Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010 ‫ ﺷﺘﺎء‬:45 ‫ اﻟﻌﺪد‬:‫ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‬WWW.ULUM.NL ‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺪآﺘﻮر آﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﺤﻮاﺟﺮة‬
‫ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺒﺘﺮا اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ – اﻷردن‬-‫أﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ– ﻗﺴﻢ إدارة اﻷﻋﻤﺎل‬
[email protected]
:‫اﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ‬
‫ وﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﺎول‬.‫ﺗﻬﺪف هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ دراﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ َﺘ َﻌﻠّﻤﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
،‫ وﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون ﻟﻔﺮق اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬،‫ واﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ واﻟﺤﻮار‬،‫اﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻟﻔﺮص اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬:‫ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺳﺒﻌﺔ أﺑﻌﺎد هﻲ‬
‫ وﻗﺪ‬.‫ وإﻳﺠﺎد ﻗﻴﺎدة إﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠ َﺘ َﻌﻠّﻢ‬،‫ ورﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺒﻴﺌﺘِﻬﺎ‬،‫ وﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻧﺤﻮ رؤﻳﺔ ﺟَﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬،‫وﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ أﻧﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ واﺧﺘﺎرت‬.‫ﺣﺪد اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺷﻌﻠﻰ أﺳﺎس ادراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬
ُ
‫ واﻋ ُﺘﻤﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﺣﺼﺎء اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺗﺼﻮرات‬،‫( ﻣﻔﺮدة‬284) ‫ وﺷﺎرك ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬،‫اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺧﺪﻣﻴﺔ ﻟﺪراﺳﺘﻬﺎ آﺤﺎﻟﺔ‬
(r) ‫ واﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ أﺑﺮزهﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻻرﺗﺒﺎط‬،‫اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻬﻢ آﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ وﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻰ أن اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻟﻤﺪرك اﻷﻋﻠﻰ أﺛﺮا ﻟﺪى اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﻓﻲ ُﺑﻌﺪ‬،(ANOVA)‫وﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣﺎدي‬
‫ وان ﺗﺼﻮرات اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ‬،‫ وأن ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻹدراك اﻷدﻧﻰ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺮﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺒﻴﺌﺘﻬﺎ‬،‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ وأن ﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬،‫اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﺔ إﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ وذات أهﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ارﺗﺒﺎﻃﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫ آﻤﺎ‬،‫أﺑﻌﺎد ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ آﺎﻧﺖ ذات ارﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎت ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖ إﻟﻰ أﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﺮوﻗﺎت هﺎ ّﻣﻪ ذات دﻻﻟﺔ إﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺼﻮرات اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺪرآﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻈﻤ ِﺔ اﻟﻤ َﺘ َﻌﻠّﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺧﺘﻼف‬
‫ وأن هﻨﺎك ﻓﺮوﻗﺎ هﺎﻣّﺔ داﻟ ًﺔ إﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴًﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ وﻓﻬﻤﻬﻢ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪا ِد ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف‬.‫ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﻬﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬
.‫أﻋﻤﺎرهﻢ ورﺗﺒﻬﻢ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‬
.‫ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺒﺘﺮا‬،‫ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬،‫ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬،‫ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك‬،‫ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‬:‫اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺪاﻟﺔ‬
THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION AND PERCIVED
ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS FOR STRATEGIC CHANGE
Abstract:The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the learning organization and
perceived organizational readiness for strategic change. Learning organization constructs were identified
on the basis of seven dimensions: create continuous learning opportunities, promote inquiry and dialogue,
encourage collaboration and team learning, create systems to capture and share learning, empower people
toward a collective vision, connect the organization to its environment, and provide strategic leadership
for learning Organizational readiness for change was identified on the basis of employees’ perceptions of
their organization’s readiness for change by utilizing the Attitudes toward change concept.
The research site chosen for the study is a service-oriented. A total of (284) participants agreed to
participate in the study. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the participants’ perceptions of their
organization as a learning organization. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to
indicate the bivariate intercorrelation between the participants’ responses on the dimensions of the
learning organization questionnaire and perceptions of organizational readiness for strategic change. Oneway (ANOVA) was to determine if there were significant differences in participants’ perceptions of their
organization and their readiness for strategic change based on their demographic characteristics.
The results of the study suggested first that participants’ highest perceived level of the action
imperative for the learning organization was providing leadership, whereas system connection was the
lowest. Second, participants’ perceived level of each of the seven action imperatives of the learning
organization were positively and significantly related to their perceptions of organizational readiness for
change. Third, providing leadership and the overall dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire
had the highest correlation with organizational readiness for change. Fourth, no statistically significant
1
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫‪differences were found between participants’ perceived effects of the learning organization and their‬‬
‫’‪demographic characteristics. Fifth, statistically significant differences were found among participants‬‬
‫‪perception of the organizational readiness for change and their age and academic ranks.‬‬
‫‪Keywords: learning organization, perceived organizational readiness for strategic change, strategic‬‬
‫‪change, change resistance, University of Petra.‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺑ&&ﺪأت ﻓﻜ&&ﺮة اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Learning Organization‬ﻣ&&ﻨﺬ اﻟﺴ&&ﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎت ﻣ&&ﻦ اﻟﻘ&&ﺮن اﻟﻌﺸ&&ﺮﻳﻦ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣ&&&ﻴﺚ اﺷ&&&ﺘﻘﺖ ﻣ&&&ﻦ ﻋﻤ&&&ﻞ ارﺟ&&&ﺮﻳﺲ وﺳ&&&ﻜﻮن )‪ ( Argyris & Schon,1978‬ﻋ&&&ﻦ اﻟ&&&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻻﺳ&&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫‪ ، Organizational Learning‬آﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﺰى إﻟﻰ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺎم ﺑﻬﺎ رﻳﻔﺎﻧﺰ)‪.( Revans,1983‬‬
‫وﺗﻤ &ﺘﺪ ﺟ&&ﺬور اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ إﻟ&&ﻰ ﻃ&&ﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟ&&ﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻌﻠﻤ&&ﻲ وﻧﻈ&&ﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻨﻈ&&ﻴﻢ واﻟﺘﻨﻈ&&ﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﻀ&&ﻮي‪ ،‬آﻤ&&ﺎ ﻳﻌ&&ﺰى‬
‫ﻣﺼ&&ﻄﻠﺢ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ إﻟ&&ﻰ ﻣ&&ﺎ أﺷ&&ﺎر إﻟ&&ﻴﻪ ‪ (1990) Senge‬ﺣ&&ﻮل ﻣﺴ&&ﺆوﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﻋ&&ﻦ اﻟﺘﻜ&&ﻴﻒ ﻣ&&ﻊ‬
‫ﺗﻄ&ﻮرات اﻟﻌ&ﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﺻ&ﺮ اﻟﻤﻠ&ﻲء ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ واﻟﻔﻮﺿ&ﻰ واﻻﺿ&ﻄﺮاب‪ ،‬وأن ﺗﺤﻘ&ﻴﻖ ﺗﻠ&ﻚ اﻟﻤﺴ&ﺆوﻟﻴﺔ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺗﺤﻮل‬
‫اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت إﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ وﺗﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ) ‪ (Seng,1990‬و)اﻟﺴﺎﻟﻢ‪.(2005 ،‬وﻳﺮى ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء أن اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎت‬
‫اﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﺗﺘﺒﻨ&ﻰ ﻣﻔﻬ&ﻮم اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﺴ&ﻌﻰ إﻟ&ﻰ ﺗﻮﻓﻴ&ﺮ ﻓ&ﺮص اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻤﺴ&ﺘﻤﺮ واﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ اﻷهﺪاف‪،‬‬
‫ورﺑ&&ﻂ أداء اﻟﻌﺎﻣ&&ﻞ ﺑ&&ﺄداء اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﺸ&&ﺠﻴﻊ اﻟ&&ﺒﺤﺚ واﻟﺤ&&ﻮار واﻟﻤﺸ&&ﺎرآﺔ واﻹﺑ&&ﺪاع آﻤﺼ&&ﺪر ﻟﻠﻄﺎﻗ&&ﺔ واﻟﻘ&&ﺪرات‬
‫واﻟ&ﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ واﻟ&ﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻣ&ﻊ اﻟﺒﻴ&ﺌﺔ)‪ .(Calvert,1994‬وﺗﻤ&ﺎرس اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﻧﺸﺎﻃﺎﺗﻬﺎ وﻣﻬﻤﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ إﻃﺎر ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺴ&ﺘﻤﺮة ﻧﺎﺗﺠ&ﺔ ﻋ&ﻦ ﻋﺪم اﻟﺜﺒﺎت واﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮار اﻟﻨﺴﺒﻲ ﻟﺒﻴﺌﺎﺗﻬﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﺤﺎول ﺑﻤﻮﺟﺐ ذﻟﻚ اﻣﺘﻼك ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻮارد‬
‫واﻟﻘ&ﺪرات ﻋﻠ&ﻰ اﻟ&ﺮﻏﻢ ﻣ&ﻦ أﻧﻬ&ﺎ ﺗﻌﻠ&ﻢ ﺟ&ﻴﺪًا أن ﺗﻠ&ﻚ اﻟﻤ&ﻮارد واﻟﻘ&ﺪرات ﻣﺘﻐﺎﻳ&ﺮة ﻓ&ﻲ ﺧﻮاﺻ&ﻬﺎ ﻣﻤ&ﺎ ﻳﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫وﺟﻮد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ وﺑﻘﺎﺋﻬﺎ واﺧﺘﻼف ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫إن اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ ﻳﻌ&ﺪ ﻣ&ﻦ اﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻷﻓﺮاد واﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺎت واﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎت )‪ ،(Staniforth,1996‬وإن‬
‫اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﻓ&&ﻲ ﻣﺤﺎوﻻﺗﻬ&&ﺎ إﺣ&&ﺪاث اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&&ﺮ ﺗﺘ&&ﺒﻊ ﻃ&&ﺮﻗﺎ ﻣﺘ&&ﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻣ&&&ﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬إدارة اﻟﺠ&&ﻮدة اﻟﻜﻠ&&ﻴﺔ وﺗﺤﺠ&&ﻴﻢ اﻷﻋﻤ&&&ﺎل‬
‫واﻻﻧ&&ﺪﻣﺎﺟﺎت واﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺤﻮاذ واﻟﺘﻐﻴ&&ﺮات اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓ&&ﻴﺔ وإﻋ&&ﺎدة اﻟﻬ&&ﻴﻜﻠﺔ وﺗﻄﻮﻳ&&ﺮ اﻟﺒ&&ﺮﻣﺠﻴﺎت وﺗﻄﺒ&&ﻴﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وه&&ﺬﻩ اﻻﺳ&&ﺎﻟﻴﺐ‬
‫ﺟﻤ&ﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻣﺤ&ﺎوﻻت ﻣ&ﻦ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻹﺣ&ﺪاث اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻹﻳﺠﺎﺑﻲ اﻟﻨﺎﺟﺢ)‪ .(Pellettiere,2006‬إن اﻟﻘﺪرة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬
‫واﻟﺘﻜ&ﻴﻒ ﻹﺟ&ﺮاء ﻣ&ﺎ ه&ﻮ أﻓﻀ&ﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻇﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻓﺴﺔ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻳﻌﺪ أﺣﺪ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﺳﺘﺪاﻣﺔ اﻟﻤﻴﺰة اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻓﺴﻴﺔ ‪(Mariotti‬‬
‫)‪ ،,1998‬آﻤ&ﺎ أن ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ أهﻤ&ﻴﺔ ﺑ&ﺎرزة ﻓ&ﻲ ﺣ&ﻴﺎة اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﻟﻤ&ﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ أوﻟﻮﻳﺎت ﻓﻲ إزاﻟﺔ اﻟﺤﺪود اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﻒ أﻣﺎم‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﻣﺤ&ﺎوﻻت اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ )‪ .(Mabin, et al.,2001‬وإﺣ&ﺪاث ﻋﻤﻠ&ﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻳ&ﺘﻄﻠﺐ إﻳﺠ&ﺎد‬
‫ﻧ&ﻮع ﻣ&ﻦ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ اﻟﺬي ﻋﺮﻓﻪ ‪) Peach, Jimmieson and White‬‬
‫‪ (2005‬ﺑﺄﻧ&ﻪ اﻟﻨﻈ&ﺮة اﻹﻳﺠﺎﺑ&ﻴﺔ اﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﻳﻤ&ﺘﻠﻜﻬﺎ اﻷﻓ&ﺮاد ﺣ&ﻮل اﻟﺤﺎﺟ&ﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ واﻟﺘﻄﺒ&ﻴﻘﺎت اﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﻳﻤﺎرﺳﻮﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ‬
‫وﻣ&&ﻊ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺸ&&ﻜﻞ آﻠ&&ﻲ)‪ .(Peach, Jimmieson and White,2005‬إن ﻣﻔﻬ&&ﻮم اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&&ﻲ‬
‫اﻟﻤ&ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ ه&ﻮ اﻧﻌﻜ&ﺎس ﻟﻼﺗﺠﺎه&ﺎت ﻟ&ﺪى اﻷﻓ&ﺮاد اﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﻳﻤﺎرﺳﻮﻧﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ )‪،(Bernerth,2004‬‬
‫وﻗﺒﻮل اﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮم اﻟﻮاﺳﻊ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪاد ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻳﺒﺪأ ﻣﻦ إدراك اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ )‪.(Cunningham et al.,2002‬‬
‫أهﻤﻴﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺒ&&&ﺮز أهﻤ&&&ﻴﺔ ه&&&ﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳ&&&ﺔ ﻟﻤﻮﺿ&&&ﻮع اﻟﻤ&&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ودوره&&&ﺎ ﻓ&&&ﻲ اﻻﺳ&&&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&&&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&&&ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&&ﺮ‬
‫اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻣﺤﺎوﻟﺘﻬﺎ‪:‬‬
‫‪ 1.‬ﺗﺤﺪﻳ&ﺪ اﻟﻌ&ﻮاﻣﻞ اﻟﻤﺪرآ&ﺔ ذات اﻷﺛ&ﺮ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت واﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﺗﺴ&ﻬﻞ إﺣ&ﺪاث اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺰز‬
‫آﻔﺎءة وﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻇﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻓﺴﺔ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2.‬ﺗﻌﻤ&&ﻴﻖ اﻟﻔﻬ&&ﻢ ﺑ&&ﻴﻦ اﻟﺘﻌﻠ&&ﻴﻢ واﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&ﺮ ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ اﻟﺼ&&ﻌﻴﺪﻳﻦ اﻟﻨﻈ&&ﺮي واﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘ&&ﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻠ&&ﻰ اﻟﺼ&&ﻌﻴﺪ اﻟﻨﻈ&&ﺮي ﺗﻮﻓ&&ﺮ‬
