اینو دیدی

مرجع دانلود فایل ,تحقیق , پروژه , پایان نامه , فایل فلش گوشی

اینو دیدی

مرجع دانلود فایل ,تحقیق , پروژه , پایان نامه , فایل فلش گوشی

رفتار سازمانی لاتین Organization studies 14 ص

اختصاصی از اینو دیدی رفتار سازمانی لاتین Organization studies 14 ص دانلود با لینک مستقیم و پر سرعت .

لینک دانلود و خرید پایین توضیحات

فرمت فایل word  و قابل ویرایش و پرینت

تعداد صفحات: 15

 

Organizational studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Organizational studies, organizational behaviour, and organizational theory is the systematic study and careful application of knowledge about how people - as individuals and as groups - act within organizations.

Overview

Organizational studies encompasses the study of organizations from multiple viewpoints, methods, and levels of analysis. For instance, one textbook [1] divides these multiple viewpoints into three perspectives: modern, symbolic, and postmodern. Another traditional distinction, present especially in American academia, is between the study of "micro" organizational behavior -- which refers to individual and group dynamics in an organizational setting -- and "macro" organizational theory which studies whole organizations, how they adapt, and the strategies and structures that guide them. To this distinction, some scholars have added an interest in "meso" -- primarily interested in power, culture, and the networks of individuals and units in organizations -- and "field" level analysis which study how whole populations of organizations interact. In Europe these distinctions do exist as well, but are more rarely reflected in departmental divisions.

Whenever people interact in organizations, many factors come into play. Modern organizational studies attempt to understand and model these factors. Like all modernist social sciences, organizational studies seek to control, predict, and explain. There is some controversy over the ethics of controlling workers' behaviour. As such, organizational behaviour or OB (and its cousin, Industrial psychology) have at times been accused of being the scientific tool of the powerful.[citation needed] Those accusations notwithstanding, OB can play a major role in organizational development and success.

The goal of the organizational theorist is to revitalize organizational theory and develop a better conceptualization of organizational life.[2] An organizational theorist should carefully consider levels assumptions being made in theory[3], and is concerned to help managers and administrators.[4]

[edit] History

The Greek philosopher Plato wrote about the essence of leadership. Aristotle addressed the topic of persuasive communication. The writings of 16th century Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli laid the foundation for contemporary work on organizational power and politics. In 1776, Adam Smith advocated a new form of organizational structure based on the division of labour. One hundred years later, German sociologist Max Weber wrote about rational organizations and initiated discussion of charismatic leadership. Soon after, Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced the systematic use of goal setting and rewards to motivate employees. In the 1920s, Australian-born Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his colleagues conducted productivity studies at Western Electric's Hawthorne plant in the United States.

Though it traces its roots back to Max Weber and earlier, organizational studies is generally considered to have begun as an academic discipline with the advent of scientific management in the 1890s, with Taylorism representing the peak of this movement. Proponents of scientific management held that rationalizing the organization with precise sets of instructions and time-motion studies would lead to increased productivity. Studies of different compensation systems were carried out.

After the First World War, the focus of organizational studies shifted to analysis of how human factors and psychology affected organizations, a transformation propelled by the identification of the Hawthorne Effect. This Human Relations Movement focused on teams, motivation, and the actualization of the goals of individuals within organizations.

Prominent early scholars included Chester Barnard, Henri Fayol, Arjen Blankesteijn, Frederick Herzberg, Abraham Maslow, David McClelland, and Victor Vroom.

The Second World War further shifted the field, as the invention of large-scale logistics and operations research led to a renewed interest in rationalist approaches to the study of organizations. Interest grew in theory and methods native to the sciences, including systems theory, the study of organizations with a complexity theory perspective and complexity strategy. Influential work was done by Herbert Alexander Simon and James G. March and the so-called "Carnegie School" of organizational behavior.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the field was strongly influenced by social psychology and the emphasis in academic study was on quantitative research. An explosion of theorizing, much of it at Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon, produced Bounded Rationality, Informal Organization, Contingency Theory, Resource Dependence, Institutional Theory, and Organizational Ecology theories, among many others.

Starting in the 1980s, cultural explanations of organizations and change became an important part of study. Qualitative methods of study became more acceptable, informed by


دانلود با لینک مستقیم


رفتار سازمانی لاتین Organization studies 14 ص

تحقیق درباره رفتار سازمانی لاتین Organization studies 1

اختصاصی از اینو دیدی تحقیق درباره رفتار سازمانی لاتین Organization studies 1 دانلود با لینک مستقیم و پر سرعت .

لینک دانلود و خرید پایین توضیحات

فرمت فایل word  و قابل ویرایش و پرینت

تعداد صفحات: 14

 

Organizational studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Organizational studies, organizational behaviour, and organizational theory is the systematic study and careful application of knowledge about how people - as individuals and as groups - act within organizations.

