رهبری دانشگاهی بر پایه کارآفرینی مدیر

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکز و عضو هیات علمی علوم تربیتی دانشگاه پیام نور. تهران-ایران.

2 دانشیار دانشگاه پیام نور. تهران. ایران

3 استادیار دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحدتهران مرکزی-تهران- ایران

4 استاد دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحدتهران مرکزی-تهران- ایران

چکیده

      پژوهش حاضر که در صدد پیش بینی رهبری دانشگاهی بر پایه کارافرینی مدیر است، از نظر هدف، کاربردی؛ از لحاظ داده­ها جز مطالعات کمی است و محقق در صدد زمینه­یابی، توصیف، تبین و کشف اطلاعات در یک مقطع زمانی خاص است. برای انجام این پژوهش 446 پرسشنامه (پرسشنامه رهبری دانشگاهی و پرسشنامه کارافرینی مدیر) با متغیرهای مورد مطالعه؛ رهبری آموزشی، کارآفرینی مدیر و مشخصات فردی(تجربه کاری، سن) به کمک نرم افزارSAS مورد تجزیه و تحلیل آماری قرار گرفته است و برای پاسخ به پرسش اصلی"آیا رهبری آموزشی دانشگاه را می­توان برپایه کارآفرینی مدیران پیش بینی نمود؟" ازمدل همبستگی بنیادی استفاده شده است. یافته­ها حاکی از آن هستندکه؛ نیاز به پیشرفت و اعتماد به نفس بسیار بالا موّلد ترغیب مداری و مهارت­های بین فردی بسیاربالاست، مخاطره پذیری و تحمل ابهام بسیار بالا تولید کننده تفاهم­مداری و توسعه­ مداری بسیاربالاست، ودرنهایت رهبران دانشگاهی باکمک سه متغیر بسیار بالای موضع کنترل درونی و منفعت طلبی و انعطاف پذیری قادرند به هدف مداری و توسعه مداری بسیار بالا از رهبری آموزشی دردانشگاه دست یابند. به طورکلی می­توان نتیجه گرفت ترکیب­های خطی متفاوت از مؤلفه­های کارآفرینی مدیران، ترکیب­های خطی متفاوتی از رهبری آموزشی در دانشگاه را به وجود می­آورد و همین اقتضایی بودن مدل، پژوهش حاضر را از سایر پژوهش­ها متمایز می­نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Educational Leadership in University based on manager’s entrepreneurship

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fereshteh Asadzadeh 1
  • Mahmood Ekrami 2
  • Seed Farhad Eftekharzadeh 3
  • Abbas khorshidi 4
1 Ph.D. Student of Islamic Azad University, and Faculty of Educational Science, Payame Noor University. Tehran. Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Science, Payame Noor University. Tehran.Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Science Islamic Azad University. Tehran. Iran
4 Professor, Department of Educational Science Islamic Azad University. Tehran. Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
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.
Introduction
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.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • : Leadership University
  • manager’s entrepreneurship
  • Correlation Fundamental
1-Boellen, C .(1992) Towards the assessment of quality in medical education. Geneva: world Health Organization, p92. 

2-Brouwer, E.W., and Doughness, Gea and W. (2004). Going to Online Online Learning (Translators: Mashayekh F. and Bazargan A. 2006). Tehran: Awareness Publication. (In Persian)

3-Bush, T. (2012). Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. London:SAGE

4-Bush T. (2016). Educational leadership theories. Fourth Edition. Translated by: Mohammad Hassani and Maryam Sameri. Urumia University of Urmia Publication. ( In Persian)

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)
7-Etzkowitz, H. (2000).The  future  of  the  university  and the  university  of the future: evolution of  ivory  tower  in to  Entrepreneurial  university. Research  policy,29,313-30

8-Fernald, Lloyd W. Jr., Solomon, G. Tarabishy, A. (2009) "A New Paradigm: Entrepreneurial Leadership". Southern Business Review.vol.03,Jul,http://findarticles.com.

9- Hicks R. F. (2014). Coaching as a Leadership Style - The Art and Science of Coaching Conversations for Healthcare Professionals. Published by Routledage.