‫دراﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻮرًا أﻋﻤﻖ وﺟﺪﻳﺪًا ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‪ ،‬أﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﻌﻴﺪ اﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈن دراﺳﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺤﺴﻦ ﻣﻦ إدارة اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 3.‬أﻧﻬ&ﺎ ﺗﺘ&ﻨﺎول ﻣﻔﻬ&ﻮم اﻻﺳ&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ اﻟﺬي ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻔﺎهﻴﻢ اﻹدارﻳﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺪﻳ&&ﺜﺔ اﻟﺘ&&ﻲ ﺑ&&ﺪأ اﻟﺒﺎﺣ&&ﺜﻮن ﻓ&&ﻲ اﻟﺒﻴ&&ﺌﺔ اﻟﻌ&&ﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸ&&ﺘﻬﺎ واﻟ &ﺒﺤﺚ ﻓ&&ﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وآ&&ﺬﻟﻚ ﺗ&&ﻨﺎوﻟﻬﺎ وﺟﻬ&&ﺔ اﻟﻨﻈ&&ﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﺎزاﻟﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻃﻮر اﻟﺒﺤﺚ واﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪى ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 4.‬ﻟﻔ&ﺖ أﻧﻈ&ﺎر اﻹدارات اﻟﻌ&ﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺸ&ﻜﻞ ﻋ&ﺎم واﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎص اﻟﻰ ﺿﺮورة ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺑ&ﻴﻦ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪ ،‬وذﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ ﺿﻮء اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺳﺘﺘﻮﺻﻞ إﻟﻴﻬﺎ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻔﺎدة ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺠﺎل اﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﺗ&ﻮاﺟﻪ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﻇ&ﺮوﻓًﺎ ﺑﻴﺌ&ﻴﺔ ﺗﻤ&ﺘﺎز ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺴ&ﺎرع اﻟﺸ&ﺪﻳﺪ واﻟﻤﺴ&ﺘﻤﺮ ﻧﺘ&ﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮ اﻟﻤﺘﺴ&ﺎرع ﻓ&ﻲ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺌ&ﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤ&ﺎ ﻳﺴ&ﺘﻠﺰم ﻣﻌ&ﻪ إﺟ&ﺮاء ﺗﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮات إﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺗﻤ&ﺜﻞ ﺑﺤ&ﺪ ذاﺗﻬ&ﺎ ﺣ&ﺎﻻت اﺳ&ﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻘﻠ&ﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺒﻴﺌ&&ﻲ ﻟﻀ&&ﻤﺎن ﺑﻘﺎﺋﻬ&&ﺎ واﺳ&&ﺘﻤﺮارهﺎ‪ .‬وﻓ&&ﻲ ﻋﺼ&&ﺮ اﻟﻤﻌﻠ &ﻮﻣﺎت واﻟﻤﻌ&&ﺮﻓﺔ ﺑ&&ﺪأت ﻣ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻷﻋﻤ&&ﺎل ﺗﻌ &ﻮّل ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ‬
‫ﺧﺼ&ﺎﺋﺺ وﻣ&ﺰاﻳﺎ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﻮﺻ&ﻔﻬﺎ اﻷداة اﻟﻤﻼﺋﻤ&ﺔ ﻟ&ﺘﻮﻗﻊ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ واﻟﺘﺤﺴ&ﺐ ﻟﻪ وﻣﺴﺎﻳﺮﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل‬
‫اﻣ&ﺘﻼك اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﻟﻬ&ﺬﻩ اﻟﺨﺼ&ﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﺳ&ﺎهﻤﺖ ﻓ&ﻲ ﺗﻮﻗ&ﻊ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ واﻻﺳ&ﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟ&ﻪ ﻟﺘﺤﻘ&ﻴﻖ اﻟﺒﻘﺎء‬
‫واﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮار ‪ .‬وﺑﻤﻮﺟﺐ ذﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈن اﻟﺘﺴﺎؤﻻت أدﻧﺎﻩ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﺴﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫‪ 1.‬ﻣﺎ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ؟‬
‫‪ 2.‬إﻟ&&&ﻰ أي ﻣ&&&ﺪى ﻳ&&&ﺪرك اﻟﻤ&&&ﺒﺤﻮﺛﻮن ﻓ&&&ﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌ&&&ﺔ أن ﻣﻨﻈﻤ&&&ﺘﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻋﺘ&&&ﺒﺎرهﺎ ﻣ& &ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣ&&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﺨ&&&ﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺎﺧ&&&ﺘﻼف‬
‫ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﻬﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ) اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺠﻨﺲ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‪ ،‬اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ(؟‬
‫‪ 3.‬ه&ﻞ ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﺼﻮرات اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺣﻮل اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف‬
‫ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ)اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺠﻨﺲ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‪ ،‬اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ(؟‬
‫أهﺪاف اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺴﻌﻰ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ اﻷهﺪاف اﻵﺗﻴﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫‪ 1.‬اﻟﺘﻌﺮف ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪى إدراك اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﺄن هﺬﻩ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2.‬ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 3.‬ﺗﺒ&ﻴﺎن أي اﻷﺑﻌ&ﺎد ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤ ِﺔ اﻟﻤ& َﺘ َﻌﻠّﻤﺔ ﻟَ& ُﻪ اﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴ& ُﺮ اﻷه& ﱡﻢ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫آﺒﻌﺪ ﻣﺪرك ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ؟‬
‫‪ 4.‬ﺗﺒ&ﻴﺎن ﻣ&ﺪى إدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&&ﻴﻦ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌ&ﺔ أن ﻣﻨﻈﻤ&&ﺘﻬﻢ ﻣ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧ&&ﺘﻼف ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼ&ﻬﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐ&&ﺮاﻓﻴﺔ)‬
‫اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺠﻨﺲ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‪ ،‬اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫‪ 5.‬ﺗﻮﺿ&ﻴﺢ أﺛ&ﺮ اﺧ&ﺘﻼف إدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&ﻴﻦ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﺸﺄن اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ)اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺠﻨﺲ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‪ ،‬اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎت اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺪف ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ إﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺎؤﻻت اﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻄﺮوﺣﺔ ‪،‬ﺗﺴﻌﻰ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ اﺧﺘﺒﺎر ﺻﺤﺔ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺎت اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ‪:‬ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ارﺗﺒﺎط ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ ذات دﻻﻟﺔ اﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ أﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد‬
‫اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺮﺿ‪:‬ﻴﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧ‪:‬ﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗ&ﻮﺟﺪ ﻓ&ﺮوق ﺟﻮه&ﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﺪرآ&ﺔ ذات دﻻﻟ&ﺔ إﺣﺼ&ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑ&ﻴﻦ أﻋﻀ&ﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﺗﻌﺰى اﻟﻰ‬
‫اﺧ&ﺘﻼف ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼ&ﻬﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻮﻏ&ﺮاﻓﻴﺔ) اﻟﺠ&ﻨﺲ‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﻤ&ﺮ‪ ،‬ﺳ&ﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒ&ﺮة‪ ،‬اﻟ&ﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ( ﺑﺸﺄن آﻮن اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺮﺿ‪:‬ﻴﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻟ‪::‬ﺜﺔ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗ&&ﻮﺟﺪ ﻓ&&ﺮوق ﺟﻮه&&ﺮﻳﺔ ذات دﻻﻟ&&ﺔ إﺣﺼ&&ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑ&&ﻴﻦ أﻋﻀ&&ﺎء هﻴ&&ﺌﺔ اﻟ&&ﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﺑﺸ&&ﺄن اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﻌﺪاد‬
‫اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺗﻌﺰى إﻟﻰ اﺧﺘﻼف ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﻬﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ) اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﻮات‬
‫اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‪ ،‬اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫اﻹﻃﺎر اﻟﻨﻈﺮي‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬ‪::‬ﻮم اﻟﻤ‪::‬ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ‪::‬ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪ :‬ﻳﻤﻜ&&ﻦ ﺗﻌ&&ﺮﻳﻒ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﻧﻬ&&ﺎ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﺘ&&ﻲ ﻃ&&ﻮرت اﻟﻘ&&ﺪرة ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ اﻟﺘﻜ&&ﻴﻒ‬
‫واﻟﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮ اﻟﻤﺴ&ﺘﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻷن ﺟﻤ&ﻴﻊ أﻋﻀ&ﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻣ&ﻮن ﺑ&ﺪور ﻓﺎﻋ&ﻞ ﻓ&ﻲ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ وﺣﻞ اﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫)ﻧﺠ&ﻢ‪ .(2005،‬وﺗ&ﺒﺤﺚ ﻣ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ وﺗﺸ&ﺎرك وﺗﺘﺼ&ﺮف ﺑﺸ&ﻜﻞ ﻣﺴ&ﺘﻤﺮ ﻣ&ﻦ ﺧ&ﻼل ﺗﻌﻠ&ﻢ اﻷﻓﺮاد واﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺎت‬
‫ﻓ&ﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وﺗﺴ&&ﻬﻞ ﺛﻘﺎﻓ&&ﺔ اﻟ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺘ&&ﻲ ﺗﺘﻀ&&ﻤﻦ اﻟﻤﻌ&ﺘﻘﺪات واﻟﺴ&&ﻠﻮآﻴﺎت واﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿ&&ﺎت واﻻﺗﺠﺎه&&ﺎت ﻧﺤ&&ﻮ ﻋﻤﻠ&&ﻴﺔ اﻟ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺴ&ﺘﻤﺮ)‪ (Knutson, Miranda, 2000) (Knutson, Miranda & Washell, 2005‬وﻳﻨﻈ&ﺮ آ&ﻞ ﻣ&ﻦ‬
‫‪ (1995) Mallet‬و ‪ (1992) Brooks‬إﻟ&ﻰ ﻣ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ أﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﻮع ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﻈﺎم اﻟﺬي ﻳﺸﺠﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺤﻮل‬
‫ﻣ&ﻦ ﺧ&ﻼل ﻋﻤﻠ&ﻴﺔ اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ ‪ ،‬وﻳ&ﺮى ‪ (1994) Marsick & Watkins‬أن ﻣ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺗﺘﺼ&ﻒ ﺑﻘ&ﺪرﺗﻬﺎ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ‬
‫ﺗﻤﻜﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ‪ ،‬وﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻌﺎون‪ ،‬واﻟﺤﻮار‪ ،‬واﻻﻋﺘﺮاف ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺪاﺧﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻷﻓﺮاد واﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ واﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎت‪.‬‬
‫و ُﻳﻨﻈ&&ﺮ إﻟ&&ﻰ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﻠ &ﻰ أﻧﻬ&&ﺎ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﺘ&&ﻲ ﻳﻌﻤ&&ﻞ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠ&&ﻮن ﻓ&&ﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ ﺟﻤ&&ﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺴ&&ﺘﻮﻳﺎت اﻟﻔ&&ﺮدﻳﺔ‬
‫واﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋ&&ﻴﺔ ﻟ&&ﺰﻳﺎدة ﻗ&&ﺪراﺗﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﻮﺻ&&ﻮل إﻟ&&ﻰ اﻟﻨ&&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘ&&ﻲ ﻳﻬ&&ﺘﻤﻮن ﻓ&&ﻲ اﻟﻮاﻗ&&ﻊ ﺑﺘﺤﻘ&&ﻴﻘﻬﺎ)‪.(Karash,1994-2002‬‬
‫وﻳ&ﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺑ&ﻨﺎء ﻣ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺟﻬ&ﻮدا ﻣﺴ&&ﺘﺪاﻣﺔ وهﺎدﻓ&ﺔ‪ ،‬وه&ﺬا ﻳﺤ&&ﺘﺎج إﻟ&ﻰ ﺗﺒﻨ&ﻲ أﻧﻈﻤ&&ﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴ&ﺮ ﺗﺘﺼ&ﻒ ﺑﺎﻟﺸ&&ﻤﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫واﻟ&&ﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻳ&&ﺘﻢ ﺗﺼ&&ﻤﻴﻤﻬﺎ وﺗﻄﻮﻳ&&ﺮهﺎ وإداﻣ&&ﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺸ&&ﻜﻞ ﻣﺴ&&ﺘﻤﺮ ﻣ&&ﻦ ﺧ&&ﻼل اﻟ&&ﺮؤﻳﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻘ&&ﻴﻢ‪ ،‬واﻻﺗﺼ&&ﺎﻻت‪ ،‬واﺧﺘ&&ﺒﺎر‬
‫اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳ&&ﺎت‪ ،‬واﻟﻬ&&ﻴﻜﻞ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&&ﻲ‪ ،‬واﻷﺳ&&ﺎﻟﻴﺐ‪ ،‬واﻹﺟ&&ﺮاءات ﻟﻠ&&ﺘﺄآﺪ ﻣ&&ﻦ ﻣ&&ﺪى اﻧﺴ&&ﺠﺎﻣﻬﺎ وﻣﻼءﻣ&&ﺘﻬﺎ ‪(Rastogi,‬‬
‫)‪.1998‬‬
‫ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗُﻌ&ﺪ ﻣ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﻧﻤ&ﻮذﺟًﺎ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻴًﺎ ﻣﺒﻨ&ﻴًﺎ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ وﻋ&ﻮد ﺗﺤﺮﻳ&ﺮﻳﺔ ﻣ&ﺆآﺪة ﻣ&ﺜﻞ ﺗﻤﻜ&ﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠ&ﻴﻦ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﺤﻮل ﻓﻲ دور‬
‫اﻟﻤﺪﻳ&&ﺮﻳﻦ ﻣ&&ﻦ اﻟ&&ﺪور اﻟﺮﻗﺎﺑ&&ﻲ إﻟ&&ﻰ دور اﻟﻤﺴ&&ﻬﻞ‪ ،‬وﺧﻠ&&ﻖ رؤﻳ&&ﺔ ﻣﺸ&&ﺘﺮآﺔ وﺷ&&ﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪ .‬وﻳ&&ﺆﻳﺪ ه&&ﺬا اﻟ&&ﻨﻤﻮذج‬
‫ﻣ&ﺒﺎدئ اﻟﺸ&ﻤﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﺻ&ﻨﻊ اﻟﻘ&ﺮارات اﻟﺘﻌﺎوﻧ&ﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﻓ&ﺮق اﻟﻌﻤ&ﻞ اﻟﻤﺘ&ﻨﻮﻋﺔ ‪ ،‬واﻟﻬ&ﻴﻜﻞ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺴﻄﺢ‪ ،‬واﻟﻔﺮص‬
‫اﻷآﺜ&ﺮ ﻟﻠ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ‪ .‬وﺗﻮﺻ&ﻒ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﻧﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﺠﺎوز اﻷهﺪاف اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺘﻌﻈﻴﻢ اﻟﺮﺑﺤﻴﺔ ﻗﺼﻴﺮة‬
‫اﻟﻤ&ﺪى )‪ .(Alexiou, 2005‬وﺗﻤ&ﺘﺎز اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺨﺼ&ﺎﺋﺺ ﻣ&ﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﺷ&ﻌﻮر اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠ&ﻴﻦ ﻓ&ﻴﻬﺎ ﺑ&ﺄﻧﻬﻢ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻮن‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﺼ&&ﺎﻟﺤﻬﻢ وﻟﺼ&&ﺎﻟﺢ اﻟﻤﺠ&&ﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬وﺷ&&ﻌﻮر آ&&ﻞ ﻓ&&ﺮد ﻓ&&ﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻧ&&ﻪ ﻣﻌﻨ&&ﻲ ﺑﻄ&&ﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟ&&ﻨﻤﻮ واﻟ&&ﺘﻘﺪم وﺗﺤﺴ&&ﻴﻦ ﻗﺪراﺗ&&ﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻤ& ً‬
‫اﻹﺑﺪاﻋ&ﻴﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﺮآﻴ&ﺰ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻓ&ﺮق اﻟﻌﻤ&ﻞ‪ ،‬ﻷن ﻋﻤ&ﻞ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﺑﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﻬﻢ أآﺜﺮ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴ ًﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻬﻢ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﻴﻦ‪ .‬وﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ‬
‫اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻗﺎﻋ&ﺪة اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﺗﺨﺰﻳﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎرف‪ ،‬وﻳﻌﺎﻣﻞ آﻞ ﻓﺮد اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ اﻟﺰﻣﻼء ﻓﻲ إﻃﺎر‬
‫ﻣﻦ اﻻﺣﺘﺮام واﻟﺜﻘﺔ‪ ،‬وﻳﻤﺘﻠﻚ اﻟﻔﺮد اﻟﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﻹﺟﺮاء اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ واﺗﺨﺎذ اﻟﻤﺨﺎﻃﺮة )اﻟﻌﻠﻲ وﻗﻨﺪﻳﻠﺠﻲ‪.(2006،‬‬
