بررسي رابطه باورهاي فراشناختي مختل با سبك‌هاي تصميم‌گيري مديران دانشگاه صنعتي مالك اشتر
محورهای موضوعی :
1 - حكيم سبزواري
کلید واژه: جمعيت‌شناختي , باورهاي فراشناختي , سبك‌هاي تصميم‌گيري , مدير ,
چکیده مقاله :
پژوهش حاضر به منظور بررسي رابطه بين باورهاي فراشناختي مختل با سبك‌هاي عمومي تصميم‌گيري مديران دانشگاه صنعتي مالك اشتر انجام شد. از بين كل مديران دانشگاه، بر اساس جدول مورگان تعداد 88 نفر به شيوه تصادفي ساده انتخاب شدند. ابزار پژوهش شامل پرسشنامه متغيرهاي جمعيت شناختي، مقياس باورهاي فراشناختي مختل ولز، و سبك‌هاي عمومي تصميم‌گيري اسكات و بروس، بود. روش تجزيه و تحليل شامل آمار توصيفي و آمار استنباطي (همبستگي، آزمون t، آزمون تحليل واريانس، رگرسيون گام به گام) بود. نتايج بدست آمده نشان داد: متغيرهاي جمعيت‌شناختي (سن، سابقه كار، تحصيلات) بر انواع سبك‌هاي تصميم‌گيري مديران تأثير نداشت فقط رتبه سازماني مديران بر سبك تصميم‌گيري شهودي آنها تاثير داشت. همچنين نتايج تحليل رگرسيون نشان داد سبك‌هاي تصميم‌گيري منطقي، وابسته و شهودي از روي خرده مولفه‌هاي باورهاي فراشناختي مختل قابل پيش‌بيني نيستند؛ فقط سبك آني از روي خرده مولفه‌هاي باور منفي در مورد نگراني و باور منفي در مورد افكار و سبك اجتنابي نيز از روي خرده مولفه باور منفي در مورد نگراني قابل پيش‌بيني است.
The aim of the present research was examine of relationship between, metacognitive believes variables with decision making styles of the managers of malek Ashtar industrial university. The statistics population includes all the manager of Malek Ashtar industrial university, that according to simple random sampling method 88 managers were selected. The instruments of research were: General decision making styles questionary (Scott, Bruce), and metacegnitive believes of Wells. The methods of analysis were: pearson correlation, T test, Anova, regression. The results indicated that: - Demographic variables such as age-education – work experience didn't have any effect on decision making styles except orgazinational degree. The regression analysis showed.: - Spontanious style is predictable on the subtests of negative belief about worry and negative belief about thoughts (the subtests of metacegnitive believes). - Avoidance style is predictable on the subtest of negative belief about worry (The subtest of metacegnitive believes).
1. Najaf Aghyi. H, kozehchiyan H, Adel A, Ehsani M. The study tucly of decision making methods of managers of universities related to science ministry. Journal of Hekmat, 1381 (sn 14). [Persian]
2. Schwenk, C. The congnitive persective on strategic decision making. Journal of management studies. (1988). 25(0022-2380).
3. Riaz, M, N.Haque, AU. leadership styles as predictors of decision making styles.African Journal of business management (2012). vol 6 (15), pp-5226-5233.
4. Kummar, A. The influence of metacognition on manegerial hirig Decision making .Dissertation submittied to the faculty of the Virginia polytechnic instituted and state university for the degree of doctor of philosophy in Education and houman development. (1998).
5. Thunholm, P. Decision.making style:habit, style or both.personality and individual differences. (2004). 36(937-944).
6. Johnson, W. The paradexes of military risk assessment. Department of computing science, university of Glasgow, Scatland Uk. (2010).
7. Louvieris, P. Gregoriades, A. Gom, W. Assessing critical success factors for military decision support. Expert systems with applications (2010). 37 (2010) 8229-8247.
8. Scott, S, Bruce, R. Decision Making style: The development and assisment of a new measure.Educational and psychological measurement, (1995). 55(5), 818-831.
9. Wood.L.N. Individual differences in decision-making styles as predictor of good decision making. Thesis submitted to the graduatecollege of bowling green. (2012).
10. Martin, L, B.Bandali, F.Lamoureux, T. survey of literature pertaining to decision making styles and individual factors. Progect manager.Department of national defence. DRDC-Toronto scientific Authorite. (2005).
