Kay, A. C., & Payne, B. K. (2024). Can selecting the most qualified candidate be unfair? Learning about socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages reduces the perceived fairness of meritocracy and increases support for socioeconomic diversity initiatives in organizations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage Publications. Hirsh, C. E. (2009). The strength of weak enforcement: The impact of discrimination charges, legal environments, and organizational conditions on workplace segregation. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 245-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 000312240907400205 Ingram, P., & Oh, J. J. (2020). Mapping the class ceiling: The social class disadvantage for attaining management positions. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(1), 56-76. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2020.0030 Kalleberg, A. L. (2003). Flexible firms and labor market segmentation: Effects of workplace restructuring on jobs and workers. Work and Occupations, 30, 154-175. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0730888403251683 Liu, A. (2011). Unraveling the myth of meritocracy within the context of US higher education. Higher education, 62, 383-397. DOI:10.1007/s10734-010-9394-7 Merluzzi, J., & Sterling, A. (2017). Lasting effects? Referrals and career mobility of demographic groups in organizations. ILR Review, 70(1), 105-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793 916669507 Rahimi, F. (2022). Identifying the Challenges of Women in Managerial Positions (Case Study: Government Organizations of Tehran Province). Msc Thesis, public administration field. Faculty of Management and Accounting, Tolo-e Mehr Non-Profit University. (In Persian) Moreira, D., & Pérez, S. (2022). Who Benefits from Meritocracy? (No. w30113). National Bureau of Economic Research. Morgan, D. L. (1998). The Focus Group Guidebook. Focus group kit1. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication. Mulaphong, D. (2023). Does Meritocracy Produce Desirable Outcomes for Public Organizations? Results of a Worldwide Expert Survey from 149 Nations. Public Integrity, 25(6), 578-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2022.2074763 Pitesa, M., & Pillutla, M. M. (2019). Socioeconomic mobility and talent utilization of workers from poorer backgrounds: The overlooked importance of within-organization dynamics. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 737-769. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017. 0115 Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 320(7227), 114. https://doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114 Rubery, J., & Grimshaw, D. (2015). The 40-year pursuit of equal pay: A case of constantly moving goalposts. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(2), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ beu053 Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Magee, J. C. (2018). The agentic–communal model of advantage and disadvantage: How inequality produces similarities in the psychology of power, social class, gender, and race. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 71-125. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/bs.aesp.2018.04.001 Sandel, M. (2022). The tyranny of merit. Translated by Saba Nowrozi, Tehran: Parse Publications. Iranian Economic Monthly (2004). Special issue of meritocracy, the key to development, justice and prosperity, November 2014. (In Persian) Sawert, T. (2019). Understanding the mechanisms of ethnic discrimination: A field experiment on discrimination against Turks, Syrians and Americans in the Berlin shared housing market. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–18. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1369183X.2019.1577727 Tabe Bordbar, F., Kamani, S. M. H., & Manochehri, B. (2016). Studying the relationship between women's glass ceiling beliefs and subjective success among female employees at shiraz municipality. Sociology of Women, 6(4), 125-143. Dor. 20.1001.1.20088566.1394.6.24.7.2 (In Persian) Tyagi, K. (2023, March). Redefining a normative framework for Meritocracy in the era of Generative AI: An Inter-disciplinary perspective. In International Law and Economics Conference (pp. 297-311). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4638260 Van Dijk, H. V., Kooij, D., Karanika-Murray, M., Vos, A. D., & Meyer, B. (2020). Meritocracy a myth? A multilevel perspective of how social inequality accumulates through work. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(3-4), 240-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620930063 Van Dijk, H., Meyer, B., Van Engen, M., & Loyd, D. (2017). Microdynamics in diverse teams: A review and integration of the diversity and stereotyping literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 517-557. https://doi.org/10.5465/ annals.2014.0046 Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy. Thames and Hudson Young, M. (1998). Meritocracy Revisited Society, January/February/ page 377-379. Young, M. (2001). Down with meritocracy. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment Zahedi, Sh. S. (2015). Moving from Cacistocracy towards Meritocracy: A Cross-Sectional Study on Current Employment Status of Iranian University Women. Pazuhesname - ye Zanan, 6(1), 75-95. (In Persian) Zhang, T. (2024). The illusion of meritocracy. Social Science Information, 63(9), 114-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184241230406 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 68 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 74 |
||