‫اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫اﻧﻄﻼﻗ &ًﺎ ﻣ&&ﻦ أن اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&ﺮ اﻹﺳ&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺣﻘ&&ﻴﻘﺔ ﺣﺘﻤ&&ﻴﺔ ﺗ&&ﻮاﺟﻬﻬﺎ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﺑﺎﺳ&&ﺘﻤﺮار ﻣﻤ&&ﺎ ﻳ&&ﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻣ&&ﻦ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت‬
‫ن ‪ ،‬ﻟ&&ﺬا ﻓ&&ﺈن ذﻟ&&ﻚ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&ﺮ ﻻ ﺑ&&ﺪ أن ﻳ&&ﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﺑﺘﻐﻴ&&ﺮات‬
‫ﻒ واﻟ&&ﺘﻮاز ُ‬
‫اﻟﺴ&&ﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠ&&ﺒﻘﺎء ﻓ&&ﻲ إﻃ&&ﺎر اﻟﺒﻴ&&ﺌﺔ اﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣ&&ﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻜ &ﻴّ ُ‬
‫إﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺗﺸ&ﻤﻞ اﻟﻤ&ﻮارد اﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ واﻟﻬﻴﺎآﻞ واﻟﺘﻘﺎﻧﺎت واﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺎت‪ .‬وﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻹﻃﺎر ﻳﺸﻴﺮ اﻟﺼﺮن )‪ ( 2000‬إﻟﻰ‬
‫أن اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ أﻣ&ﺮٌ ﻣﺤ&ﺘﻮمٌ‪ ،‬إذ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜ&ﻦ ﻟﺸ&ﻲء أن ﻳﺒﻘ&ﻰ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﺣﺎﻟ&ﻪ ﻣﻦ دون ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺗﻔﺮض اﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ ﺳ&ﻮاء أآ&ﺎن أﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴًﺎ أم اﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳًﺎ أم اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴًﺎ أم ﺗﻘﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ ،‬وﻗﺪ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ أو ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺆوﻟﻴﻦ‪ ،‬وهﻮ‬
‫ﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ )اﻟﺼﺮن‪.(2000،‬‬
‫ﺑﺬﻟﻚ وﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﺎﻓﻈﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ وﺑﻘﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍ‬
‫ﻓ&ﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺸ&ﻴﺮ ﻳ&ﻮﻧﺲ)‪( 2002‬إﻟ&ﻰ أن اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ ه&ﻮ إﺣ&ﺪاث اﻟﺘﻨﺎﺳ&ﻖ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺑﻴﻦ أوﺿﺎع اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ واﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﺪات اﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺤ&&ﺪﺛﻬﺎ اﻟ&&ﺘﻄﻮرات اﻟﺤﺪﻳ&&ﺜﺔ ﻓ&&ﻲ ﻣﺨ&&ﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﺠ&&ﺎﻻت اﻟﻌﻤ&&ﻞ اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔ&&ﻲ ‪ ،‬وه&&ﻮ ﺗﻨﺎﺳ&&ﻖ ﻣ&&ﻊ ﻃﺒ&&ﻴﻌﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟ&&ﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴ&&ﺮة‬
‫ﻼ ﻋ&&ﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﺑﻬ&&ﺔ دواﻓﻌ&&ﻪ ﺑﺤﻜﻤ&&ﺔ‬
‫واﻟﻤ&ﺘﺠﺪدة ‪ ،‬وﻋﻠ&&ﻰ اﻹدارة أن ﺗ&&ﺘﻮﻗﻊ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&ﺮ داﺋﻤ&ًﺎ وﺗﻌﺪﻟ&&ﻪ ﻣ&ﺎ اﺳ&&ﺘﻄﺎﻋﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻀ& ً‬
‫ودراﻳ&&ﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴ&&ﻴﻦ‪.‬ﻓ&&ﻲ ﺣ&&ﻴﻦ ﻳ&&ﺆآﺪ‪ (2000) Lynch‬ﺑ&&ﺄن اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&ﺮ اﻹﺳ&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﻳﺘﻀ&&ﻤﻦ اﻹدارة اﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠ&&ﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻠ&&ﻴﺎت‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﻬﺪف اﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻮاﺿﺢ ﻟﻸهﺪاف اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ واﻟﺬي ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎت ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻳﺘﻢ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاهﺎ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮة وﻏﻴﺮ روﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وﻳﺸ&ﻴﺮ اﻟ&ﺪوري )‪ (2003‬اﻟ&ﻰ أن ه&ﻨﺎك ﻣﺴ&ﺘﻮﻳﺎت ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻤ&ﺜﻞ ﻓ&ﻲ‪ :‬ﻋﺪم اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪،‬‬
‫واﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ اﻟﻤﺤ&ﺪود‪ :‬وﻳﺘﻀ&ﻤﻦ ﻋ&ﺮض ﻣﻨ&ﺘﺠﺎت ﺟﺪﻳ&ﺪة ﻓﻲ أﺳﻮاق ﺟﺪﻳﺪة داﺧﻞ ﺻﻨﻒ اﻟﻤﻨﺘﺞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬‬
‫واﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ اﻟﺠﺬري)اﻟﺪوري ‪ .(2003،‬وﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻔﺎت اﻷﺧﺮى ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪ :‬اﻟﻨﻈﺮ اﻟﻴﻪ أﻧﻪ‬
‫أﺳ&ﻠﻮب إداري ﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ أﻓﻀﻞ)‪ ،(Hyatt & Haque 2007‬وأﻧﻪ ﻧﺸﺎط ﻃﻮﻳﻞ اﻷﺟﻞ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻗ&ﺪرة اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼت وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﺬات )‪ .(Hoogendoorn, et al.,2007‬وﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻋﺘﺒﺮﻩ وﺳﻴﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻹدﺧ&ﺎل ﺗﺤﺴ&ﻴﻨﺎت ﻋﻠ&ﻰ أداء اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻤ&ﺮﺣﻠﺔ أآﺜ&ﺮ ﻓﺎﻋﻠ&ﻴﺔ)‪ ، (Holt, et al.,2007‬أو أﻧ&ﻪ اﺳ&ﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮات‬
‫ﺑﻴﺌ&ﻴﺔ آﻤ&ﺎ ذآ&ﺮ )‪ ،(Savolainen & Haikonen,2007‬وآ&ﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻤﺜ&ﻴﻠﻪ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ أﻧ&ﻪ ﺣﺎﻟ&ﺔ اﻧ&ﺘﻘﺎل ﻧﺤ&ﻮ اﻟﻤﺴ&ﺘﻘﺒﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﻲ)‪. (Self ,2007‬‬
‫وهﻮ ﺑﺬات اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺗﻜﻴﻔ ّ‬
‫اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗ&ﻨﺎوﻟﺖ دراﺳﺔ )اﻟﻜﺴﺎﺳﺒﺔ وﺁﺧﺮون‪ (2009 ،‬ﺗﻌﺮف ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺘﻤﻜﻴﻦ واﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫وﺗ&ﻢ ﺗﻄﺒ&ﻴﻖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺷﺮآﺎت ﻃﻼل أﺑﻮ ﻏﺰاﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻷردن‪ ،‬وﺧﻠﺼﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ أن هﻨﺎك ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮا‬
‫إﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺎ ﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺘﻤﻜﻴﻦ واﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وه&ﺪﻓﺖ دراﺳ&ﺔ )اﻟ&ﺒﻐﺪادي‪ (2008،‬إﻟ&ﻰ اﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ وﺟﺎهﺰﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‪،‬‬
‫وﻗ&&ﺪ اﻋ&&ﺘﻤﺪ ﻓ&&ﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ ﻣﻘ&&ﻴﺎس‪(2004) Sudharatna & Li‬وﻣﻘ&&ﻴﺎس ‪ ،(2002) Contu‬ﻟﻘ&&ﻴﺎس ﺧﺼ&&ﺎﺋﺺ‬
‫اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ وﻣﻘ&&ﻴﺎس ‪ (2001) Rowden‬ﻟﻘ&&ﻴﺎس ﺟﺎه&&ﺰﻳﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&ﺮ‪ ،‬وأﻇﻬ&&ﺮت اﻟﻨ&&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ أن ه&&ﻨﺎك‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺟﺎهﺰﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ‪ ،‬وﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﻴﻢ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﺰام‬
‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎدة‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻤﻜﻴﻦ ‪ ،‬واﻻﺗﺼﺎﻻت‪ ،‬وﻧﻘﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ‪ ،‬وﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻔﺮد اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ وﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻷداء ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ أﺧﺮى‪.‬‬
‫أﻣ&ﺎ دراﺳ&ﺔ )أﺑ&ﻮ ﺧﻀ&ﻴﺮ‪ ، (2006 ،‬ﻓﻘ&ﺪ ه&ﺪﻓﺖ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﻧﻤﻮذج ﻣﻘﺘﺮح ﻹدارة اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﻲ آﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮم‬
‫اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻣ&&ﻦ ﺧ&&ﻼل ﺗﻄﺒ &ﻴﻖ ﻣﻘ&&ﻴﺎس ﻣﺮآ&&ﺮدت ﻟﻠﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣ&&ﻴﺚ اﻋ&&ﺘﻤﺪت اﻟﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ ﻋﻴ&&ﻨﺔ ﺑﻠ&&ﻎ‬
‫ﺗﻌ&ﺪادهﺎ )‪ (780‬ﻣﻔ&ﺮدة ‪ ،‬وﺗﻮﺻ&ﻠﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ‪ :‬ﺗﻮاﻓﺮ ﻧﻈﺎم ﺟﺎهﺰ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ وﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ‪ ،‬وﺗﻮاﻓﺮ‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﻧﻈ&ﺎم ﻟﻠ&ﺘﺤﻮل اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪ ،‬وﺗﻮاﻓ&ﺮ ﻧﻈ&ﺎم ﻟﻠﺘﻤﻜ&ﻴﻦ‪ ،‬وﻋﺪم وﺟﻮد ﻓﺮوق ذات دﻻﻟﺔ إﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ‬
‫ﺗﻮاﻓ&&ﺮ ﻋﻨﺎﺻ&&ﺮ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺸ&&ﻜﻞ ﻳﻌ&&ﺰى إﻟ&&ﻰ ﻣﺘﻐﻴ&&ﺮات ﻣ&&ﻦ أهﻤﻬ&&ﺎ‪ :‬اﻟﻤ&&ﺆهﻞ اﻟﻌﻠﻤ&&ﻲ‪ ،‬وﻧ&&ﻮع اﻟﻮﻇ&&ﻴﻔﺔ‪،‬‬
‫وﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫أﺟ&ﺮى )‪ (Bryan,2009‬دراﺳ&ﺔ ه&ﺪﻓﺖ إﻟ&ﻰ اﻟ&ﺒﺤﺚ ﻓ&ﻲ ﻣ&ﺒﺎدئ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻋ&ﺪد ﻣ&ﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮات ﻣ&ﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬اﻟﻘ&ﻴﺎدة‪ ،‬وﻧﻈ&ﺎم اﻟﻮﻇ&ﻴﻔﺔ وه&ﻴﻜﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ودرﺟﺔ اﻟﻨﻤﻮ‪ .‬وﻃﺒﻘﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ وﻻﻳﺔ آﻨﺴﺎس‪.‬‬
‫وأﻇﻬ&ﺮت اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ وﺟﻮد ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮات ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ واﺣﺪ ﻓﻘﻂ هﻮ درﺟﺔ اﻟﻨﻤﻮ‪ ،‬أﻣﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮات اﻷﺧﺮى‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻳﺒﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺎت ارﺗﺒﺎط داﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وﺗ&ﻨﺎول )‪ ( Song, 2008‬دراﺳ&ﺔ ه&ﺪف ﻣ&ﻨﻬﺎ إﻟ&ﻰ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ هﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺎرات اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺠﻮاﻧﺐ اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫واﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ وﻋﻤﻠ&&ﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﻮﻳ&&ﺮ اﻟﻤﻌ&&ﺮﻓﺔ اﻟﺘ&&ﻲ ﺗ&&ﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺘﺤﺴ&&ﻴﻦ أداء اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺪرك‪ ،‬وأﺟ&&ﺮﻳﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ ﻓ&&ﻲ‬
‫اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟﻜ&&ﻮرﻳﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗ&&ﻨﺎوﻟﺖ ﻋ&&ﺪدا ﻣ&&ﻦ اﻷﺑﻌ&&ﺎد ﺗﻤ&&ﺜﻠﺖ ﻓ&&ﻲ ﺗﻌﻠ&&ﻢ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ وﻋﻤﻠ&&ﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﻮﻳ&&ﺮ وﺗﻌﺰﻳ&&ﺰ اﻟﻤﻌ&&ﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫وﺗﻜﻴ&&ﻴﻔﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وﺗﺄﺛﻴ&&ﺮ ه&&ﺬﻩ اﻷﺑﻌ&&ﺎد ﻓ&&ﻲ اﻟﻌ&&ﻮاﻣﻞ اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﺎﻟ&&ﻴﺔ‪ .‬وﺗﻮﺻ&&ﻠﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ إﻟ&&ﻰ أن ﺛﻘﺎﻓ&&ﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻬ&ﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴ&ﺮ آﺒﻴ&ﺮ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ وﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ اﻷداء‪ ،‬وأن هﻨﺎك ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻷﻓﺮاد‪،‬‬
‫ﻣ&ﻨﻬﺎ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك‪ ،‬واﻟﺜﻘﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎدﻟﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻘﻴﺎدة وأﻧﻤﺎﻃﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وآﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ داﻋﻤﺔ ﻹﻧﺸﺎء ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫وﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ دﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪.‬‬
‫آﻤ&&ﺎ ﻗﺎﻣ &ﺖ )‪ (Fahey, 2008‬ﺑﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ ه&&ﺪﻓﺖ إﻟ&&ﻰ ﺗﻌ&&ﺮف دور ﺑ&&ﺮاﻣﺞ ﺗﻄﻮﻳ&&ﺮ اﻟﻘ&&ﻴﺎدة ﻓ&&ﻲ ﻣﺴ&&ﺎﻋﺪة اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌ&&ﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﺤﺠﻢ اﻟﻜﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﺘﺮآﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻤ&ﻴﺔ واﻹﺑ&ﺪاع وﺧﻔ&ﺾ اﻟﺘﻜﺎﻟ&ﻴﻒ واﻟ&ﺘﻌﺎون‪ ،‬وآ&ﻴﻒ ﻳﻤﻜ&ﻦ ﻟﻬ&ﺬﻩ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺎت أن ﺗﺘﺒﻨﻰ هﻴﺎآﻞ ﺗﺸﺠﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ واﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ‪ ،‬وﺗﺴﻬﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ إﻧﺠﺎز أهﺪاف اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ آﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وﺗ&ﻨﺎول )‪ (Kumar & Idris, 2006‬دراﺳ&ﺔ ﺣ&ﺎول ﻓ&ﻴﻬﺎ اﻟﺒﺎﺣ&ﺜﺎن ﺗﻌ&ﺮف أﺛ&ﺮ أﺑﻌ&ﺎد اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻷداء‬
‫اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓ&&ﻲ ﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟﺘﻌﻠ&&ﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎﻟ&&ﻲ اﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴ&&ﺰﻳﺔ‪ .‬وﻗ&&ﺪ اﻋ&&ﺘﻤﺪت اﻟﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ ﺳ&&ﺒﻌﺔ أﺑﻌ&&ﺎد ﻟﻠ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&&ﻲ وه&&ﻲ‪ :‬اﻟ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺴ&ﺘﻤﺮ‪ ،‬واﻟﺤ&ﻮار‪ ،‬وﺟﻤﺎﻋ&ﺔ اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴ&ﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻨﻈﺎم‪ ،‬واﻟﺮؤﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮآﺔ‪ ،‬ورﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ‪،‬‬
‫واﻟﻘ&ﻴﺎدة اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‪ .‬وﻗ&ﺪ أﺷ&ﺎرت ﻧ&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ أﻟ&ﻰ وﺟ&ﻮد ﺗﺄﺛﻴ&ﺮ إﻳﺠﺎﺑ&ﻲ ﻣﻌ&ﻨﻮي ﺑﻤﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎت ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ اﻟﺴ&ﺒﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﺬآ&ﻮرة أﻋ&ﻼﻩ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻻداء اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓ&ﻲ ﻟﻬ&ﺬﻩ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت‪ ،‬وﻟﻜ&ﻦ أآﺜ&ﺮ اﻷﺑﻌ&ﺎد ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮا آﺎﻧﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻨﻈﺎم ‪ ،‬واﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓ&&ﻲ ﺣ&&ﻴﻦ ﺗ&&ﻨﺎوﻟﺖ دراﺳ&&ﺔ )‪ (Yang, Watkins & Marsick, 2004‬ﺗﻄﻮﻳ&&ﺮ أداة ﻣ&&ﺘﻌﺪدة اﻷﺑﻌ&&ﺎد ﻟﻘ&&ﻴﺎس‬
‫اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ وﺗﻘﻴ&&ﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﻋ&&ﺘﻤﺎد ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ ﻧﻤ&&ﻮذج اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﻘ&&ﺪم ﻓ&&ﻲ دراﺳ&&ﺔ & ‪Watkins‬‬
‫‪ .Marsick,1999‬وﻃ&ﺒﻘﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻣﺪﻳ&ﺮي وﻣﺴ&ﺆوﻟﻲ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻟﻤﻮارد اﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬واﻋﺘﻤﺪت ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣ&ﻦ اﻟﻌﺪﻳ&ﺪ ﻣ&ﻦ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﺘ&ﻨﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻨﺸﺎط‪ .‬وﺧﻠﺼﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ أن اﻷداة ﺑﺤﺎﺟﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ت أداة‬