11. Shiloh, sh.koren, sh.Zakay, D. Individual differences in compensatory decision-making style and need for closure as correlate of subjective decision complexity and difficulty. Personality and Individual differences. (2000). 30(699-710).
12. Mueller, CA. Influence of tiransformational leader ship style on decision- making style and thechnology readiness. Proquest dissertation and thesis.For degree Doctor of management in organizational leader ship. (2009).
13. Hamidi F, Ebrahimi Damavandi M, Parvizi, A. Relationship Between Personality and decision – making styles of Guidance schools principals. The first national conferences of cognitive science findings in education. 2-3 Azar (1390) [Persian]
14. Heydari E, Marzoghi R, Study of decision making styles of shiraz university managers. The research project of shiraz university. (1390) [Persia]
15. Blais, A.R.Thompson, M, M.Baranski, J, v. Individual differences in decision processing and confidence Judgmentin comparative Judgment tasks. Personality and Individual difference. (2005). 38 (1709- 1713).
16. Rezadezadeh S, Relationship decision making styles and spiritual intelligence of the manager of ferdosi university and mashhad medical science university. (1389). [Persian]
17. Sonders, P. The decision making style of knowing and learning strategy preferences of client at a one stope career. Center university of oklahama. (2008).
18. Singh, D. Exploring the factors that characterize the decision process for the use of pres cribbed fir in south caroline. Thesis: presented in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the master of science Degree in the graduate school of the ohio state university. (2012).
19. Baker, R.curseu, L.Vermeulen.D. congnitive factors in entrepreneurival strategic decision making. Cognitionm, Brain, Behavior. (2007). Volume XI, No1, (195-219).
20. Weinstein, N.Brow, K.Ryan, R. A multi- method of the effects of mindfulness on stress attribution.coping and emotional well-being.Jouirnal of research in personality(2009). 43(374-385).
21. Elbannan, M, A. Emerging Trends and challenges in Enformation Technology Management, (2006). V1 and V9.
22. Fredson, E. Prefessions and occupational principal. In E. Fredson (Ed), Prefessions and their prespects. Beverly Hills. (1999).
23. Boudceau, J. w. Boswell, W. R. Judye, T.A. Effect of personality on executive career success in the united state and Europe. Journal of vocational behavior (2001). 58. N.1.
24. Covin, J.G, slevin, DP. Heeley, MB.(2001).startegic decision making in an intuitive vs. technocratic mode.Journal of business research 52(51-67).
25. Hadizadeh moghadam, A.Tehrani, M.amin, F. study of the relation ship between Emotional intelligence and management decision maiking styles.Word Applied sciences Journal12 (2011). (7):1017-1025.
26. Yeung, N. summer field, ch. Metacognition in human decision – making. Department of experimental psy chology, university of oxford, south parlss road, oxford, ox1 3ud.uk. (2012).
27. Alkhatani, A. H. A bu-jarad, I. and Sulaiman Nikbin, D. The impact of personality and leadership style on leading change capacity of malaysiam manager. Australia journal of business and management research. (2011). Vol, 1. No, 20.
28. Johnson, Ph.:effects of group think on tactical decision- making. United state Army command and General staff college. (2001)
29. Johnson, W. The military decision- making precess.Decision- making in the military. Chapter5, in the press. (2008).
30. Galusca, A.Circiu, I. Bosco Ianu, M. Review of models and analytic instruments in operational military decision making process. Journal of defence resources management. (2010). No 1(1).
31. Delavar. A. Theorical and practical research fundamental in social and humanity science. (1390). [Persian]
32. Wells. A. Emotienal disorders and metacognition. Translator, Bahrami F. Mani Press. (1385). [Persian]
33. Zarea H, Abdollah Zadeh H. Measurement scales in cognitive psychology. Ayin press. (1391). [Persian]
34. Bahrami F. The study of the relationship between personality traits with decision making styles of the managers of Hakim Sabzevari university. The research project of hakim sabzevari university. (1390). [Persian]
35. Dror, I, E.(2007). Perception of risk and the decision to use force. University college London- Advanc Accoss publication. Published by oxford university.
36. Lauriola, M.Levin, I, p.(2001).personality traits and risky decision- making in a controlled emperimental task.personality and Individual differences.31(215-226).
37. Indina, T, A. Marosanova, V. Personality and self- regulation on determinants of rational decision making in a political voting situation. Psychological institute of russion Academy of education Moscow. (2009).