رصد عوامل مؤثر بر کاهش اشتیاق کاری اعضای ‌هیأت‌علمی دانشگاه‌های دولتی ایران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 استاد، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

10.22111/jmr.2020.31939.4817

چکیده

آموزش عالی، از ارکان اساسی توسعه هر کشور بوده، هدف آن توسعه ابعاد علمی، فناورانه، فرهنگی، اقتصادی، سیاسی و اجتماعی جامعه است. آشکار است که تحقق این امر، مستلزم داشتن استادانی مشتاق است. هرگاه استادان، اشتیاق بالایی داشته باشند، می‌توانند این اشتیاق را در دانشجویان خود به وجود آورند یا بر آن بیافزایند. در این پژوهش، اشتیاق استادان، به تدریس و پژوهش و فعالیت­های اجتماعی مد نظر قرار گرفته ، پرسش اصلی این است که عوامل مؤثر بر کاهش اشتیاق کاری اعضای هیأت علمی دانشگاه‌های دولتی ایران کدامند؟ با توجه به ماهیت موضوع، پژوهش به شیوه کیفی انجام شده است، جامعه خبرگان پژوهش حاضر، اعضای هیأت علمی دانشگاه های دولتی شهر تهران بوده، که از میان آنها 22 نفر با شیوه نمونه‌گیری هدفمند انتخاب شدند و مورد مصاحبه عمیق و نیمه­ساختاریافته قرار گرفتند. سپس به‌طور منظم، متن هر مصاحبه‌ کدگذاری شد و ضمن تجزیه و تحلیل مصاحبه‌ها، با استفاده از روش تحلیل تم، مفاهیم و تم‌های مورد نظر در قالب3 تم اصلی، 8 تم فرعی 18 دسته مفهومی شناسایی شدند و مورد بحث قرار گرفتند. طبق یافته‌های پژوهش، موانع ساختاری، موانع محتوایی، موانع فرهنگی، گرایش‌های منفی، پویایی‌های منفی، موانع مرتبط با دانشجویان، جامعه، همکاران و رئیس دانشکده، اشتیاق کاری اعضای هیأت علمی دانشگاه‌های دولتی ایران را کاهش می‌دهند. این پژوهش با رصد عوامل کاهنده اشتیاق کاری اعضای هیأت علمی دانشگاه برای نخستین بار و ارائه پیشنهادهایی برای کنترل یا رفع آنها از نوآوری ویژه­ای برخوردار است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Exploring the Factors Affecting Work Engagement Decline of Faculty Members of Public Universities in Iran.

نویسندگان [English]