‫ﻋﻴ&ﻨﺔ ﻋﺸﻮاﺋﻴﺔ أآﺜﺮ ﺗﻨﻮﻋﺎ وأآﺒﺮ ﺣﺠﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﺪروﺳﺔ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻳﺘﺤﻘﻖ اﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻻﺳﺘﺪﻻل وﻳﺘﺄآﺪ ﺛﺒﺎ ُ‬
‫اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫أﻣ&&&ﺎ دراﺳ&&&ﺔ )‪ (Hudspeth,2004‬ﻓﻬ&&&ﺪﻓﺖ إﻟ&&&ﻰ ﺗﺤﻠ&&&ﻴﻞ أﺛ&&&ﺮ اﻟ&&&ﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻻﺳ&&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻓ&&&ﻲ إدارة اﻟﻤﻌ&&&ﺮﻓﺔ واﻟ&&&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ وأداء اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪ .‬ورآ&&ﺰت اﻟﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ ﻣ&&ﺪى ﺗﺄﺛﻴ&&ﺮ اﻟ&&ﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﺎوﻧ&&ﻴﺔ ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ اﻟ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ &ﻲ واﻷداء‪،‬‬
‫وﺷ&ﻤﻠﺖ )‪ (195‬ﻣ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ إﺳ&ﺒﺎﻧﻴﺔ وآ&ﺎن ﻣ&ﻦ أه&ﻢ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ‪ :‬أن اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﺎوﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﺠﻊ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ‪،‬‬
‫وأﻧﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺑﺬاﺗﻬﺎ ﻣﻴﺰة ﺗﻨﺎﻓﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﻌﺪل ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬وﺗﻮﺟﻴﻬﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ واﺗﺠﺎهﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ اﻷداء اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻓﺴﻲ ‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﻤﻮذج اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻓ&ﻲ إﻃ&ﺎر اﻟﺴ&ﻌﻲ ﻻﺳ&ﺘﻜﻤﺎل اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠ&ﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠ&ﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺸ&ﻜﻠﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ وﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘًﺎ ﻟﻸهﺪاف اﻟﻤﻨﻮﻩ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗ ّﻢ ﺑﻨﺎء‬
‫اﻷﻧﻤﻮذج اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﻟﻴﻌﺒّﺮ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮات اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ واﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ اﻟﻮاردة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪.(1‬‬
‫‪.1‬اﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻟﻔﺮص اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠ‬
‫‪.3‬ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون وﻓﺮق اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫‪.4‬ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮل وﻣﺸﺎرآﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﺳﺘ‬
‫‪.2‬ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ واﻟﺤﻮار‬
‫‪.1‬اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻹ‪9‬دراآﻲ‬
‫‪.2‬اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫‪.3‬اﻟﻨﺰﻋﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻮآﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‬
‫ﻣ&ﻦ اﺟ&ﻞ ﺗﻮﻓﻴ&ﺮ وﺿ&ﻮح ﺣ&ﻮل اﻟ&ﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣ&ﻊ ﻣﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮات اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ وأﺑﻌﺎدهﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎن اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻗﺪ ارﺗﺄى ان ﻳﻮرد‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻤ‪:‬ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ‪:‬ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪ :‬ﻳﻌﺒ&ﺮ ﻋ&ﻦ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﺗﻠﺒ&ﻲ اﻟﺸ&ﺮوط اﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﺗﻤﻴ&ﺰهﺎ ﻋ&ﻦ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟﺘﻘﻠ&ﻴﺪﻳﺔ اﻷﺧﺮى ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺣ&ﻴﺚ‪ :‬اﻟﻘ&ﻴﺎدة اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤ&ﻴﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻬ&ﻴﻜﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤ&ﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﻤﻜ&ﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠ&ﻴﻦ ﻣ&ﻦ اﻟﻤﺸ&ﺎرآﺔ واﻟﺘﺤﺮك ﺑﻤﺮوﻧﺔ وﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﺒﻨﻰ‬
‫إﺳ&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺸ&&ﺎرآﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺴ&&ﻤﺎح ﺑﺈﺗﺎﺣ&&ﺔ اﻟﻔ&&ﺮص ﻟﺘ&&ﺒﺎدل اﻟﻤﻌ&&ﺮﻓﺔ واﻟﻤﻌﻠ&&ﻮﻣﺎت واﻟ&&ﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻜ&&ﻴﻔﺔ‬
‫)‪.(Bryan,2009‬آﻤ&ﺎ أﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ واﻟﺘﺤﻮل اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻲ وﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﺑﺸﻜﻞ اﺳﺘﺒﺎﻗﻲ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻟ&ﺪﻋﻢ وﺗﺤﻔﻴ&ﺰ ﻧﻤ&ﻮ اﻻﻓ&ﺮاد‪ ،‬واﻟﻔ&ﺮق‪،‬واﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺎﻣﻞ واﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت واﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻬﺎ & ‪(Watkins‬‬
‫)‪Marsick,1993,1996,1999‬‬
‫أﺑﻌ‪:‬ﺎد اﻟﻤ‪:‬ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ‪:‬ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ‪ :‬ﻳﺸ&ﻴﺮ ه&ﺬا اﻟﻤﻔﻬ&ﻮم إﻟ&ﻰ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎدة واﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺸﺎرآﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫واﻟﻬ&ﻴﻜﻞ اﻟﻘ&ﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ اﻟﻔ&ﺮق‪ ،‬واﻟ&ﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺘﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ اﻟﻘﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻤﻜﻴﻦ اﻹداري ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻤﻔﺘﻮﺣــﺔ‪،‬وﺑﻨﺎء‬
‫اﻟ&&&ﺮؤﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺸ&&&ﺘﺮآﺔ‪ ،‬وإﺑ&&&ﺮاز واﺧﺘ&&&ﺒﺎر اﻟ&&&ﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﺬهﻨ&&&ﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴ&&&ﺮ اﻟﻤ&&&ﻨﻈﻢ‪ ،‬وﺑ&&&ﻨﺎء اﻟﺸ&&&ﺒﻜﺔ اﻻﺗﺼ&&&ﺎﻟﻴﺔ واﻟ&&&ﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ واﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ‪،‬واﻟﻄﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪(Watkins & Marsick,1993,1996,1999).‬‬
‫اﻻﺳ‪:‬ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ‪:‬ﻲ اﻟﻤ‪:‬ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ‪:‬ﺮ اﻻﺳ‪:‬ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪ :‬وﻳﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ اﻷﺳﺒﻘﻴﺔ اﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻠﻮك‪ ،‬وﻳﻜﻮن إﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﺗﺠﺎﻩ‬
‫اﻟ&ﺪﻋﻢ اﻹﻳﺠﺎﺑ&ﻲ او ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎوﻣ&ﺔ ﻟﺠﻬ&ﻮد اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ)‪(Armenakis and Harris, (Armenakis, et al., 1993‬‬
‫) ‪.2002‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎوﻣ‪:‬ﺔ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ‪:‬ﺮ‪ :‬ﻳﺸ&ﻴﺮ إﻟ&ﻰ اﻟﺘﺼ&ﺮﻓﺎت اﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﻳﻘﺼ&ﺪ ﻣ&ﻨﻬﺎ إﺣ&ﺒﺎط أه&ﺪاف اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ)‪ ،(Bernerth,2004‬وﺗﻌ&ﺮف‬
‫أﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻬﺎ اﻻﻟﺘﺰام ﺑﺎﻟﺜﺒﻮت ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻮﺿﻊ اﻟﺮاهﻦ)‪.(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999‬‬
‫اﻟ‪:‬ﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻔ‪:‬ﺮدي‪ :‬ﻳﺸ&ﻴﺮ إﻟ&ﻰ اﻟﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﻤﻬﺎرات واﻷﻓﻜﺎر واﻟﻘﻴﻢ واﻻﺗﺠﺎهﺎت واﻟﻤﻌﺎرف اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺴﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ اﻟﻔﺮد‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺮﻏﺐ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺈﺣﺪاث اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳﺔ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔ)‪.(Dibbon,1999‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ وإﺟﺮاءاﺗﻬﺎ‬
‫أﺳﻠﻮب اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻃ&&ﺒﻘﺖ ﻓ&&ﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌ&&ﺔ اﻟﺒﺘ&&ﺮا‪ ،‬واﺳ&&ﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ‬
‫ﺗﺒ&&ﻨﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻬﺞ اﻟﻮﺻ&&ﻔﻲ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠ&&ﻲ وﻃ&&ﺒﻘﺖ )دراﺳ&&ﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟ&&ﺔ(‪ ،‬و ُ‬
‫اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ ﻟﺠﻤ&ﻊ وﺗﺤﻠ&ﻴﻞ اﻟﺒ&ﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻌَ&ﺔ ﻣ&ﻦ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﺗ&ﻢ اﺳ&ﺘﻌﺎدﺗﻬﺎ ﻣ&ﻦ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&ﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻤﺎد اﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ‬
‫اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺠ‪::‬ﺘﻤﻊ وﻋﻴ‪::‬ﻨﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳ‪::‬ﺔ‪ :‬ﺗﺄﻟ&&ﻒ ﻣﺠ&&ﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ وﻋﻴﻨ&&ﺘﻪ ﻣ&&ﻦ ﺟﻤ&&ﻴﻊ أﻋﻀ&&ﺎء هﻴ&&ﺌﺔ اﻟ&&ﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﻓ&&ﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌ &ﺔ اﻟﺒﺘ&&ﺮا‬
‫اﻟﺨﺎﺻ&ﺔ‪ ،‬وﺑﻠ&ﻎ ﻋ&ﺪدهﻢ ﺣﺴ&ﺐ ﺳ&ﺠﻼت اﻟﺸ&ﺆون اﻹدارﻳ&ﺔ)‪ (284‬ﻋﻀ&ﻮا ﻣ&ﻦ ﻣﺨ&ﺘﻠﻒ اﻟﺮﺗﺐ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫أﺳ&&ﺘﺎذ )‪ ،(18‬أﺳ&&ﺘﺎذ ﻣﺸ&&ﺎرك)‪ ،(37‬أﺳ&&ﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴ&&ﺎﻋﺪ)‪ ،(184‬ﻣﺤﺎﺿ&&ﺮ)‪ .(45‬وﺗ&&ﻢ ﺗﻮزﻳ&&ﻊ اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺎت ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ ﺟﻤ&&ﻴﻊ‬
‫ﻣﻔ&ﺮدات اﻟﻌﻴ&ﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﺳ&ﺘﺮﺟﻌﺖ )‪ (244‬اﺳ&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗ&ﻢ اﺳ&ﺘﺒﻌﺎد )‪ (11‬اﺳ&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ ﻟﻌ&ﺪم ﺻ&ﻼﺣﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻠ&ﻴﻞ اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﺼ&&ﺒﺢ ﻋ&&ﺪد اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺼ&&ﺎﻟﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻠ&&ﻴﻞ )‪ (233‬اﺳ&&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ ﺷ&&ﻜﻠﺖ ﻣ&&ﺎ ﻧﺴ&&ﺒﺘﻪ )‪ (%82‬ﻣ&&ﻦ إﺟﻤﺎﻟ &ﻲ اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮزﻋﺔ‪ ،‬وهﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺟﻴﺪة ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪.‬‬
‫أﺳﻠﻮب ﺟﻤﻊ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪ :‬اﻋﺘﻤﺪ اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر ﻟﺠﻤﻊ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻼزﻣﺔ ﻹﻧﺠﺎز اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻨﻮع اﻷول‪:‬اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻷﺑﺤﺎث واﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻨﻮع اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‪:‬اﻻﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ‪ ،‬وﻗﺪ ﻗﺎم اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺑﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﻬﺎ وﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮهﺎ ﻷﻏﺮاض اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪ ،‬واﻋﺘﻤﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺎت‬
‫ﻣﻌﺪة ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻐﺮض‪ .‬وﺗﻜﻮﻧﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻣﻦ رﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻐﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫وأوﺿﺢ اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ وأهﺪاﻓﻬﺎ وأرﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ اﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻧﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ أﺟﺰاء‪ :‬ﺗﻨﺎول‬
‫اﻟﺠﺰء اﻷول اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻷﻓﺮاد ﻋﻴﻨﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ)اﻟﻌﻤﺮ واﻟﺠﻨﺲ وﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة واﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ(‪،‬‬
‫وﺗﻨﺎول اﻟﺠﺰء اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ وأﺑﻌﺎدهﺎ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻧﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﻌﺔ أﺑﻌﺎد ﺑﻮاﻗﻊ ﺛﻼث ﻓﻘﺮات ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻌﺪ‪،‬‬
‫وﺿﻤﺖ اﻟﻔﻘﺮات ﻣﻦ )‪ ،(21-1‬واﻋﺘ ُﻤﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻓﻘﺮات هﺬا اﻟﺠﺰء ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﻤﻤﺔ واﻟﻤﻄﻮرة ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻞ ) ‪ ،( Watkins and Marsick 1993,19961999‬أﻣﺎ اﻟﺠﺰء اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻨﺎول اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ واﺷﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ أﺑﻌﺎد ) اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻹدراآﻲ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮ‪ ،‬واﻟﻨﺰﻋﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺴﻠﻮآﻴﺔ( ﺑﻮاﻗﻊ ﺳﺖ ﻓﻘﺮات ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬وﻋﺎﻟﺠﺘﻬﺎ اﻟﻔﻘﺮات ﻣﻦ )‪ ،(39-22‬واﺳﺘﻨﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻤﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ‬
‫()‪( Cunningham et al., 2002‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫)‪Holt,2002) (Dunham et al., 1989‬‬
‫ﺻﺪق ﻣﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ أداة اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ وﺛﺒﺎﺗﻬﺎ‬
‫اﺳﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺘﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﺄآﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺪق ﻣﺤﺘﻮى اﻻﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ هﻤﺎ‪:‬‬
‫‪ 1.‬اﻟﺼ‪:‬ﺪق اﻟﻈﺎه‪:‬ﺮي‪ :Face Validity‬ﺗ&ﻢ اﻟ&ﺘﺄآﺪ ﻣ&ﻦ ﺻ&ﺪق اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ ﻇﺎه&ﺮﻳﺎ ﺑﻌﺮﺿ&ﻬﺎ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻣﺠﻤ&ﻮﻋﺔ ﻣ&&ﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺤﻜّﻤ&&ﻴﻦ ﻣ&&ﻦ ذوي اﻟﺨﺒ&&ﺮة واﻟﻜﻔ&&ﺎءة ﻓ&&ﻲ ﻣﺠ&&ﺎﻻت اﻹدارة وإدارة اﻷﻋﻤ&&ﺎل واﻟ&&ﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻌﻠﻤ&&ﻲ‪ ،‬وﺑ&&ﻨﺎء ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺎت هﺆﻻء اﻟﻤﺤﻜﻤﻴﻦ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻗﺎم اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺑﺘﻌﺪﻳﻞ أو ﺣﺬف أو إﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻋﺒﺎرات ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺑﻨﺎء اﻻﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2.‬اﻟﺼ‪:‬ﺪق اﻟﺒﻨﺎﺋ‪:‬ﻲ‪ : Contrast Validity‬ﻗ&ﺎم اﻟ&ﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺑﻌ&ﺪ اﻟ&ﺘﺄآﺪ ﻣ&ﻦ اﻟﺼ&ﺪق اﻟﻈﺎه&ﺮي ﻟﻼﺳ&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺘﻄﺒ&ﻴﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻋﻴ&ﻨﺔ اﺳ&ﺘﻄﻼﻋﻴﺔ ﻗ&ﻮاﻣﻬﺎ)‪ (30‬ﻣﻔﺮدة ﺗﻢ اﺧﺘﻴﺎرهﻢ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻋﺸﻮاﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﺪراﺳﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫أﺟ&ﻞ ﺗﺤﺪﻳ&ﺪ ﻣ&ﺪى اﻟ&ﺘﺠﺎﻧﺲ اﻟﺪاﺧﻠ&ﻲ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ‪ ،‬وآﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت اﻟﺼﺪق اﻟﺒﻨﺎﺋﻲ داﻟﺔ إﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى)‬