Overview

Organizational studies encompasses the study of organizations from multiple viewpoints, methods, and levels of analysis. For instance, one textbook [1] divides these multiple viewpoints into three perspectives: modern, symbolic, and postmodern. Another traditional distinction, present especially in American academia, is between the study of "micro" organizational behavior -- which refers to individual and group dynamics in an organizational setting -- and "macro" organizational theory which studies whole organizations, how they adapt, and the strategies and structures that guide them. To this distinction, some scholars have added an interest in "meso" -- primarily interested in power, culture, and the networks of individuals and units in organizations -- and "field" level analysis which study how whole populations of organizations interact. In Europe these distinctions do exist as well, but are more rarely reflected in departmental divisions.

Whenever people interact in organizations, many factors come into play. Modern organizational studies attempt to understand and model these factors. Like all modernist social sciences, organizational studies seek to control, predict, and explain. There is some controversy over the ethics of controlling workers' behaviour. As such, organizational behaviour or OB (and its cousin, Industrial psychology) have at times been accused of being the scientific tool of the powerful.[citation needed] Those accusations notwithstanding, OB can play a major role in organizational development and success.

The goal of the organizational theorist is to revitalize organizational theory and develop a better conceptualization of organizational life.[2] An organizational theorist should carefully consider levels assumptions being made in theory[3], and is concerned to help managers and administrators.[4]

[edit] History

The Greek philosopher Plato wrote about the essence of leadership. Aristotle addressed the topic of persuasive communication. The writings of 16th century Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli laid the foundation for contemporary work on organizational power and politics. In 1776, Adam Smith advocated a new form of organizational structure based on the division of labour. One hundred years later, German sociologist Max Weber wrote about rational organizations and initiated discussion of charismatic leadership. Soon after, Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced the systematic use of goal setting and rewards to motivate employees. In the 1920s, Australian-born Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his colleagues conducted productivity studies at Western Electric's Hawthorne plant in the United States.

Though it traces its roots back to Max Weber and earlier, organizational studies is generally considered to have begun as an academic discipline with the advent of scientific management in the 1890s, with Taylorism representing the peak of this movement. Proponents of scientific management held that rationalizing the organization with precise sets of instructions and time-motion studies would lead to increased productivity. Studies of different compensation systems were carried out.

After the First World War, the focus of organizational studies shifted to analysis of how human factors and psychology affected organizations, a transformation propelled by the identification of the Hawthorne Effect. This Human Relations Movement focused on teams, motivation, and the actualization of the goals of individuals within organizations.

Prominent early scholars included Chester Barnard, Henri Fayol, Arjen Blankesteijn, Frederick Herzberg, Abraham Maslow, David McClelland, and Victor Vroom.

The Second World War further shifted the field, as the invention of large-scale logistics and operations research led to a renewed interest in rationalist approaches to the study of organizations. Interest grew in theory and methods native to the sciences, including systems theory, the study of organizations with a complexity theory perspective and complexity strategy. Influential work was done by Herbert Alexander Simon and James G. March and the so-called "Carnegie School" of organizational behavior.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the field was strongly influenced by social psychology and the emphasis in academic study was on quantitative research. An explosion of theorizing, much of it at Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon, produced Bounded Rationality, Informal Organization, Contingency Theory, Resource Dependence, Institutional Theory, and Organizational Ecology theories, among many others.

Starting in the 1980s, cultural explanations of organizations and change became an important part of study. Qualitative methods of study became more acceptable, informed by


دانلود با لینک مستقیم


تحقیق درباره رفتار سازمانی لاتین Organization studies 1

دیدگاهی متفاوت ازفراگیری سازمانی

اختصاصی از اینو دیدی دیدگاهی متفاوت ازفراگیری سازمانی دانلود با لینک مستقیم و پر سرعت .

لینک دانلود و خرید پایین توضیحات

فرمت فایل word  و قابل ویرایش و پرینت

تعداد صفحات: 15

 

A Differal view of organization learing

دیدگاهی متفاوت ازفراگیری سازمانی

گردآورنده : سوگیلی

به نظرمی رسد بیشترادبیات فراگیری سازمانی ،دنباله روی عقاید(اصول) تئوریهای فراگیری وجنبۀ فکری فردی یاروانشناسانه برروی این پدیده هستند . مباحثه ای دراین موردوجودداردکه آیاسازماندهی هامی توانندیادبگیرندیاخیروبسیاری فقط درراه رسیدن به آن هستند. که فراگیری سازمانی ،حاصل جمع فراگیری فردی است ، که درمحل کارروی می دهد .

(Argris &schon , 1996 ; levit & March,1998; Normann,1985

;Weick&Westly,1996).

اگرتمرکزمابه یکی که انسان شناسانه تراست ودرنتیجه برروی فراگیری گروه تمرکزی می یابد،تغییرکند،چه اتفاقی روی می دهد؟اگرتغییری ازفراگیری دریافت شده به اندازۀ درک برای فهم آن وجودداشت ،چه اتفاقی می افتاددرزمانیکه ،گروههاسعی می کنند ،احساسی خارج ازدنیایشان بسازند؟ .