  • Afsaneh Dehghanpour Farashah 1
  • Aliasghar Pourezzat 2
  • Aryan Gholipour 2
  • Reza Vaezi 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3 Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Abstract
Higher education has been a key pillar of every country's development with its purpose being to develop the scientific, technological, cultural, economic, political, and social dimensions of society. It is obvious that reaching this purpose requires engaged faculty members. Whenever they have high engagement, they can create or increase the engagement in their students as well. In this study, faculty members’ engagement for teaching, researching, and social activities has been considered giving rise to this question: what are the factors affecting work engagement decline of faculty members of public universities in Iran? Due to the nature of the study, qualitative research was conducted. Participants were 22 faculty members of public universities of Tehran who were selected by the purposive sampling method and were interviewed in an in-depth and semi-structured manner until theoretical saturation was reached. Then, using thematic analysis the text of each interview was coded regularly and the themes and concepts were identified and categorized into 3 main themes, 8 sub-themes and 18 conceptual categories and discussed. According to the findings, structural barriers, content barriers, cultural barriers, negative tendencies, negative dynamics, barriers related to students, community, colleagues, and dean reduce the work engagement of faculty members of public university in Iran. Exploring the declining factors of faculty members’ work engagement, this research enjoys specific novelty and offers suggestions for resolving or controlling them.
Introduction
Work engagement of faculty members is an important issue which has recently received attention by researchers (Van den Berg, Mastenbroek, Scheepers & Jaarsma, 2017; Van den Berg et al., 2018; Meng & Sun, 2019). Engagement implies a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá & Bakker, 2002: 74). Research conducted in the area of work engagement has mostly focused on the work engagement of employees and sometimes teachers. They are often quantitative and address the relationship between variables, and pay less attention to faculty members’ work engagement (Knight, Patterson, & Dawson, 2017; Choochom, 2016; Bamford, Wong & Laschinger, 2013; Sokolov, 2017; Wilson, 2018). Also, considering the job differences between faculty members and teachers, particular attention needs to be paid to their work engagement. In this study, faculty members’ engagement for teaching, researching, and social activities has been investigated giving rise to this question: what are the factors affecting work engagement decline of faculty members of public universities in Iran?
Case study
In this qualitative research, faculty members of public universities in Iran constitute the research population and data collection was conducted through purposive sampling.
Materials and Methods
Due to the nature of the subject, the research is conducted in a qualitative manner and is based on the interpretation philosophy and the inductive approach. Data collection is conducted through interview with 22 faculty members from public universities in Tehran. The method of data analysis is thematic analysis.
Discussion and Results
After data analysis, the identified factors were categorized into 3 main themes, 8 sub-themes and 18 conceptual categories. According to the findings, structural barriers, content barriers, cultural barriers, negative tendencies, negative dynamics, issues related to students, community, colleagues, and dean reduce faculty members’ engagement.
Conclusion
Exploring the factors affecting work engagement decline of faculty members, it was observed that any increase in work engagement in one specific area of the profession would cause work engagement decrease in other areas. Thus, the phenomenon of balance in work engagement can be emphasized as a new and important concept. It appears the degree of work engagement should be relatively balanced in the various tasks. It is noteworthy that with the emergence of the phenomenon of faculty members with several different jobs, there has occurred a shift in their priorities. In addition, the regulations for their evaluation and promotion have stimulated them to shift from teaching to researching and activities outside universities leading to a fundamental crisis in their engagement, especially engagement to their teaching.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • work engagement
  • faculty members
  • Negative Dynamics
  • Social Isolation
  • Academic Corruption
1-Aarts, D. (2014). The truth about employee engagement. Canadian Business, 87(2).

2-Abtahi, S. H. &Torabian, M. (2010). Investigation of Higher Education Goals Based on Twenty Year Country Vision Document Using AHP Methodology, Research in Educational Systems, No. 8,31-60 (in persian)

3-Ahmadi, M., Nargesian, A., & Nazari, M. (2019). Developing Student Charter of Honor (Case Study: University of Tehran), Culture in Islamic University, 8 (10), 501-518. (in persian)

4-Al Mehrzi, N., & Singh, S. K. (2016). Competing through employee engagement: a proposed framework. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6), 831-843.

5-Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Employee engagement: 10 key questions for research and practice. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), New horizons in management. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (p. 3–19). Edward Elgar Publishing

6-Albrecht, S. L. (2011). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Human Resource Management International Digest, 19(7).

7-Alhazmi, A. K., Rahman, A. A., & Zafar, H. (2014). Conceptual model for the academic use of Social Networking Sites from student engagement perspective. In 2014 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

8-Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2014). The nature of teacher engagement at an online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793-806.

9-Bakker, A. (2008). Building engagement in the workplace. In The peak performing organization (pp. 96-118). Routledge.

10-Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.

11-Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career development international, 13(3), 209-223.

12-Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273.

13-Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(2), 147-154.

14-Bamford, M., Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. (2013). The influence of authentic leadership and areas of worklife on work engagement of registered nurses. Journal of nursing management, 21(3), 529-540.

15-Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

16-Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

17-Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. (2011). Relation between human resource development climate and employee engagement: Results from India. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 7(4), 664-685.

18-Choochom, O. (2016). A causal relationship model of teachers’ work engagement. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 11(2), 143-152.

19-Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of management, 38(5), 1550-1581.

20-Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self- determination in Human Behavior. New York and London: Plenum.

21-Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499.

22-Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 579-599.

23-Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Sage.