‫‪ ، (0.01‬وﺗﺮاوﺣﺖ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت اﻻرﺗﺒﺎط ﺑﻴﻦ)‪ (0.74‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﺪهﺎ اﻷﻋﻠﻰ‪ ،‬وﺑﻴﻦ)‪ (0.47‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﺪهﺎ اﻷدﻧﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛ‪:‬ﺒﺎت أداة اﻟﺪراﺳ‪:‬ﺔ‪ :‬ﺗ&ﻢ اﺳ&ﺘﺨﺮاج ﻣﻌﺎﻣ&ﻞ اﻟﺜ&ﺒﺎت‪ ،‬ﻃ&ﺒﻘًﺎ ﻻﺧﺘ&ﺒﺎر آ&ﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ أﻟﻔﺎ )‪ (Cronbach Alpha‬ﻟﻼﺗﺴﺎق‬
‫اﻟﺪاﺧﻠ&ﻲ ﻟﻔﻘ&ﺮات اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ آﺎﻓ&ﺔ‪ ،‬وﻟﻔﻘ&ﺮات آ&ﻞ ﻣﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮات اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪ .‬وآﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻟﺜﺒﺎت ﻟﻔﻘﺮات‬
‫اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ وأﺑﻌﺎده&ﺎ )‪ ،(0.91‬ﻓ&ﻲ ﺣ&ﻴﻦ ﺑﻠ&ﻎ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻟﺜﺒﺎت ﻟﻠﻔﻘﺮات اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ)‪ ، (0.88‬أﻣ&ﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻣ&ﻞ اﻟﺜ&ﺒﺎت اﻟﻜﻠ&ﻲ ﻟﻼﺳ&ﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ ﻓﻘ&ﺪ ﺑﻠﻎ )‪ .(0.93‬وﻳﺒﻴﻦ اﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (1‬ﻗﻴﻢ‬
‫اﻟﺜ&&ﺒﺎت ﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻ&&ﺮ اﻟﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣ&&ﻴﺚ آﺎﻧ&&ﺖ ﺟﻤ&&ﻴﻌﻬﺎ أﻋﻠ&&ﻰ ﻣ&&ﻦ اﻟﺤ&&ﺪود اﻟﻤﻘ&&ﺒﻮﻟﺔ‪ ،‬وه&&ﻲ)‪.(Sekaran,2006)(0.60‬‬
‫وﻳﻼﺣ&ﻆ أن ﻧﺴ&ﺒﺔ ﺛ&ﺒﺎت اﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻣﻘ&ﻴﺎس آ&ﺮﻧﺒﺎخ أﻟﻔ&ﺎ ﺟ&ﺎءت ﻣ&ﺘﻘﺎرﺑﺔ ﻣ&ﻊ ﻧﺴﺐ ﺛﺒﺎت اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺒﻨﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ)‪ (0.98 -0.77‬وﻣﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت دراﺳﺔ )‪(Dunham et (Lau and Woodman,1995‬‬
‫)‪ ،(Yousef,2000) ,(Rashid et al.,2004)، (Huang,1993)،al.,1989‬ﻟ&ﺬا ﻓ&ﺈن ﻧﺴ&ﺐ ه&ﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻗﻮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺜﻴﻼﺗﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺴﺐ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﻤﺬآﻮرة‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮاﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻟﻔﺮص اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (1‬ﻗﻴﻢ اﻟﺜﺒﺎت ﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮات اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ وﻋﻮاﻣﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫اﻟﻔﻘﺮات‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮات وﻋﻮاﻣﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫‪1،2،3‬‬
‫آﺮﻧﺒﺎخ أﻟﻔﺎ‬
‫‪%81‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ واﻟﺤﻮار‬
‫ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون وﻓﺮق اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻧﻈﻢ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ واﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻤﻜﻴﻦ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻣﻦ رؤﻳﺔ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﺮآﺔ‬
‫رﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺒﻴﺌﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻔﻘﺮات اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﻞ‬
‫اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ – اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻊ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻟﺜﺒﺎت اﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ‬
‫‪4،5،6‬‬
‫‪7،8،9‬‬
‫‪10،11،12‬‬
‫‪13،14،15‬‬
‫‪16،17،18‬‬
‫‪19،20،21‬‬
‫‪21-1‬‬
‫‪39-22‬‬
‫‪%77‬‬
‫‪%87‬‬
‫‪%83‬‬
‫‪%86‬‬
‫‪%82‬‬
‫‪%94‬‬
‫‪%93‬‬
‫‪%88‬‬
‫‪%93‬‬
‫وﻗ&&&ﺪ ﺻ&&&ﻤﻤﺖ إﺟﺎﺑ&&&ﺎت ه&&&ﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﻘ&&&ﺮات ﻋﻠ&&&ﻰ أﺳ&&&ﺎس ﻣﻘ&&&ﻴﺎس ﻟﻴﻜ&&&ﺮت)‪ (Likert‬اﻟﺨﻤﺎﺳ&&&ﻲ اﻟ&&&ﺬي ﻳﺘﻀ&&&ﻤﻦ ﺧﻤﺴ&&&ﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺴ&ﺘﻮﻳﺎت‪ ،‬أدﻧﺎه&ﺎ)‪ (1‬وأﻋﻼه&ﺎ)‪ (5‬ﻋﻠ&ﻰ اﻟ&ﻨﺤﻮ اﻟﺘﺎﻟ&ﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪة)‪ ،(5‬ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ )‪ ،(4‬ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ اﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ)‪ (3‬ﻏﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻮاﻓ&&&ﻖ )‪ ،(2‬ﻏﻴ&&&ﺮ ﻣﻮاﻓ&&&ﻖ ﺑﺸ&&&ﺪة )‪ .(1‬واﺳ&&&ﺘﻨﺎدا إﻟ&&&ﻰ ذﻟ&&&ﻚ وﻟ&&&ﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟ&&&ﻮزن اﻟﻨﺴ&&&ﺒﻲ اﻟﻔ&&&ﺎرق‪ ،‬ﻓﻘ&&&ﺪ ﺗ&&&ﻢ ﺣﺴ&&&ﺎب‬
‫اﻟﻤ&ﺪى)ﻃ&ﺮح اﻟﺤ&ﺪود اﻟﻌﻠ&ﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻧ&ﻴﺎ ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﻟﻴﻜﺮت اﻟﺨﻤﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺛﻢ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻤﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪد ﻓﺌﺎت اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮل‬
‫ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻃ&ﻮل اﻟﺨﻠ&ﻴﺔ اﻟﺼ&ﺤﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺛ&ﻢ إﺿ&ﺎﻓﺔ ه&ﺬﻩ اﻟﻘ&ﻴﻤﺔ إﻟ&ﻰ أﻗ&ﻞ ﻗ&ﻴﻤﺔ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺞ اﻟﺨﻤﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬وهﻲ اﻟﻮاﺣﺪ اﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ‬
‫وذﻟ&ﻚ ﻟ&ﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﺤ&ﺪ اﻷﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻟﻬ&ﺬﻩ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﺈن ﻗﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎت اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖ إﻟﻴﻬﺎ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺘﻢ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﺤﻮ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬
‫إذا آﺎﻧ&&ﺖ ﻗ&&ﻴﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳ&&ﻂ اﻟﺤﺴ&&ﺎﺑﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻘ&&ﺮات أآﺒ&&ﺮ ﻣ&&ﻦ)‪ ،(4.20‬ﻓ&&ﺈن ذﻟ&&ﻚ ﻳﺸ&&ﻴﺮ إﻟ&&ﻰ ﻣﻮاﻓ&&ﻖ ﺑﺸ&&ﺪة‪ ،‬أﻣ&&ﺎ إذا آ&&ﺎن‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳ&ﻂ اﻟﺤﺴ&ﺎﺑﻲ ﻳﺘ&ﺮاوح ﺑ&ﻴﻦ)‪ (3.4‬واﻗ&ﻞ ﻣ&ﻦ)‪ ، (4.2‬ﻓﻬ&ﺬا ﻳﺸ&ﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﻔﻘﺮة ﺗﺄﺧﺬ درﺟﺔ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‪ ،‬وإذا آﺎن‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳ&ﻂ اﻟﺤﺴ&ﺎﺑﻲ ﻳﺘ&ﺮاوح ﺑ&ﻴﻦ)‪ (2.6‬وأﻗ&ﻞ ﻣ&ﻦ)‪ (3.4‬ﻓﻬﺬا ﻳﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﻔﻘﺮة ﻣﺴﺘﻮى درﺟﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ اﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻣ&ﺎ ‪ ،‬وإذا آ&ﺎن اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳ&ﻂ اﻟﺤﺴ&ﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ)‪ (1.8‬وأﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ)‪ (2.6‬ﻓﻴﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﻔﻘﺮة ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وأﺧﻴﺮا إذا‬
‫آﺎن اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻳﺘﺮاوح ﺑﻴﻦ أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ)‪ (1‬وأﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ)‪ ، (1.8‬ﻓﻬﺬا ﻳﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﻔﻘﺮة ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﺪة‪.‬‬
‫اﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫اﻋﺘﻤﺪ اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ اﻟﺮزﻣﺔ اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ )‪ (SPSS.17‬ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪ 1.‬ﻣﻘﺎﻳ&ﻴﺲ اﻹﺣﺼ&ﺎء اﻟﻮﺻ&ﻔﻲ )‪ (Descriptive Statistical Measures‬ﻟﻮﺻ&ﻒ ﺧﺼ&ﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻤﺠ&ﺘﻤﻊ‬
‫واﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2.‬ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻻﻟﺘﻮاء)‪ (Skewness‬ﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎر ﻣﺪى ﺗﻮزع اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺎ)‪.( Normal Distribution‬‬
‫‪ 3.‬ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ارﺗﺒﺎط آﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ أﻟﻔﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﺄآﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺛﺒﺎت أداة اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ واﺗﺴﺎﻗﻬﺎ اﻟﺪاﺧﻠﻲ ‪.‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫‪ 4.‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻻﺣﺎدي) ‪( ANOVA‬ﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﻔﺮوق ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﺣﻮل ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮات اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 5.‬اﺧﺘﺒﺎر) ‪ ( Fishers LSD‬ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ دﻻﻻت اﻟﻔﺮوق اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة ﺑﺤﺴﺐ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮات اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻻﺣﺼﺎﺋﻲ‪:‬ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺷ ّﻜﻞ أﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺒﺘﺮا ﻋﻴﻨﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪ ،‬وﻗﺪ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺎت اﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ )‪،(%82‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ أن ﻣﻌﺪل اﻟﺮدود ﻋﻠﻰ أداة اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ آﺎن ﺑﻮاﻗﻊ) ‪ ( 233‬ﻣﻔﺮدة ﻣﻦ أﺻﻞ)‪284‬‬
‫( ﻣﻔﺮدة ﻳﻤﺜﻠﻮن ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪ .‬وﻳﻌﺮض اﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ)‪ (2‬اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻷﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻜّﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ان ﻣﻌﻈﻢ اﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ آﺎﻧﻮا ﻣﻦ اﻟﺬآﻮر ﺑﻌﺪد )‪ (199‬ﻋﻀﻮا‬
‫وﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ )‪ .(%85.41‬وﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟ ُﻌﻤﺮ ﻓﻜﺎن اﻟﺘﺮآﺰ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻔﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ )‪ (50-41‬ﺑﻌﺪد )‪ (144‬ﻋﻀﻮا‪ ،‬وهﺬا‬
‫ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ )‪ .(%61.8‬أﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺴﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة ﻓﺎﻟﺘﺮآﺰ آﺎن ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻔﺌﺔ )‪ (5-0‬ﺳﻨﻮات ﺑﻌﺪد )‪ (184‬ﻋﻀﻮا‬
‫وﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ )‪ .(%78.96‬اﻣﺎ ﺑﺨﺼﻮص اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﺘﺮآﺰ آﺎن ﻋﻨﺪ رﺗﺒﺔ أﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﺑﻌﺪد )‪(154‬‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮا وﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ )‪.(%66.1‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻲ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﻠ&ﻴﻞ ﻣﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮات اﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ‪ ،‬وﺑ&ﻴﺎن ﻣ&&ﺪى ﺗﻄﺒ&ﻴﻖ ﻋﻨﺎﺻ&ﺮهﺎ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺒﺤﻮﺛﺔ ﺣﺴ&ﺐ ﻣ&ﺎ ﻳ&ﺮاﻩ أﻋﻀ&ﺎء هﻴ&&ﺌﺔ‬
‫اﻟ&&ﺘﺪرﻳﺲ اﻟ&&ﺬﻳﻦ أﺟﺎﺑ&&ﻮا ﻋ&&ﻦ أﺳ&&ﺌﻠﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳ&&ﻴﺘﻢ اﺳ&&ﺘﺨﺪام ﺑﻌ&&ﺾ ﻣﺆﺷ&&ﺮات اﻹﺣﺼ&&ﺎء اﻟﻮﺻ&&ﻔﻲ‪ ،‬وﺑﺎﻟ&&ﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻮﺳ&&ﻂ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻲ‪ ،‬واﻻﻧﺤﺮاف اﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎري‪ .‬وﻗﺪ أﻇﻬﺮت اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (2‬اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺨﺎﺻﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‬
‫اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‬
‫ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‬
‫اﻟﺘﻜﺮار‬
‫اﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ‪%‬‬
‫ذآﺮ‬
‫اﻧﺜﻰ‬
‫‪ 40-31‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫‪ 50-41‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫‪199‬‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫‪41‬‬
‫‪144‬‬
‫‪85.41‬‬
‫‪14.59‬‬
‫‪17.60‬‬
‫‪61.80‬‬
‫‪ 60- 51‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫‪ 60‬ﺳﻨﺔ ﻓﺎآﺜﺮ‬
‫‪ 5-0‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫‪ 10-6‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫‪ 11‬ﺳﻨﺔ ﻓﺎآﺜﺮ‬
‫‪36‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫‪184‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫‪22‬‬
‫‪15.45‬‬
‫‪5.15‬‬
‫‪78.96‬‬
‫‪11.58‬‬
‫‪9.46‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫‪154‬‬
‫‪37‬‬
‫اﺳﺘﺎذ‬
‫اﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺸﺎرك‬
‫اﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺎﺿﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫‪6.4‬‬
‫‪11.6‬‬
‫‪66.1‬‬
‫‪15.9‬‬
‫او ًﻻ‪ :‬اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﻴﺮ اﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (3‬اﻟﻰ أﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪ ،‬وﻳﺘﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﻌﺔ‬
‫أﺑﻌﺎد أﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻧﻤﻮذج )‪ ،( Watkins and Marsick 1993,1996, 1999‬وﻗﺪ ﺗﺮاوﺣﺖ ﻗﻴﻢ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎت اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد هﺬا اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﺑﻴﻦ)‪ (3.87-3.42‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﻟﻴﻜﺮت اﻟﺨﻤﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬أﻣﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻲ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ أﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺑﻠﻎ )‪ (3.65‬ﻋﻨﺪ درﺟﺔ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ ﺑﺎﻧﺤﺮاف ﻣﻌﻴﺎري ﻗﺪرﻩ)‪،(1.67‬‬
‫ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ أن هﻨﺎك ﻣﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ أﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺪرﺟﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺟﺪا‪.‬أﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑُﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫أﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺟﺎءت اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺸﻲء‪ ،‬اذ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ اﻟﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻲ ﻟﺒﻌﺪ "رﺑﻂ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺒﻴﺌﺘﻬﺎ")‪ ،(3.42‬وهﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ آﺎن إدراآﻬﺎ ﻟﺒﻌﺪ "اﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ" أﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ‬