به عنوان نتیجۀ دیدگاه جدیدفراگیری سازمانی ،چه چیزی می تواند ،بعضی ازتغییرات ضروری دراین دیدگاهها،عقایدیاتمرینات باشد؟ چراشرکتهامی خواهند. سازمان های فراگیری باشند ؟ این صفحه این ،قضایاراجستجوخواهدکرد .

این امر،مشکل به نظرمی رسد،که دیدگاههای یادگیری مان رابه بعضی ازگروههایی که آن راانجام می دهند ،تغییردهیم . واینکه این کاربخشی طبیعی ازفعالیت روزمره مان است . بسیاری ازمربیان ومتخصصان علوم نظری به نظرنمی رسدکه قادربه شنیدن تکذیبات خودشان باشند .

Jamese .Russel ,dean emeritus ,Teachers college,colum bia university بیان می کند .

این امرنمی تواند،اغلب هدف قرارداده شودکه همۀ تحصیلات ،خودتحصیلی هستند . ممکن است آموزگاران به محدودکردن فرآیندرسوم ،جمع آوری تجهیزات ونشان دادن آرام ترین مسیرهاکمک کنند ،اماصعودکننده بایدبرای رسیدن به قلۀ کوه ،سروپاهای خودش رابکارببرد. بدون تردید،بهترین روش برای تدریس بزرگسالان ،بحث گروهی است . (Knowles ,1990 )

روش تئوری گروهی به فراگیری خیلی همدردبافراگیری نوع بشری است ، اماحتی چارلزراجردرکتاب آزادی یادگیری اش بطورمستقیم یادگیری گروه رابیان نمی کند .

مرجعی به نام jigsaw opproach (تئوری زیگسار) وجودداردکه ، هردانش آموزرابه عنوان قطعه ای تعیین می کند که قسمتی ازکل پروژه می شود . اگرمایادگیری گروهی رابه عنوان چیزهای متفاوت ازذخیره یادگیری فردی جستجوکنیم ،سقوط کوتاهی ازچیزی که ممکن است باشد ،بنظرمی رسد .

چه اتفاقی می افتداگرکارگران ازکاردسته جمعی وکمک به یک نفردیگردرخواست کمک می کند ،همدستی ، وازانجام کارواقعی بایکدیگردوری کنند؟ این صفحه درمورداین قضیه بحث نمی کند که آیاچنین چیزی به عنوان یادگیری گروهی وجودداردیاخیروجودندارد. درعوض به مااجازه می دهدکه فقط سعی کنیم که ببینیم که چه چیزی می تواند زمانی که مادیدگاهی متفاوت ازموضوع داریم دربارۀ یادگیری سازمانی کشف شده باشد .

مفهوم های کلیدی (اصلی) برای توسعۀ دیدگاه متفاوت ازیادگیری سازمانی ابتداء ازسه ضلع نشأت می گیرد . دریکی ازمقالات ،نویسندگان سازمان رابه عنوان یک فرهنگ وپیوستگی نظم وبی نظمی ،که اغلب یادگیری راتحریک می کند ،می بینند .

(weick &westly ,1996)

دومین بازسازی اجتماعی دانستنیهادرگروههااینکه وچگونه این امر،راهی که بایدیادگیری رامی فهمیم تغییرمی دهد،توجه می کنند (Bruffee.1993

سومین منبع ، چرخۀ طبی آمریکاییهای بومی رابکارمی بردکه یک مدل یادگیری سازمانی راکه مدور،طولانی وتکامل یافته ،بیش ازمسیرمعمولی اند وبرش متقاطع وقسمتی راتوسعه می دهد . یادگیری چیزی است که تمام اوقات اتفاق می افتد (Cowan,1995)

سپس این مفاهیم نشأت گرفته ،ازاین سه منبع کلیدی برای فهمیدن اینکه آنهاچه چیزی برای یادگیری سازمانی نشان می دهند گسترده می شوند . پس،بعضی ازتغییرات لازم سازمانهاممکن است به منظورپذیرش این مفهوم های رسیدگی شده ،ساخته شود .

Organizational culture

فرهنگ سازمانی

دریک مقاله توسط ویک وستلی درکتاب مطالعات سازماندهی درسال (1996) که یادگیری سازمانی نامیده شد . درحال اظهارکردن یک oxymoron(یعنی : عباراتی که دوکلمه راترکیب می کند تابرضدیکدیگرباشند ، نویسندگان سازمانهارابه اندازۀ فرهنگهامی دانند .آنهاتوضیح می دهند که یادگیری سازمانی یک oxymoro است . زیرایادگیری ،اختلال ویک افزایش رادرتنوع درگیرمی کند ، درحالیکه سازماندهی غفلت ویک کاهش رادرتنوع درگیرمی کند . این امتدادی راسازماندهی می کند که بسیاری ازکارگران بکارنمی برند واغلب دریک تلاش برای برگشتن به سازماندهی نادیده می گیرند .


دانلود با لینک مستقیم


دیدگاهی متفاوت ازفراگیری سازمانی