دانلود ترجمه مقاله نقش تعدیل کنندگی شرایط روانی و ایمنی در ارتباط بین فرهنگ سازمانی و مشارکت شغلی – مجله الزویر

• فهرست مطالب:

 چکیده
۱ مقدمه
۲ مرور ادبیات و فرضیات
۱ ۲ درگیری شغلی و فرهنگ سازمانی
۲ ۲ نقش تعدیل کنندگی شرایط روحی روانی معناداری و ایمنی
۳ روش
۱ ۳ نمونه و جمع آوری داده ها
۲ ۳ ابزارهای اندازه گیری
۳ ۳ آماره های توصیفی
۴ ۳ پایایی و روایی (اعتبار)
۵ ۳ تست فرضیات
۴ نتیجه گیری

• بخشی از ترجمه:

یافته های بدست آمده از مطالعات ادبیات حمایت کرده است که ادعا می کند بین فرهنگ سازمانی و درگیری شغلی ارتباط مثبتی وجود دارد و به ویژه زمانی که فرهنگ سازمان به عنوان فرهنگ حمایتی و موفقیت گرا درک شده باشد، کارکنان تعهد و درگیری بیشتری در کار به معرض نمایش خواهند گذاشت. همچنین میان فرهنگ سازمانی ادراک شده، درگیری شغلی و شرایط روانی معناداری و ایمنی، ارتباط مثبت معناداری وجود دارد. بین معناداری روانی با درگیری شغلی، همبستگی بالاتری (r=0.402) نسبت به ایمنی روانی (r=0.212) وجود دارد. به علاوه، زمانی که معناداری روانی معرفی گردید، قدرت توضیح دهندگی مدل به طور قابل توجهی افزایش یابد و این نتیجه اثر تعدیل کنندگی بر ارتباط مثبت بین فرهنگ سازمانی و درگیری شغلی را تائید نمود. یعنی، اگر کارکنان کارشان را معنادار درک کرده و تجربه کنند، آنگاه باید رشد شخصی، تعهد و درگیری شغلی شان را تسهیل نمایند. هرچند در مرور ادبیات، ادراکات ایمنی روانی ارتباط مثبتی با فرهنگ سازمانی و درگیری شغلی دارد، اما تحلیل رگرسیون نشان داد ایمنی روانی در ارتباط بین فرهنگ سازمانی و درگیری شغلی، نقش تعدیل کنندگی ایفا نکرد. یک دلیل برای این مسئله می تواند این باشد که عوامل فردی، موقعیتی و سازمانی دیگری بر این ارتباط تاثیرگذار می باشند. به علاوه، یافته های این مطالعه به ادبیات کمک می کند.  

• بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Introduction The main aim of this study is to identify the relationship between perceived organizational culture and employees’ job involvement and to test the moderating roles of psychological conditions of meaningfulness and safety. ۲٫ Literature review and hypotheses 2.1. Job involvement and organizational culture Lodhal and Kejner (1965) defined job involvement as the degree to which a person identifies psychologically with his/her work and its importance in his/her total self-image. Kanungo (1982) and Fletcher (1998) suggested that job involvement should be viewed as a form of psychological identification enhanced by a cognitive or belief state. Ouyang, Cheng and Hsieh, (2010) demonstrated that job involvement was the positive outcome of the work environment and organizational culture. In addition, it was indicated that job involvement was strongly affected by work experiences and work environment (Ho, 2006; Mudrack, 2004) and work unit commitment (Zagenczyk and Murrell, 2009). With that respect, it is found meaningful to view job involvement as a dependent variable that could be relevant to the employees’ perceptions of organizational culture. Harrison (1993) defined organizational culture as the “distinctive constellation of beliefs, values, work styles, and relationships that distinguish one organisation from another” (p.11). In addition, Harrison’s organizational culture model maintained that organizational culture can be diagnosed in four cultural dimensions, namely power-oriented culture, role-oriented culture, achievementoriented culture and support-oriented culture (Harrison 1993). As argued by Wagner (1995), and Manetje and Martins (2009) organizational culture is a contextual factor that exerts influences on employees and work-related behaviors. Supporting this argument, Fletcher (1998) found that organizational culture had significant positive relationship with employees’ job involvement level. Therefore, the main research question for this study is whether organisational culture influences employees’ job involvement. The following research hypothesis addresses the aim of this study: H1:There is a relationship between perceived organizational culture and employees’ job involvement. 2.2. The moderating roles of psychological conditions of meaningfulness and safety Meaning of work is described as the “degree of general importance that the subjective experience of working has in the life of an individual, at any given time” (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985, p.81). Psychological condition of experienced meaningfulness was studied as an important psychological state or condition at work (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1980; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006; Rothmann & Hamukang’andu, 2013). It was argued that the perceived fit between an individual’s self-concept and the role that an individual assumes in an organization results in the experience of meaningfulness (Olivier & Rothmann, 2007). In particular, Spreitzer, Kizilos and Nason (1997) emphasized that the work that is experienced as meaningful by employees should facilitate both their personal growth and their work motivation. May et al. (2004) found that psychological meaningfulness fully mediated the relations of job enrichment and work role. Williamson (2011) demonstrated that psychological meaningfulness was a significant predictor of work engagement. Rothmann and Hamukang’andu’s (2013) study have revealed that psychological meaningfulness is positively related to work engagement. Woods and Sofat (2013) confirmed the significant mediating impact of psychological meaningfulness on the relationship between personality and engagement at work. For that reason, based on the theoretical and empirical foundations, we suggested that psychological meaningfulness may play a moderating role on the relationship between perceived organizational culture and job involvement. The following hypothesis is generated: H2: Psychological condition of meaningfulness moderates the relation of perceived organizational culture with employees’ job involvement. Furthermore, a condition namely as psychological safety was supposed to have a contingent role on the relation of organizational culture with job involvement. Kahn (1990) defined psychological safety as “feeling able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career”(p.708). Brown and Holmes (1986) defined psychological safety environment as molar perceptions that employees share about their work environment. Wu, Liu and Lu (2007) indicated that psychological safety condition refers to attributes that can be perceived about particular work organizations and which may be induced by the policies and practices that the organizations impose upon their employees (p.92). Edmondson (1999) explored the link between psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard and Werner (1998) studied psychological safety within a relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behaviour. May et al. (2004) indicated that the determinants of psychological safety explored included supervisory relations, co-worker relations and behavioural norms.