‫وﺑﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻠﻎ )‪ ،(3.87‬وهﻮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ ﺑﺎﻧﺤﺮاف ﻣﻌﻴﺎري)‪ ،(1.85‬أي أن أﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻣﺘﻔﻘﻮن ﻋﻠﻰ أن ﺑُﻌﺪ "اﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ" ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ هﻮ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺪرك أآﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ "رﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺒﻴﺌﺘﻬﺎ" ‪ ،‬وﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﻲ ذﻟﻚ هﻮ اﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮار ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻬﺎ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺎت آﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت‬
‫ﺧﺪﻣﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻷردن‪ .‬واﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (3‬ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎت اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻴﺔ وأﺑﻌﺎدهﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (3‬اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎت اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻴﺔ واﻻﻧﺤﺮاﻓﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎرﻳﺔ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮاﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻟﻔﺮص اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ واﻟﺤﻮار‬
‫ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون وﻓﺮق اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻧﻈﻢ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ واﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻤﻜﻴﻦ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻣﻦ رؤﻳﺔ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﺮآﺔ‬
‫رﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺒﻴﺌﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻟﻸﺑﻌﺎد ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻌﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻲ‬
‫‪3.77‬‬
‫‪3.51‬‬
‫‪3.68‬‬
‫‪3.72‬‬
‫‪3.60‬‬
‫‪3.42‬‬
‫‪3.87‬‬
‫‪3.65‬‬
‫اﻻﻧﺤﺮاف اﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎري‬
‫‪1.50‬‬
‫‪1.58‬‬
‫‪1.68‬‬
‫‪1.63‬‬
‫‪1.71‬‬
‫‪1.76‬‬
‫‪1.85‬‬
‫‪1.67‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ :‬اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪ ،‬وﻳﻤﺜﻞ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻊ‪ ،‬وﻳﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ هﻲ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻹدراآﻲ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮ‪ ،‬واﻟﻨﺰﻋﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻮآﻴﺔ‪ .‬وﻳﺸﻴﺮ اﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (4‬إﻟﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻹﺣﺼﺎء اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻤﺪى اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻹدراآﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‪ ،‬وذﻟﻚ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺮاﻩ أﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻲ )‪ (4.07‬ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻨﻮع ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك وهﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ واﻧﺤﺮاف ﻣﻌﻴﺎري )‪ .(0.97‬أﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪاد ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮ ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ اﻹﺟﺎﺑﺎت ﻋﻦ ﻋﺒﺎراﺗﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ أﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ أﻗﻞ ﻣﻤﺎ هﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ‬
‫اﻹدراآﻲ‪ ،‬إذ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻲ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرات هﺬا اﻟﺒﻌﺪ)‪ (3.49‬وﺑﺎﻧﺤﺮاف ﻣﻌﻴﺎري )‪ .(0.93‬أﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﻨﺰﻋﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻮآﻴﺔ آﺎﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺑﻠﻎ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﻬﺎ اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻲ )‪ (3.76‬وهﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ أﻳﻀﺎ‪،‬‬
‫وﺑﺎﻧﺤﺮاف ﻣﻌﻴﺎري ﺑﻠﻎ )‪ . (0.91‬وﻳﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ أن أﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﻳﻬﺘﻤﻮن ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻷﻓﻜﺎر‬
‫وﻳﻨﺰﻋﻮن ﺳﻠﻮآﻴﺎ إﻟﻰ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ وﻟﻜﻦ هﻨﺎك ﺿﻌﻔﺎ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮ آﺄﺣﺪ اﻟﺠﻮاﻧﺐ اﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﻻﺣﺪاث اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (4‬اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎت اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻴﺔ واﻻﻧﺤﺮاﻓﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎرﻳﺔ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻹدراآﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫اﻟﻨﺰﻋﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻮآﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻟﻸﺑﻌﺎد ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻌﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻲ‬
‫‪4.07‬‬
‫‪3.49‬‬
‫‪3.76‬‬
‫‪3.77‬‬
‫اﻻﻧﺤﺮاف اﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎري‬
‫‪0.97‬‬
‫‪0.93‬‬
‫‪0.91‬‬
‫‪0.94‬‬
‫اﺧﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻔﺮﺿ‪:‬ﻴﺔ اﻷوﻟ‪:‬ﻰ‪ :‬ﻻ ﻳ&ﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻼﻗ&ﺔ ارﺗ&ﺒﺎط ﻣﻌ&ﻨﻮﻳﺔ ذات دﻻﻟ&ﺔ إﺣﺼ&ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ أﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد‬
‫اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺒ&ﻴﻦ اﻟﺠ&ﺪول )‪ (5‬ﻋﻼﻗ&&ﺎت اﻻرﺗ&ﺒﺎط ﺑ&ﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﻐﻴ&&ﺮات اﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ واﻟﺘ&ﻲ ﺗ&ﻢ اﻟﺘﻮﺻ&ﻞ إﻟ&ﻴﻬﺎ ﻣ&&ﻦ ﺧ&ﻼل ﻣﻌﺎﻣ&ﻞ ارﺗ&&ﺒﺎط‬
‫)‪ ،Person correlation (r‬إذ ﻳﺘﻀ&&ﺢ وﺟ&ﻮد ﻋﻼﻗ&&ﺔ ارﺗ&&ﺒﺎط ﻣﻌ&&ﻨﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺟ&ﺒﺔ ﺑ&&ﻴﻦ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﺑﻌﺎده&&ﺎ‬
‫‪16‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﻟﺴ&ﺒﻌﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﻋﻜﺴﺘﻬﺎ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻻرﺗﺒﺎط اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﺒﺎﻟﻐﺔ )‪0.67‬‬
‫(‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ )‪ .(0.01‬وﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻢ رﻓﺾ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﺑﺼﻴﻐﺘﻬﺎ اﻟﻌﺪﻣﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺠﺪول )‪ (5‬ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت اﻻرﺗﺒﺎط)‪ (r‬ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﻞ‪ :‬اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻊ ‪:‬اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮاﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻟﻔﺮص اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫*‪0.49‬‬
‫ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ واﻟﺤﻮار‬
‫*‪0.52‬‬
‫ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون وﻓﺮق اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫*‪0.60‬‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻧﻈﻢ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ واﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ‬
‫*‪0.48‬‬
‫ﺗﻤﻜﻴﻦ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻣﻦ رؤﻳﺔ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﺮآﺔ‬
‫*‪0.61‬‬
‫رﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺒﻴﺌﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫*‪0.58‬‬
‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫*‪0.64‬‬
‫اﻷﺑﻌﺎد ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻌﺔ‬
‫*‪0.67‬‬
‫‪N=233‬‬
‫‪N.S: Not Significant‬‬
‫‪*P< 0.01‬‬
‫وﻳﻈﻬ&&ﺮ اﻟﺠ&&ﺪول رﻗ&&ﻢ)‪ (5‬أن ﺟﻤ&&ﻴﻊ أﺑﻌ&&ﺎد اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗ&&ﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻌﻼﻗ&&ﺎت إﻳﺠﺎﺑ&&ﻴﺔ ﻣ&&ﻊ اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&&ﻲ‬
‫اﻟﻤ&ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ وأن ه&ﺬﻩ اﻻرﺗ&ﺒﺎﻃﺎت ﺟ&ﺎءت ﺟﻤ&ﻴﻌﻬﺎ إﻳﺠﺎﺑ&ﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺟ&ﺒﺔ ﻋ&ﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى دﻻﻟﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ)‬
‫‪ ،(0.01‬آﻤ&ﺎ ﻳﻈﻬ&ﺮ اﻟﺠ&ﺪول ان ﺳ&ﺘﺔ أﺑﻌ&ﺎد ﻣ&ﻦ أﺑﻌ&ﺎد اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺟ&ﺎءت ارﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻣﻌﺘﺪﻟﺔ‪،‬‬
‫وأن ﻣﻌﺎﻣ&ﻞ اﻻرﺗ&&ﺒﺎط)‪ (r‬ﺗ&&ﺮاوﺣﺖ ﻗﻴﻤ&&ﺘﻪ ﻣ&ﺎ ﺑ&&ﻴﻦ )‪ ،(0.48-0.64‬وﻋﻠ&&ﻴﻪ ﻓ&&ﺎن اﻷﺑﻌ&ﺎد اﻟﺴ&&ﺒﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻮدة‪ ،‬وأن اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺒﻌﺪ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫ﺟﺎء ﺑﺄﻋﻠﻰ ارﺗﺒﺎط‪ ،‬إذ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻪ)‪ (0.64‬وﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﻓﺾ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ اﻟﻌﺪﻣﻴﺔ وﺗﻘﺒﻞ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ اﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺮﺿ‪:‬ﻴﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧ‪:‬ﻴﺔ ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗ&ﻮﺟﺪ ﻓ&ﺮوق ﺟﻮه&ﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﺪرآ&ﺔ ذات دﻻﻟ&ﺔ إﺣﺼ&ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ أﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﺗﻌﺰى اﻟﻰ‬
‫اﺧ&&ﺘﻼف ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼ&&ﻬﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻮﻏ&&ﺮاﻓﻴﺔ)اﻟﺠ&&ﻨﺲ‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﻤ&&ﺮ‪ ،‬ﺳ&&ﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒ&&ﺮة‪ ،‬اﻟ&&ﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤ&&ﻴﺔ( ﺑﺸ&&ﺄن آ&&ﻮن اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌ&&ﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫أوﻻ‪ :‬اﻟﻔ‪:‬ﺮوق ﺑ‪:‬ﻴﻦ أﻋﻀ‪:‬ﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﺑﺸﺄن آﻮن اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﻓﺌﺎﺗﻬﻢ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ‪ :‬ﻟﺒﻴﺎن‬
‫ﻣ&ﺪى اﻟﻔ&ﺮوق اﻟﻤﻮﺟ&ﻮدة ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘﺨﺪم ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣﺎدي‬
‫)‪ ،(ANOVA‬واﻟﺠ&ﺪول رﻗ&ﻢ )‪ (6‬ﻳﻌ&ﺮض ﻧ&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ ه&ﺬا اﻟﺘﺤﻠ&ﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺣ&ﻴﺚ ﻳﺸ&ﻴﺮ إﻟ&ﻰ أﻧ&ﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ هﻨﺎك ﻓﺮوق ﺟﻮهﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪17‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﻋ&ﻨﺪ ﻣﺴ&ﺘﻮى ﻣﻌ&ﻨﻮﻳﺔ )‪ ( (0.05‬ﺑﺸ&ﺄن إدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&ﻴﻦ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﻓﺌﺎﺗﻬﻢ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﺪﻟﻴﻞ‬
‫اﻧﺨﻔ&&ﺎض ﻗ&&ﻴﻤﺔ )‪ (F‬اﻟﻤﺤﺴ&&ﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣ&&ﻴﺚ ﺑﻠﻐ&&ﺖ )‪ (F=0.99‬وﻣﺴ&&ﺘﻮى دﻻﻟ&&ﺔ )‪ (α=0.2621‬ﻣﻤ&&ﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﻀ&&ﻲ ﻗ&&&ﺒﻮل‬
‫اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺌﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺪﻣﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (6‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣﺎدي)‪ (ANOVA‬ﺑﺸﺄن إدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﻓﺌﺎﺗﻬﻢ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪Power‬‬
‫‪Prob‬‬
‫‪F- Ratio‬‬
‫‪Mean‬‬
‫‪Sum of‬‬
‫‪DF‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬
‫)‪(Alpha=0.05‬‬
‫‪Level‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪0.2621‬‬
‫‪*0.40008‬‬
‫‪0.99‬‬
‫‪2.035‬‬
‫‪6.103‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪2.049‬‬
‫‪182.404‬‬
‫‪229‬‬
‫‪188.508‬‬
‫‪232‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع اﻟﻤﻌﺪل‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬
‫‪233‬‬
‫‪N=233‬‬
‫‪N.S: Not Significant‬‬
‫‪*P< 0.05‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ :‬اﻟﻔﺮوق ﺑﻴﻦ اﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﺑﺸﺄن آﻮن اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‬
‫ﻳﻈﻬ&ﺮ اﻟﺠ&ﺪول رﻗ&ﻢ )‪ (7‬أن ﻟ&ﻴﺲ ﺛﻤ&ﺔ ﻓ&ﺮوق ﺑ&ﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&ﻴﻦ ﻓ&ﻲ إدراآﻬ&ﻢ ﻟﻠﺠﺎﻣﻌ&ﺔ آﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻌ&ﺰى إﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮ اﻟﺠ&ﻨﺲ ﺑﺪﻟ&ﻴﻞ اﻧﺨ&ﺎض ﻗ&ﻴﻤﺔ )‪ (F‬اﻟﻤﺤﺴ&ﻮﺑﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺣ&ﻴﺚ ﺑﻠﻐ&ﺖ )‪ ،(F=0.00‬وﻣﺴ&ﺘﻮى دﻻﻟﺔ)‪ (α =0.05‬ﻣﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﻗﺒﻮل اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻨﺲ ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺪﻣﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (7‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻻﺣﺎدي)‪ (ANOVA‬ﺑﺸﺄن إدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬
‫‪DF‬‬
‫اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪231‬‬
‫‪232‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع اﻟﻤﻌﺪل‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬
‫‪233‬‬
‫‪N=233‬‬
‫‪Sum of‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪3.803E - 03‬‬
‫‪188.503‬‬
‫‪188.508‬‬
‫‪Mean squares‬‬
‫‪F- Ratio‬‬
‫‪3.803E - 03‬‬
‫‪2.071‬‬
‫‪0.00‬‬
‫‪N.S: Not Significant‬‬
‫‪Prob‬‬
‫‪Level‬‬
‫‪*0.9659‬‬
‫)‪Power(Alpha=0.05‬‬
‫‪0.0502‬‬
‫‪*P< 0.05‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺎ‪ :‬اﻟﻔﺮوق ﺑﻴﻦ اﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﺑﺸﺄن آﻮن اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻨﺖ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻻﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺪول )‪ (8‬أن ﻟﻴﺲ ﺛﻤﺔ ﻓﺮوق ذات دﻻﻟﺔ اﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻹدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻌﺰى إﻟﻰ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻟﻴﻞ اﻧﺨﻔﺎض ﻗﻴﻤﺔ )‪ (F‬اﻟﻤﺤﺴﻮﺑﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ )‬
‫‪ ،(F=0.77‬وﻣﺴﺘﻮى دﻻﻟﺔ)‪ (α =0.238‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﻗﺒﻮل اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻌﺪﻣﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (8‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻻﺣﺎدي)‪ (ANOVA‬ﺣﻮل ادراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬
‫‪DF‬‬
‫اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪228‬‬
