دانلود ترجمه مقاله بررسی مدیریت بحران متاثر از عوامل انسانی در سازمان ها – مجله امرالد

• فهرست مطالب:

 چکیده
مقدمه
اهمیت ارزیابی در مدیریت بحران
تعدیل سیستم ارزیابی سیستم ارزیابی پزشکی و خدمات درمانی (TAS)
واکنشهای عاطفی
واکنشهای رفتاری
واکنشهای شناختی
كاربرد TAS در سازمانها
خلاصه

• بخشی از ترجمه:

درك اثر عوامل انساني بحران سازماني در ادبيات نظري مربوط به مديريت بحران مورد توجه زيادي قرار نگرفته است. با وجود اين، اهميت درك كلي واكنشهاي سازمان به بحران ، بويژه اثر انساني بحران ضروري است. كوتاهي براي درك اين جنبه از مديريت بحران مي‌تواند مانع فرآيند بازسازي (پس از بحران) شود در حاليكه شناخت اهميتش منجر به استفاده موثرتر منابع در صورت وقوع بحران مي شود .TAS چارچوبي را براي درك اثر انساني بحران سازماني از طريق شناسايي ويژگي هاي مرتبط با واكنشهاي شناختي ، رفتاري و عاطفي ، ارائه مي‌دهد. سازمانها با استفاده از اين مشخصات، مي توانند از متغيرهاي اصلي براي ارزيابي ونظارت در طي دوره فرآيند بازسازي استفاده كنند.
اگرچه در تحقيق حاضر TAS براي توسعه مدل استفاده شد، ما بر اين باور هستيم كه در زمينه آزمون و اصلاح مدل بايد تحقيق شود. اين تحقيق بايد شامل بررسي صحت ويژگي هاي بكار رفته شده در TAS باشد. ممكن است از وي‍ژگي هاي ديگري به‌غير از ويژگي هاي شناسايي شده توسط تحقيق ما براي درك اثر عوامل انساني بحران در سازمانها استفاده شود. بعلاوه، لازم است تحقيقي در زمينه تهيه روشهاي مورد استفاده براي جمع آوري اطلاعات شناسايي شده توسط TAS انجام شود. تحقيق در اين زمينه ممكن است شامل تجسس براي تهيه پيش‌نويس‌هاي مصاحبه باشد كه مي‌تواند براي جمع‌آوري اطلاعات استفاده شود. پيش‌نويس‌هاي تهيه شده براي مصاحبه يا بايد گسترده باشد يا قابل انطباق، زيرا موقعيت‌هاي سازمانها منحصر به‌فرد هستند. براي بررسي شدت واكنش‌ها نيز لازم است تحقيق شود. اين تحقيق به سازمانها كمك خواهد كرد تا در استفاده از منابع براي رهايي از بحرانها اثربخش‌تر شوند. توسعۀ يك ابزار بررسي ممكن است كاربردي ترين روش براي جمع‌آوري اطلاعات باشد.

• بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Assessment in organizational crisis management has traditionally focused on risk assessment (Paton et al., 2000) and business impact analysis (Laye, 2002; Myers, 1999). These efforts are designed to discover and mitigate potential disruptions caused by crises (Mitroff and Anagnos, 2001). Risk assessment identifies an organization’s potential for crises by evaluating internal and external threats (Herbig, 2003; Hodge, 2003). Threats might involve the location of an organization or the adequacy of equipment and technology. The goal of identifying risks is to mitigate these as much as possible to prevent or minimize disruption of business. Business impact analysis, on the other hand, examines the effect of crises on business profitability (Slintak, 2003). The objective is to anticipate disturbances or interruptions to normal business and to develop procedures that minimize the impact of crises (Brown, 1997). Unfortunately, neither risk assessment nor business impact analyses are 100 percent effective in preventing crises. Crises still occur in organizations (Fink, 2002). Information obtained from risk assessment and business impact analysis is helpful but not sufficient for organizations experiencing a crisis (Myers, 1999). According to Myers (1999), these processes often are compartmentalized and fail to consider the consequences of a crisis for the organization as a whole. This problem is especially true with respect to assessing impact on employees. Failure to obtain information on the effect of a crisis on employees could significantly disrupt the implementation of crisis management plans. Therefore, assessment strategies that provide additional information are needed for organizations to enhance the efficiency of the recovery process. These strategies should build on traditional organizational assessment (Levinson, 2002) by integrating an understanding of crisis management. The assessment strategies should involve gathering information beyond identifying technological problems such as computer failures or communication shutdowns, evaluation of mechanical difficulties such as broken or inoperative machinery, and estimating damages to the physical plant facilities. Strategies must recognize that an organization is an interdependent group of people (Levinson, 2002). Specifically, the assessment strategies should evaluate reactions with respect to the human impact of the crisis as seen in the culture of the organization. This process is important because successful implementation of a crisis management plan is dependent on people’s capacity to perform assigned tasks (Lewis, 2003). This article describes a model to understand the human impact of a crisis within an organization. First, we review the literature that addresses the importance of assessment in crisis management. Included in this review is the literature on crisis intervention and management as well as organizational behavior. Second, we discuss the adaptation of the Triage Assessment Model (TAS) (Myer, 2001) for understanding organizations’ reactions to crises. Although developed for individuals, the concepts used in the TAS can also be applied to organizations in crisis. In addition, we identify and describe characteristics associated with the human impact of crises in organizations. Third, we offer suggestions for ways in which organizations can use this model to improve their preparation for recovery efforts after a crisis. These suggestions outline ways to use the TAS as well as approaches that consultants may employ when working with organizations. Fourth, suggestions are made for research using the TAS with organizations. Research in this area should help to refine the TAS for organizations, particularly assessment of the severity of organizational reactions. The importance of assessment in crisis management A number of books focus on organizational preparation for and recovery from crises (e.g. Augustine, 2000; Braverman, 1999; Fink, 2002; Mitroff, 2004; Mitroff and Anagnos, 2001; Mitroff et al., 1996; Myers, 1999; Schonfeld et al., 2002). Most of these books approach crisis preparation and recovery from a broad perspective and describe a general model that organizations can use to get ready for crises. Other books concentrate on specific topics such as violence in the work place and outline strategies to prepare for a particular crisis (Braverman, 1999). A common pattern found in books addressing crisis management for organizations is the use of examples that describe successes and failures in crisis management. Typically, the examples summarize the crisis and explain the process used to address it. Authors discuss topics such as correct and mistaken decision-making procedures (Braverman, 1999), beneficial and damaging public relations (Caponigro, 2000), leadership successes and blunders (Brenneman, 2000; Mitroff, 2004), and strengths and weaknesses of crisis management plans (Fink, 2002; Myers, 1999). Although the examples provide valuable descriptive information, only minimal attention is given to DPM 16,5 762 assessment. Authors assume that organizations understand the course of action that is needed. Yet, accurate assessment of reactions is critical for organizations to respond appropriately to crises (Braverman, 1999; Mitroff, 2004).

دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی

خرید ترجمه فارسی مقاله