عنوان مقاله [English]
The present study, titled "Educational Leadership University" based on manager’s entrepreneurship is objectively fundamental; part of the quantitative studies in terms of data, and based on research questions, the type of study conducted is of a field-based nature and also of a single-variable type. The statistical population of this research included faculty members of universities of the country who had management experience at the university or had a managerial position during the implementation of the research, and 446 of them were randomly selected. The research instruments were two questionnaires of Ramsden academic leadership with 57 items and manager’s entrepreneurship with 75 items which performed and validated. To answer the main question of this study, SPSS, SAS software has been used with the fundamental correlation statistical method. The fundamental correlation analysis of the production of linear combinations from the main variables is not intended to explain the variance in a set of variables, but rather to explain the maximum value of the relationship between two sets of variables (Hooman, 2015; 278). Generally, it can be concluded that different linear combinations of the entrepreneurial components of managers create different linear combinations of educational leadership in the university, and this contingency of the model distinguishes the research.
Higher education systems should be responsive to the current and future needs of the community, and must be transformed into responsibility for accountability. One of the evolutionary developments is the phenomenon of information and communication technology, which is called technological changes, and the other is to adapt to the global marketplace and move towards entrepreneurship. Nowadays, the age of the University of Static has been passed which trains and recruits the traditional method of training a manpower, and a new college campus is that educates entrepreneurial, creative and efficient staff. Changing structure, physical space, and most importantly updating the way universities are managed, and moving from management to leadership, from university leadership to entrepreneur leadership, will be an effective step in today's successful universities. According to Bennett (1998), academic leaders are not meant to be heads of departments or deputies, although they are often the ones who are responsible for the leadership line. Indeed, his viewpoint refers to the practical and everyday practice of supporting, managing, developing, and stimulating academic colleagues. Ramsden (2008) believes that leadership should emphasis and focus on change and innovation, and also closely monitor the traditional academic values for responding the new and sometimes weird needs . Academic leadership is in fact a change, and Bush (2012), in view of the complexities of humanity in the present era, and the need for human capital ready to operate in changing environments, academic leaders should be familiar with the theory and practice of educational management to achieve such a philosophy and Thinking. With the increasing complexity and environmental dynamism, leaders find it necessary to adopt a new approach to leadership, entrepreneurial leadership. According to Fernald, Salomon, George and Tarabishi (2009), entrepreneurial leadership is identifying the beneficial opportunities in the dynamic market and the process of penetrating others in order to identify and exploit the entrepreneurial opportunities and the internal benefits of the organization.
Materials and Methods
The research instruments were two questionnaires of academic leadership with 57 items and manager’s entrepreneurship with 75 items which performed and validated. α = 0.9267 credit score for manager's entrepreneurship questionnaire and α = 0/9692 credit score for educational leadership questionnaire at university, resulted in internal consistency of questionnaires questions. The Bartlett test showed that the correlation matrix for manager's entrepreneurship questionnaire with a value of 15330/552 is significant at the level less than 0.001. Therefore, the value of KMO = 0.83 and also the Bartlet test in the university leadership questionnaire with a value of 19004.969, is significant at the level less than 0.001. Therefore, KMO = 0.95 was calculated, which indicates that sample size is sufficient for sampling.
Findings and Conclusions
The findings of the data analysis showed that in the manager’s entrepreneurship variable, the internal control position component has the highest mean and the lowest standard deviation, and the lowest mean to the self confidence component and the highest standard deviation to the risk factor component. Also, in the academic leadership variable, the highest mean and minimum standard deviation belongs to the component of the developmen( evolutionary) and the lowest mean of the quasi-component of interpersonal relations and the highest standard deviation to the component of the induction. In general, for the manager’s entrepreneurship,it also has got an average of 3.093 and a standard deviation of 0.314 and for academic leadership an average of 2.887 and a standard deviation of 0.636. Also, the results of the data analysis indicate that the entrepreneurial component of the manager was generally reported with a mean of 3.093 and a standard deviation of 0.314. With a statistic of t =39.80. The zero hypothesis was rejected and the level of this variable is very high in a society where the group and sample are extracted, such as its constituent components, and the academic leadership component was generally reported with a mean of 2.887 and a standard deviation of 0.363, and with a statistical of t =12.85.
Overall, the research findings show: the need for progress ( F3) and the high self-esteem generate stimulation ( R2) and very high interpersonal skills ( R5), the risk ( F5), and tolerating the high degree of ambiguity ( F6) manufacture understanding ( R3) and very high development (R4), and at the end, managers with internal control ( F2) and interest ( F8) and high flexibility ( F9) are very capable of achieving the objective ( R1) and high development( R4) of the educational leadership at the university.
Finally, with the help of the correlation model, in the final output, three contingency models are introduced; in the first model, the understanding and development, and in the third model, the induction is independent of entrepreneurship of managers. Also, age and service experience are not a good predictor of educational leadership at the university. Generally, it can be concluded that different linear combinations of the entrepreneurial components of managers create different linear combinations of educational leadership in the university, and this contingency of the model distinguishes the research.
5- Collins, J. (2005), Better Than Good, Translation by Amini, F., Tehran: Faraz Publications.
6-Dipl Psych, P. Behrendt, S. M, Anja S. G. (2016). An integrative model of leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly. Journal homepage: www.Elsevier.com. P 16.
6-Ekrami M. & Ghalamkari M. (2016). Providing Entrepreneurship Development Model Based on Knowledge Management. Management Development Magazine(24) .pp:33-43. ( In Persian)
16-Khorshidi A. , Zolfaghari H. (2013). Theories of management and leadership. Tehran: Yastarun Publishing. (In Persian)
24-Panahandeh, M. (2012). The benefactor is very good. Nahj al-Balaghah section of the Tebyan site. (In Persian)
26-Robbins S. (1998). Basics of Organizational Behavior. Translation: Arabi S. M. & Parsayian A. (2016) Tehran: Office of Cultural Research Publishing. (In Persian)
39- Yadolahi Parsi J., (2012). Entrepreneurial Leadership Creating Competitive Advantage in Future Organizations. National Conference on Entrepreneurship and Creativity.