‫‪232‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع اﻟﻤﻌﺪل‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬
‫‪Sum of‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪6.392‬‬
‫‪Mean‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪1.598‬‬
‫‪182.116‬‬
‫‪2.070‬‬
‫‪188.508‬‬
‫‪233‬‬
‫‪N.S: Not Significant N=233‬‬
‫‪F- Ratio‬‬
‫‪0.77‬‬
‫‪Power(Alpha=0.05) ProbLevel‬‬
‫‪*0.546‬‬
‫‪0.238‬‬
‫‪*P< 0.05‬‬
‫راﺑﻌﺎ‪:‬اﻟﻔﺮوق ﺑﻴﻦ أﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﺑﺸﺄن آﻮن اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﺳﻨﻮات ﺧﺒﺮﺗﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻈﻬ&ﺮ اﻟﺠ&ﺪول رﻗ&ﻢ )‪ (9‬أن ﻟ&ﻴﺲ ﺛﻤ&ﺔ ﻓ&ﺮوق ﺑ&ﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&ﻴﻦ ﻓ&ﻲ إدراآﻬ&ﻢ ﻟﻠﺠﺎﻣﻌ&ﺔ آﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻌ&ﺰى إﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮ ﺳ&ﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒ&ﺮﻩ ﺑﺪﻟ&ﻴﻞ اﻧﺨﻔ&ﺎض ﻗ&ﻴﻤﺔ)‪ (F‬اﻟﻤﺤﺴ&ﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣ&ﻴﺚ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ )‪ ،(F=1.20‬وﻣﺴﺘﻮى دﻻﻟﺔ)‪=0.313‬‬
‫‪ (α‬ﻣﻤ&ﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﻀ&ﻲ ﻗ&ﺒﻮل اﻟﺠﺎﻧ&ﺐ اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟ&ﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤ&ﻴﺔ ﻓ&ﻲ ه&ﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺮﺿ&ﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺪﻣﻴﺔ‪ .‬واﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ)‪ (9‬ﻳﻠﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ هﺬا اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (9‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻻﺣﺎدي)‪ (ANOVA‬ﺑﺸﺄن ادراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻷﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬
‫‪DF‬‬
‫اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪229‬‬
‫‪232‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع اﻟﻤﻌﺪل‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬
‫‪Sum of‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪7.352‬‬
‫‪Mean‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪2.451‬‬
‫‪181.155‬‬
‫‪2.035‬‬
‫‪188.508‬‬
‫‪233‬‬
‫‪N.S: Not Significant N=233‬‬
‫‪F- Ratio‬‬
‫‪Prob.Level‬‬
‫‪1.20‬‬
‫‪*0.313‬‬
‫‪Power‬‬
‫)‪(Alpha=0.05‬‬
‫‪0.31309‬‬
‫‪*P< 0.05‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺮﺿ‪::‬ﻴﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻟ‪::‬ﺜﺔ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗ&&ﻮﺟﺪ ﻓ&&ﺮوق ﺟﻮه&&ﺮﻳﺔ ذات دﻻﻟ&&ﺔ إﺣﺼ&&ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑ&&ﻴﻦ أﻋﻀ&&ﺎء هﻴ&&ﺌﺔ اﻟ&&ﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﺑﺸ&&ﺄن اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﻌﺪاد‬
‫اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺗﻌ&ﺰى إﻟﻰ اﺧﺘﻼف ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﻬﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ) اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﻮات‬
‫اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‪ ،‬اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫أوﻻ‪ :‬اﻟﻔﺮوق ﻓﻲ ادراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﻓﺌﺎﺗﻬﻢ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻢ اﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣﺎدي ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ اﻟﻔﺮوق ذات اﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻻﺧﺘﻼف ﻓﺌﺎﺗﻬﻢ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى دﻻﻟﺔ)‪ ،(α =0.05‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﺠﺪول‬
‫رﻗﻢ )‪ (10‬أن هﻨﺎك ﻓﺮوﻗﺎ ﺟﻮهﺮﻳﺔ ذات دﻻﻟﺔ اﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ادراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﻓﺌﺎﺗﻬﻢ‬
‫اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (10‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣﺎدي)‪ (ANOVA‬ﺑﺸﺄن إدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﻓﺌﺎﺗﻬﻢ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪19‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬
‫‪DF‬‬
‫‪Sum of squares‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪229‬‬
‫‪232‬‬
‫‪12.124‬‬
‫‪Mean‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪4.0414‬‬
‫‪66.795‬‬
‫‪0.7510‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع اﻟﻤﻌﺪل‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬
‫‪233‬‬
‫‪N=233‬‬
‫‪78.921‬‬
‫‪N.S: Not Significant‬‬
‫‪F- Ratio‬‬
‫‪5.38‬‬
‫‪Prob.‬‬
‫‪Level‬‬
‫‪*0.0018‬‬
‫‪Power‬‬
‫)‪(Alpha=0.05‬‬
‫‪0.9253‬‬
‫‪*P< 0.05‬‬
‫وﻟ&ﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻔ&ﺮوق ﺑ&ﻴﻦ اﻟﻔ&ﺌﺎت اﻟﻌﻤ&ﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&ﻴﻦ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ أآﺜﺮ دﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام أﺳﻠﻮب )‪ (Fisher,s LSD‬وﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺒ&&ﻴﻦ ﻣ&&ﻦ اﻟﺠ&&ﺪول رﻗ&&ﻢ)‪ (11‬أن اﻟﻔ&&ﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤ&&ﺮﻳﺔ اﻟ&&ﻮاﻗﻌﺔ ﺑ&&ﻴﻦ)‪ (40-31‬ﺳ&&ﻨﺔ ﻗ&&ﺪ أﻇﻬ&&ﺮت ﻓ&&ﺮوﻗﺎ ﺟﻮه&&ﺮﻳﺔ ﻓ&&ﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳ&ﻄﺎﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﺤﺴ&ﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻋ&ﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﻔﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﻮاﻗﻌﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ)‪ (50-41‬ﺳﻨﺔ واﻟﻔﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ )‪ (60-51‬ﺳﻨﺔ واﻟﻔﺌﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻌﻤ&ﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫)‪ 60‬ﻓﺄآﺜ&ﺮ( ﻋ&ﻨﺪ ﻣﺴ&ﺘﻮى دﻻﻟﺔ )‪ ،(α =0.05‬واﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ ( 11‬ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ هﺬﻩ اﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت‪،‬‬
‫وﺑﻬ&&ﺬا ﺗ&&ﻢ رﻓ&&ﺾ اﻟﺠﺎﻧ&&ﺐ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻔ&&ﺌﺎت اﻟﻌﻤ&&ﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﺴ&&ﺒﺐ وﺟ&&ﻮد ﻓ&&ﺮوق ﺟﻮه&&ﺮﻳﺔ ذات دﻻﻟ&&ﺔ اﺣﺼ&&ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑ&&ﻴﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول )‪ (11‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ اﻟﻔﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﺧﺘﺒﺎر )‪ (Fishers LSD‬اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪد اﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺎت‬
‫اﻻﺧﺘﻼف ﻋﻦ اﻟﻔﺌﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻜﺮار‬
‫اﻟﻔﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪2،4،3‬‬
‫‪3.573‬‬
‫‪41‬‬
‫‪40-31‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪4.161‬‬
‫‪144‬‬
‫‪50-41‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪4.357‬‬
‫‪36‬‬
‫‪60-51‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪4.383‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫‪ 61‬ﺳﻨﺔ ﻓﺄآﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧ‪:‬ﻴﺎ‪ :‬اﻟﻔ‪:‬ﺮوق ﻓ‪:‬ﻲ ادراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻻﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‪ :‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮاﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (12‬ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠ&&ﻴﻞ اﻟﺘ&&ﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣ&&ﺎدي ﺣ&&ﻴﺚ ﻳﺘﻀ&&ﺢ ﻣ&&ﻨﻪ ﻋ&&ﺪم وﺟ&&ﻮد ﻓ&&ﺮوق ﺟﻮه&&ﺮﻳﺔ داﻟ&&ﺔ اﺣﺼ &ﺎﺋﻴًﺎ ﺑﺸ&&ﺄن ادراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&&ﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻼﺳ&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد إﻟﻰ ﺟﻨﺴﻬﻢ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى دﻻﻟﺔ )‪ ،(α =0.05‬وﺑﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﻗﺒﻮل اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻨﺲ ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (12‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣﺎدي)‪ (ANOVA‬ﻟﻠﻔﺮوق ﻓﻲ إدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‬
‫)‪Power(Alpha=0.05‬‬
‫‪Prob.‬‬
‫‪F‬‬‫‪Mean‬‬
‫‪Sum of‬‬
‫‪DF‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬
‫‪Level‬‬
‫‪Ratio‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪0.1247‬‬
‫‪*0.4245‬‬
‫‪0.64‬‬
‫‪0.5542‬‬
‫‪0.55421‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫اﻟﺠﻨﺲ‬
‫‪231‬‬
‫‪0.8612‬‬
‫‪78.3656‬‬
‫‪232‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع اﻟﻤﻌﺪل‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬
‫‪233‬‬
‫‪N=233‬‬
‫‪78.9198‬‬
‫‪N.S: Not Significant‬‬
‫‪*P< 0.05‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟ‪:‬ﺜﺎ‪ :‬اﻟﻔ‪:‬ﺮوق ﻓ‪:‬ﻲ أدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ‪:‬ﻴﻦ ﻟﻼﺳ‪:‬ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ‪:‬ﻲ اﻟﻤ‪:‬ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ‪:‬ﺮ اﻻﺳ‪:‬ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺗ‪:‬ﺒﻌﺎ ﻻﺧ‪:‬ﺘﻼف اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ‬
‫اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻮﺿ&ﺢ اﻟﺠ&ﺪول رﻗ&ﻢ )‪ (13‬ﻧ&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺗﺤﻠ&ﻴﻞ اﻟﺘ&ﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣ&ﺎدي ﻟﻠﺘﻌ&ﺮف ﻣ&ﺪى وﺟ&ﻮد ﻓ&ﺮوق ذات دﻻﻟ&ﺔ إﺣﺼ&ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫إدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&ﻴﻦ ﻧﺤ&ﻮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺑﺎﺧ&ﺘﻼف اﻟ&ﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤ&ﻴﺔ ﺑﻤﺴﺘﻮى‬
‫دﻻﻟﺔ)‪.(α =0.05‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (13‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻻﺣﺎدي)‪ (ANOVA‬ﻟﻠﻔﺮوق ﻓﻲ ادراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫)‪Power(Alpha=0.05‬‬
‫‪Prob.‬‬
‫‪F‬‬‫‪Mean‬‬
‫‪Sum of‬‬
‫‪DF‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬
‫‪Level‬‬
‫‪Ratio‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪0.7445‬‬
‫‪*0.030813‬‬
‫‪2.80‬‬
‫‪2.2252‬‬
‫‪8.9008‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫‪228‬‬
‫‪0.7957‬‬
‫‪70.0199‬‬
‫‪232‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع اﻟﻤﻌﺪل‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬
‫‪233‬‬
‫‪N=233‬‬
‫‪78.9198‬‬
‫‪N.S: Not Significant‬‬
‫‪*P< 0.05‬‬
‫وﻟﻠﻮﻗ&ﻮف ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻣ&ﺪى اﻟﻔ&ﺮوق ﺑﺸ&ﻜﻞ ﺟﻠ&ﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘ&ﺪ ﺗ&ﻢ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧ&ﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳ&ﻄﺎت اﻟﺤﺴ&ﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠ&ﺮﺗﺐ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤ&ﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&ﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام‬
‫ﻣﺆﺷ&ﺮ)‪ (Fisher s LSD‬ﻻﺧﺘ&ﺒﺎر اﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧ&ﺎت اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﺪد‪ ،‬وﻳﻠﺨ&ﺺ اﻟﺠ&ﺪول رﻗ&ﻢ )‪ (14‬ﻧ&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ ه&ﺬا اﻻﺧﺘ&ﺒﺎر ﺑﺤﺴ&ﺐ اﻟﺮﺗﺐ‬
‫اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ‪ ،‬وﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺮوق ﺗﻢ رﻓﺾ اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻬﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول )‪ (14‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﺧﺘﺒﺎر )‪ (Fishers LSD‬اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪد اﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺎت‬
‫اﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻜﺮار اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﻔﺮوق ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪4.21‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫اﺳﺘﺎذ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪4.67‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫اﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺸﺎرك‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪4.68‬‬
‫‪154‬‬
‫اﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬
‫‪1،2،3‬‬
‫‪3.82‬‬
‫‪37‬‬
‫ﻣﺤﺎﺿﺮ‬
‫راﺑﻌﺎ‪ :‬اﻟﻔﺮوق ﻓﻲ إدراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻻﺧﺘﻼف ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‬
‫ﻳﻠﺨ&&ﺺ اﻟﺠ&&&ﺪول رﻗ&&&ﻢ)‪ (15‬ﻧ&&&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺗﺤﻠ&&&ﻴﻞ اﻟﺘ&&&ﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣ&&ﺎدي اﻟﺘ&&&ﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻈﻬ&&&ﺮ ﻓ&&&ﺮوﻗﺎ داﻟ&&&ﺔ اﺣﺼ&&&ﺎﺋﻴﺎ ﺣ&&&ﻮل إدراك‬
‫اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&ﻴﻦ ﻧﺤ&ﻮ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&ﺪرك ﺗ&ﺒﻌﺎ ﻻﺧ&ﺘﻼف ﺳ&ﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة ﻟﺪى اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ‪ .‬وﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ ﻗﺒﻮل‬
‫اﻟﺠﺰء اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺴﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة ﺑﻬﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (15‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻷﺣﺎدي)‪ (ANOVA‬ﻟﻠﻔﺮوق ﻓﻲ ادراك اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼف ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‬
‫‪21‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬
‫‪DF‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة‬
‫‪229‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع اﻟﻤﻌﺪل ‪232‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬
‫‪N=233‬‬
‫‪Sum of‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪3.9766‬‬
‫‪Mean‬‬
‫‪squares‬‬
‫‪1.3255‬‬
‫‪74.9432‬‬
‫‪0.8421‬‬
‫‪78.9198 233‬‬
‫‪N.S: Not Significant‬‬
‫‪Power‬‬
‫‪Prob.‬‬
‫‪F- Ratio‬‬
‫)‪(Alpha=0.05‬‬
‫‪Level‬‬
‫‪0.40161‬‬
‫‪*0.20123‬‬
‫‪1.57‬‬
‫‪*P< 0.05‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫‪ 1.‬اﻇﻬ&&ﺮت اﻟﻨ&&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ أن ﺟﻤ&&ﻴﻊ أﺑﻌ&&ﺎد اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺟ&&ﺎءت ﺑﻤﺘﻮﺳ&&ﻄﺎت ﺣﺴ&&ﺎﺑﻴﺔ أﻋﻠ&&ﻰ ﻣ&&ﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳ&&ﻂ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻌ&&ﻴﺎري ﻟﻠﺪراﺳ&&ﺔ)‪ (3‬ﻋﻠ &ﻰ ﻣﻘ&&ﻴﺎس ﻟﻴﻜ&&ﺮت اﻟﺨﻤﺎﺳ&&ﻲ‪ ،‬وه&&ﺬا ﻳﺸ&&ﻴﺮ إﻟ&&ﻰ اﻟﻤﻌ&&ﺘﻘﺪ اﻷﺳﺎﺳ&&ﻲ ﻣ&&ﻦ ﺣ&&ﻴﺚ‬
‫ﻣﺴ&&ﺘﻮى اﻹدراك اﻟﻌ&&ﺎم اﻟﻤ&&ﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﻓ&&ﻲ ﻣﻔﻬ&&ﻮم اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ وﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼ&&ﻬﺎ‪ .‬وﻗ&&ﺪ ﺟ&&ﺎءت ه&&ﺬﻩ اﻟﻨ&&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺴ&&ﺠﻤﺔ ﻣ&&&ﻊ اﻟﻌﺪﻳ&&&ﺪ ﻣ&&&ﻦ اﻟﺪراﺳ&&ﺎت اﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣ&&&ﺔ ﻓ&&&ﻲ دراﺳ&&&ﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﺘ&&&ﻲ وﺟ&&&ﺪت أن اﻟﻘ&&&ﻴﺎدة‬
‫اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻗ&ﺪ ﺣﺼ&ﻠﺖ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ أﻋﻠ&ﻰ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳ&ﻄﺎت اﻟﺤﺴ&ﺎﺑﻴﺔ واﺧ&ﺬت ﻣﺪى ﺗﺮاوح ﻣﻦ )‪ (4‬ﻓﻲ دراﺳﺔ )‬