24-Esakhani, A. & Fani, A. A. & Danaei Fard, H. (2013) Explaining the Antecedents of Work Engagemnt Using a Mixed Research Design. Journal of Transformation Management, No. 10, 1-24 . (in persian)

25-Esakhani, A. & Fani, A. A. (2012). Exploring the Origins of Employee Engagement Using Qualitative Research Approach, Eighth Human Resource Development Conference, Tehran, Productivity and Human Resources Research Center. (in persian)

26-Fazeli, N. (2019) Is it possible to criticize the Iranian higher education? Daneshgahe Emrooz (scientific journal of office of cultural and Social Policymaking and planning in the ministry of science), 3 (4), 51-38. (in persian)

27-Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden- and- build theory of positive emotions, American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–26.

28-Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279.

30-Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.

31-Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(3), 632.

32-Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2017). How are changes in exposure to job demands and job resources related to burnout and engagement? A longitudinal study among Chinese nurses and police officers. Stress and Health, 33(5), 631-644.

33-Imperatori, B. (2017). Engagement and Disengagement at Work: Drivers and Organizational Practices to Sustain Employee Passion and Performance. Springer.

34-Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.

35-Kang, H. J. (2014). A model of hospitality employee engagement, A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy - Hospitality Administration, . University of Nevada.

36-Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Engagement and emotional exhaustion in teachers: Does the school context make a difference? Applied Psychology, 57, 127-151.

37-Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2017). Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. Journal of organizational behavior, 38(6), 792-812.

38-Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of college student development, 50(6), 683-706.

39-Lodahl, T. M., & Kejnar, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of applied psychology, 49(1), 24.

40-Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. John Wiley & Sons.

41-Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. John Wiley & Sons.

42-Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 397-422.

43-Meng, Q., & Sun, F. (2019). The Impact Of Psychological Empowerment On Work Engagement Among University Faculty Members In China. Psychology research and behavior management, 12, 983-990.

44-Mohammadpour, A.(2018). Counter-Method: The Philosophical underpinings and practical and procedures of Qualitative Methodology, Second Edition. Qom: Logos Publcations . (in persian)

45-Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of applied psychology, 79(2), 224.

46-Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217.

47-Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students (Six Edation.). Prentice Hall: London

48-Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.

49-Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.

50-Scrima, F., Lorito, L., Parry, E., & Falgares, G. (2014). The mediating role of work engagement on the relationship between job involvement and affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(15), 2159-2173.

51-Shuck, B., & Herd, A. M. (2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human resource development review, 11(2), 156-181.

53-Shuck, B., Adelson, J. L., & Reio, T. G. (2017). The employee engagement scale: Initial evidence for construct validity and implications for theory and practice. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 953-977.

54- Simbula, S. (2010). Daily fluctuations in teachers' well-being: A diary study using the Job Demands–Resources model. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 23(5), 563-584.

55-Sokolov, C. K. (2017). Teacher Engagement In Grades 4-8. Pepperdine University.

56-Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Information (International Social Science Council), 13(2), 65-93.

57-Van den Berg, B. A. M., Bakker, A. B., & Ten Cate, T. J. (2013). Key factors in work engagement and job motivation of teaching faculty at a university medical centre. Perspectives on medical education, 2(5-6), 264-275.

58-Van den Berg, J. W., Mastenbroek, N. J., Scheepers, R. A., & Jaarsma, A. D. C. (2017). Work engagement in health professions education. Medical teacher, 39(11), 1110-1118.

59-Van den Berg, J. W., Verberg, C. P., Scherpbier, A. J., Jaarsma, A. D. C., Arah, O. A., & Lombarts, K. M. (2018). Faculty’s work engagement in patient care: impact on job crafting of the teacher tasks. BMC medical education, 18(1), 312.

60-Wang, D. S., & Hsieh, C. C. (2013). The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and employee engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(4), 613-624.

61-Villavicencio-Ayub, E., Jurado-Cárdenas, S., & Valencia-Cruz, A. (2014). Work engagement and occupational burnout: Its relation to organizational socialization and psychological resilience. Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues, 6(2), 45-55.

62-Wilson, J. (2018). The Impact of Leadership Behaviors on Teacher Engagement. Dallas Baptist University.

63-Zhong, L., Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (2016). Job engagement, perceived organizational support, high‐performance human resource practices, and cultural value orientations: A cross‐level investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6), 823-844.