10-Hosseinpour J. Hosseini S. E. Rostami M. (2014). Relationship of communication skills with interpersonal relationships of sport managers in Guilan province. The two parts of the management and development of sport, p.2(5). P.104-91.(In Persian)

11-Hooman H. (2015). Analysis of Multivariate Data in Behavioral Research. Fifth Edition. Tehran: Peyk Farhangh Publications.( In Persian)

12-Huang H. K.(2014) . Examining Youth Attitued Toward Civic Engagment: A  Stady of Collaborative  Social  Entrepreneurship Using a Multy-User Virtual Eviornmet. The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education. Published by ProQuest LLC.

13-Irene H., Siu C., Hang S. (2017). The mechanism underlying the empowering leadership-creativity relationship. Management College, Shatin, Hong Kong. journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

14-Karimi Y. (2016). personality psychology. Seventeenth edition. Tehran: Publication of Fara Anghizesh. (In Persian)

15-Keramati M. R.(2014). Strategic Planning in Educational Organizations. First Edition. Tehran: Publication of the SAMT. ( In Persian)

16-Khorshidi A. , Zolfaghari H. (2013). Theories of management and leadership. Tehran: Yastarun Publishing. (In Persian)
17-Kubler J., Sayers N. (2010). Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. High Holborn London, WC1V 7QT England.

18-Lockett A., Hayton J., Ucbasaran D., Mole K. & Hodgkinson G. P.( April 2013). Entrepreneurial Leadership, Capabilities and Growth .ERC White Paper No.2

19-Lubynsky Roman M. & Mierzwa T. (2016).  From Lab Bench to Innovation: Critical Challenges to Nasent Academic Enterpreneurs. Published PhD. Dissertation in Maryland University College.

20-McCleland D. (2004). Research in to Achievement motivation”, http://www.accel-team.com

21-Millar P., & Stevens, J (2012). Management training and national sport organization managers: Examining the impact of training on individual and organizational performances. Sport Management Review. 15(3): 288-303.

22- Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

23- Ncee Entreprenership in Education. (2017).Entreprneurial University Leaders Programme Applications Are Now Open.http://ncee.org.uk.

24-Panahandeh, M. (2012). The benefactor is very good. Nahj al-Balaghah section of the Tebyan site. (In Persian)
25-Price R. W.(2011).What is entrepreneurial management . Global Community for Advancing Studies on Entrepreneurship.

26-Robbins S. (1998). Basics of Organizational Behavior. Translation: Arabi S. M. & Parsayian A. (2016) Tehran: Office of Cultural Research Publishing. (In Persian)
27-Rahimi H. and Aqa Babaei R. (2013). Analysis of self-steering components and its relationship with entrepreneurship faculty members of Kashan University. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. Number 70. 177-161. (In Persian)

28-Rahimnia F.(2018). Quality Challenges in the Academic System. https://vpap.um.ac.ir (In Persian)

29-Ramsden, P. (2008). Learning to lead in higher education. 3th published. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library.

30-Salari S.(2014) Explain the role of opportunity in the entrepreneurial process. Tehran: Entrepreneurship Center of Sharif University. ( In Persian)

31-Schoemaker,P.J.(2012).6 habits of true strategic thinkers. www.inc.com/paul-schoemaker/6-habits-of-strategic-thinkers.html.p.19

32-Scott, D. (2014).Contemporary leadership in sport organizations. United States: Human Kinetics.

33- Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (revised ed.). New York: Crown.

34- Shills, E.(1988) the academic ethic (Chicago: University oc Chicago press, cited in Boclen. C & al.

35-Shoaee Sahzabi Z. (2013) The Relationship between Knowledge Management and Training Leadership, at Al-Zahra University. The Graduate Diploma of Postgraduate Education Management at PNU . (In Persian)

36- Stogdill, R. M. & Coons, A. E. (1957), "Leader Behavior: Its

Description and Measurement", the Ohio State University Bureau of Business

Research, Columbus, OH.

37-Swedenberg R. (2012). Profit and social structure. Translated: Saeedi.A. A. Tehran: Institute for the Development of Culture and Studies. (In Persian)

38- Vanaja. Y. & Geetha D. (2017). A Study on Locus of Control and Self Confidence of High School Students. International Journal of Research –GRANTHAALAYAH.pp:598-602.

39- Yadolahi Parsi J., (2012). Entrepreneurial Leadership Creating Competitive Advantage in Future Organizations. National Conference on Entrepreneurship and Creativity.
40-Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

41-Zalee. M.R. (2011). Towards a state of the art of entrepreneurial leadership. Entrepreneurship Development, No. 12, Pages 64-45. (In Persian).