‫‪ (Zhang, Zhang and Yang,2004‬إﻟ&ﻰ )‪ (4.73‬ﻓ&ﻲ دراﺳ&ﺔ )‪ (Mchargue,2000‬ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس‬
‫ﺗﺪرﻳﺠﻲ ﻣﻦ )‪ (6‬ﻧﻘﺎط‪.‬اﻧﻈﺮ ﺟﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪.(3‬‬
‫‪ 2.‬أﻇﻬ&ﺮ اﻟﺘﺤﻠ&ﻴﻞ أن ﺟﻤ&ﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳ&ﻄﺎت اﻟﺤﺴ&ﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﺠﻤ&ﻴﻊ أﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎءت ﺑﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﻲ‬
‫أﻋﻠ&&ﻰ ﻣ&&ﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳ&&ﻂ اﻟﻤﻌ&&ﻴﺎري ‪ ،‬وﻓ&&ﻴﻤﺎ ﻳ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻷﺑﻌ&&ﺎد ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ اﻟﻤﺴ&&ﺘﻮى اﻟﻔ&&ﺮدي ﻓ&&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫)اﺳ&ﺘﻤﺮارﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ وﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻩ واﻻﺳﺘﻔﺴﺎر واﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ واﻟﺤﻮار( ﻓﻘﺪ ﺟﺎءت ﺑﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻠﻎ )‪، (3.64‬‬
‫ﻓ&&ﻲ ﺣ&&ﻴﻦ أن اﻷﺑﻌ&&ﺎد ﻋﻠ&&ﻰ اﻟﻤﺴ&&ﺘﻮى اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&&ﻲ ﻓ&&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﻜ&&ﻴﻦ وﻧﻈ&&ﻢ اﻟ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫واﻟﻤﺸ&ﺎرآﺔ ﺑ&ﺮوح اﻟﻔ&ﺮﻳﻖ ورﺑ&ﻂ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺑﺒﻴﺌﺘﻬﺎ واﻟﻘﻴﺎدة اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎءت ﺑﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻠﻎ )‬
‫‪ (3.64‬آﺬﻟﻚ‪ .‬وهﺬا ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻨﻪ أن اﻷﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻔﺮدي واﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎءت ﻣﺘﺴﺎوﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺣ&ﻴﺚ أهﻤﻴ&ﺘﻬﺎ ﻓ&ﻲ ﺗﺸ&ﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﻔﻬ&ﻮم اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ‪ ،‬وأن اﻟﻔﻬ&ﻢ ﻳﺤﻘ&ﻖ درﺟ&ﺎت ﻣﺘﺴﺎوﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى‬
‫اﻟﻔ&ﺮدي واﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ ﻟ&ﺪى أﻋﻀ&ﺎء اﻟﻬﻴ&ﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ أن اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﻲ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺒﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻓ&ﺮﻳﻖ اﻟ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ واﻟ&ﺒﺎﻟﻎ )‪ (3.68‬ﻳﻮﺿ&ﺢ أن اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌ&ﺔ ﻟ&ﺪﻳﻬﺎ ﺑﻌ&ﺪ واﺿ&ﺢ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮم اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬وأن‬
‫اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛﻴﻦ اآﺪوا ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﻤﺴﺘﻮى ﺟﻤﻌﻲ وﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻤﺴﺘﻮى ﻓﺮدي اﻧﻌﺰاﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬا ﻧﻼﺣﻆ أن ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺄﺑﻌ&ﺎد اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺟ&ﺎءت ﻣﻨﺴﺠﻤﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻻدراك ﻓﻲ دراﺳﺔ ‪) Watkins and Marsik‬‬
‫‪22‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫‪ (1993‬ودراﺳ&ﺔ ‪ (2006)Kumar, Idris‬اﻟﺘ&ﻲ أﺷ&ﺎرت إﻟ&ﻰ أن اﻟﻔﻬ&ﻢ اﻟﻮاﺿ&ﺢ ﻟﻠ&ﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﻳﺠ&ﺐ أن ﻳﻜ&ﻮن‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎت اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 3.‬إن ﺟﻤ&&ﻴﻊ أﺑﻌ&&ﺎد اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗ&&ﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻌﻼﻗ&&ﺎت إﻳﺠﺎﺑ&&ﻴﺔ ﻣ&&ﻊ اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&&ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&ﺮ‬
‫اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ‪ ،‬وإن ه&ﺬﻩ اﻻرﺗ&ﺒﺎﻃﺎت ﺟﺎءت ﺟﻤﻴﻌﻬﺎ إﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى دﻻﻟﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ )‪،(0.01‬‬
‫آﻤ&ﺎ ﻳﻈﻬ&ﺮ اﻟﺠ&ﺪول رﻗ&ﻢ)‪ ،(5‬وإن ﺳ&ﺘﺔ ﻣ&ﻦ أﺑﻌ&ﺎد اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ اﻟﻤﺴ&ﺘﻮى اﻟﻔ&ﺮدي واﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ‬
‫ﺟ&ﺎءت ارﺗ&ﺒﺎﻃﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻣﺘﻮﺳ&ﻄﺔ إﻟ&ﻰ ﻣﻌ&ﺘﺪﻟﺔ‪ ،‬وإن ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻻرﺗﺒﺎط)‪ (r‬ﺗﺮاوﺣﺖ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ )‪0.48-0.64‬‬
‫(‪ ،‬وﻋﻠ&&&ﻴﻪ ﻓ& &ﺈن اﻷﺑﻌ&&&ﺎد اﻟﺴ&&&ﺒﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻤ&&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻮﺟ&&&ﻮدة وإن اﻟﻌﻼﻗ&&&ﺔ ﺑ&&&ﻴﻦ اﻟ&&&ﺒﻌﺪ اﻟﻤ&&&ﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻘ&&&ﻴﺎدة‬
‫اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ واﻻﺳ&&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&&ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&ﺮ اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺟ&&ﺎءت ﺑﺄﻋﻠ&&ﻰ ارﺗ&&ﺒﺎط ﺑﻠﻐ&&ﺖ ﻗﻴﻤ&&ﺘﻪ)‬
‫‪ ،(0.64‬وﻋﻠ&&ﻴﻪ ﻓ&&ﺈن ه&&&ﺬا اﻟ&&&ﺒﻌﺪ ﻳﺤ&&&ﺘﻞ أﻋﻠ&&&ﻰ ﺗﺄﺛﻴ&&&ﺮ ﻓ&&&ﻲ ﺗ&&&ﻮﺟﻪ اﻟﻤ&&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻧﺤ&&&ﻮ إﺣ&&&ﺪاث ﻋﻤﻠ&&&ﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&&ﺮ‬
‫اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣ&ﻦ ﺧ&ﻼل رﺳ&ﻢ اﻟ&ﺮؤﻳﺔ اﻻﺳ&ﺘﺮاﻳﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺸ&ﺘﺮآﺔ واﻟﺘﺮآﻴ&ﺰ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ ﻓ&ﺮق اﻟﻌﻤ&ﻞ‬
‫واﻟﺘﻤﻜﻴﻦ واﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺮوح اﻟﻔﺮﻳﻖ واﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ وﺑﻨﺎء ﻧﻈﺎم اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪4.‬‬
‫أﺷﺎر اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ إﻟﻰ ﻋﺪم وﺟﻮد ﻓﺮوق ﺟﻮهﺮﻳﺔ ذات دﻻﻟﺔ إﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ إدراك أﻋﻀﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺒﺤﻮﺛ&&ﻴﻦ ﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤ&&ﺘﻬﻢ آﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗ&&ﺒﻌﺎ ﻻﺧ&&ﺘﻼف اﻟﺨﺼ&&ﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐ&&ﺮاﻓﻴﺔ)اﻟﺠ&&ﻨﺲ واﻟﻔ&&ﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤ&&ﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫واﻟ&ﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻻآﺎدﻳﻤ&ﻴﺔ وﺳ&ﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒ&ﺮة(‪ ،‬وه&&ﺬا ﻳﻤﻜ&ﻦ إرﺟﺎﻋ&ﻪ اﻟ&ﻰ أن ﺟﻤ&&ﻴﻊ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠ&ﻴﻦ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌ&ﺔ ﻟ&&ﺪﻳﻬﻢ‬
‫إدراك ذا ﻣﺴ&ﺘﻮى ﻣ&ﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺣ&ﻮل اﻟﻤﺮﺗﻜ&ﺰ اﻷﺳ&ﺎس اﻟ&ﺬي ﺗﺒﻨ&ﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ آﻤﻔﻬﻮم وﻣﻤﺎرﺳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وه&ﺬﻩ اﻟﻨﺘ&ﻴﺠﺔ ﺟ&ﺎءت ﻣ&ﺘﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻣ&ﻊ اﻟﻨ&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻓ&ﻲ دراﺳ&ﺔ أﺑ&ﻮ ﺧﻀ&ﻴﺮ)‪ (2006‬ﺣ&ﻮل ﻋ&ﺪم وﺟﻮد ﻓﺮوق ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔ&ﻴﻦ ﻧﺤ&ﻮ ﺗﻮاﻓ&ﺮ ﻋﻨﺎﺻ&ﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻌﺰى اﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮات اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﺆهﻞ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‬
‫وﻧﻮع اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ واﻟﺨﺒﺮﻩ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 5.‬أﺷ&ﺎرت ﻧ&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﺤﻠ&ﻴﻞ اﻟ&ﻰ أن اﻟﻔ&ﺮوق ﺑﻴﻦ أﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﻧﺤﻮ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﺗﺒﻌﺎ‬
‫ﻻﺧ&&ﺘﻼف ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼ&&ﻬﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐ&&ﺮاﻓﻴﺔ آﺎﻧ&&ﺖ ﻣﻮﺟ&&ﻮدة ﻋ&&ﻨﺪ ﻣﺴ&&ﺘﻮى ﻣﻌ&&ﻨﻮﻳﺔ )‪ ( 0.05‬ﺑ&&ﻴﻦ اﻟﻔ&&ﺌﺎت اﻟﻌﻤ&&ﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫واﻟ&ﺮﺗﺐ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤ&ﻴﺔ‪ ،‬أﻣ&ﺎ ﻓ&ﻴﻤﺎ ﻳ&ﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻤﺘﻐﻴ&ﺮ اﻟﺠﻨﺲ وﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﺨﺒﺮة ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻓﺮوﻗﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺑ&ﻴﻦ اﻟﺘﺤﻠ&ﻴﻞ أن اﻟﻔ&ﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤ&ﺮﻳﺔ )‪ (40-31‬ﺗﻤ&ﻴﻞ إﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﻲ ﻣﻨﺨﻔﺾ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻔﺌﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻌﻤ&ﺮﻳﺔ )‪ (50-41‬ﺳ&ﻨﺔ و)‪ ( 60-51‬ﺳ&ﻨﺔ و)‪ 60‬ﺳﻨﺔ ﻓﺎآﺜﺮ( ‪،‬وهﺬا ﻳﻌﻨﻲ أن أﻋﻀﺎء هﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻟﺸ&ﺒﺎب رﺑﻤ&ﺎ ﻳﻜ&ﻮن ﻟ&ﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺧﺒ&ﺮة أﻗ&ﻞ ﻣ&ﻊ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧ&ﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻔ&ﺌﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ اﻷآﺒﺮ ‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ‬
‫‪23‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫ﻋ&ﺰو ذﻟ&ﻚ إﻟ&ﻰ أن اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟ&ﻴﺲ ﻟ&ﺪﻳﻬﺎ رﺳ&ﺎﻟﺔ اﺗﺼ&ﺎل ﻓﺎﻋﻠ&ﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&ﺮ ﻣ&ﻊ اﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔ&ﻴﻦ ﻣ&ﻦ اﻟﻔﺌﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫اﻷدﻧﻰ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 6.‬أﻇﻬ&&ﺮت اﻟﻨ&&ﺘﺎﺋﺞ أن اﻟ&&ﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤ&&ﻴﺔ )ﻣﺤﺎﺿ&&ﺮ( آﺎﻧ&&ﺖ ه&&ﻲ أدﻧ&&ﻰ ﻓ&&ﺌﺔ ﻣ&&ﻴﻼ اﻟ&&ﻰ اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﻌﺪاد ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&ﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&ﻲ ﻓ&ﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑ&ﻞ اﻟﻔﺌﺎت ﻣﻦ اﻟﺮﺗﺐ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ اﻷﻋﻠﻰ )أﺳﺘﺎذ‪ ،‬وأﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺸﺎرك‪ ،‬وأﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ( وهﺬا‬
‫ﻳﻤﻜ&ﻦ ﺗﺒﺮﻳ&ﺮﻩ ﺑ&ﺄن اﻟ&ﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻷدﻧ&ﻰ ﻟ&ﻴﺲ ﻟ&ﺪﻳﻬﺎ ﺧﺒ&ﺮة آﺎﻓ&ﻴﺔ ﻓ&ﻲ اﻟﺠﻮاﻧﺐ اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﻔﺌﺎت اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻷﻋﻠﻰ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎت‬
‫‪ 1.‬ﺿ&ﺮورة اه&ﺘﻤﺎم اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﺑﻤﺨ&ﺘﻠﻒ أﺑﻌ&ﺎد اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻟﻘ&ﻴﺎم ﺑﺘﻨﻤ&ﻴﺔ وﺗﻄﻮﻳ&ﺮ ﻗ&ﺪراﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫وﻣ&ﻨﻬﺎ ﻗﺪرات ﺑﻨﺎء اﻟﻔﺮق وﻧﻈﺎم اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ واﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ واﻟﺮؤى اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮآﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ ﻟﺪورهﺎ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻧﺠﺎح اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎت واﻣﺘﻼآﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺒﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﻮاﺟﻬﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2.‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎت أن ﺗﺴﻌﻰ إﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻬﺎ وﺁﻟﻴﺎت اﻟﺘﺼﺮف اﻟﻤﻤﻜﻨﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ إﻃﺎر اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬
‫ﻧﻤ&&ﻮذج اﻟﻤ&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ واﻟﺘﻌﺰﻳ&&ﺰ ﻣ&&ﻦ اﻟﻘ&&ﺪرات اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤ&&ﻴﺔ اﻟﺘ&&ﻲ ﺗﻤ&&ﺘﻠﻜﻬﺎ وﺗﺤ&&ﺎول ﺗﻌﺰﻳ&&ﺰ اﻟﻘ&&ﺪرات‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻮاﻓ&ﺮة واﻟﻌﻤ&ﻞ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ اﻣ&ﺘﻼك اﻟﻘﺪرات اﻟﺘﻲ هﻲ ﺑﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻟﻀﻤﺎن اﻻﺳﺘﻔﺎدة ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮاﺟﻬﺔ ﺣﺎﻻت‬
‫اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 3.‬ﻳﻌ& ّﺪ ﻣﻬﻤ&ًﺎ أن ﺗﺘﺒﻨ&ﻰ ﻣ&ﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻷﻋﻤ&ﺎل ﻣﻔﺎهﻴﻢ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻹدراآﻲ‪ ،‬واﻟﻨﺰﻋﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻮآﻴﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺆﺛ&&&ﺮ ﻟﻤ&&&&ﺎ ﻟﻬ&&&&ﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻ&&&&ﺮ ﻣ&&&&ﻦ دور ﻓ&&&&ﻲ ﺗﻬﻴ&&&&ﺌﺔ اﻟﻤ&&&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻼﺳ&&&&ﺘﻌﺪاد واﻻﺳ&&&&ﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&&&ﺮ اﻟﺒﻴﺌ&&&&ﻲ‬
‫واﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﺑﻤﺨﺘﻠﻒ أﺷﻜﺎﻟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 4.‬ﺿ&&&ﺮورة اﻟ&&&ﺮﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳ&&&ﺐ ﺑ&&&ﻴﻦ ﻗ&&&ﺪرات اﻟﻤ&&&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&&&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ و اﻻﺳ&&&ﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤ&&&ﻲ اﻟﻤ&&&ﺪرك ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴ&&&ﺮ‬
‫اﻻﺳ&&ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ )اﻟ&&ﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻹدراآ&&ﻲ‪ ،‬واﻟﻨ&&ﺰﻋﺔ اﻟﺴ&&ﻠﻮآﻴﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟ&&ﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻟﻤﺆﺛ&&ﺮ( وﺗﻌ&&ﺮّف اﻟﻮﺳ&&ﺎﺋﻞ اﻟﻤﻤﻜ&&ﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ذﻟﻚ واﻋﺘﻤﺎدهﺎ ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 5.‬اﻟﻤ&ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤ&ﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻤﻜ&ﻦ ﺗﺼ&ﻨﻴﻔﻬﺎ إﻟ&ﻰ ﻣﺴ&ﺘﻮﻳﺎت ‪ :‬اﻟﻔ&ﺮدي‪ ،‬وﺟﻤﺎﻋ&ﺔ أو ﻓ&ﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﻌﻤ&ﻞ ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ آﻜﻞ‬
‫وﻓﻘ&ﺎ ﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ )‪ . (Watkins and Marsick,1993,1996,1999‬واﻟﺪراﺳ&ﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟ&ﻴﺔ ﻟ&ﻢ ﺗﺮآ&ﺰ ﻋﻠ&ﻰ‬
‫‪24‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﺧﺘ&ﺒﺎر اﻟﻔ&ﺮوق ﺑ&ﻴﻦ ه&ﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺴ&ﺘﻮﻳﺎت ‪ ،‬ﻟ&ﺬا ﺗﻘﺘ&ﺮح اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎت اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓﺮﻩ واﺧﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﺼﻴﻞ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ واﻟﻤﺼﺎدر‬
‫أﺑ‪‰‬ﻮ ﺧﻀ‪‰‬ﻴﺮ ‪ ،‬إﻳﻤ‪‰‬ﺎن ﺑ‪‰‬ﻨﺖ ﺳ‪‰‬ﻌﻮد ﺑ‪‰‬ﻦ ﻋ‪‰‬ﺒﺪ اﻟﻌﺰﻳ‪‰‬ﺰ‪ ، 2006 ،‬إدارة اﻟﺘﻨﻈ‪‰‬ﻴﻢ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤ‪‰‬ﻲ ﻓ‪‰‬ﻲ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ اإادارة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻌ‪‰‬ﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺴ‪‰‬ﻌﻮدﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﺗﺼ‪‰‬ﻮر ﻣﻘﺘ‪‰‬ﺮح ﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻣﻔﻬﻮم اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬رﺳ‪‰‬ﺎﻟﺔ دآﺘﻮراﻩ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﺸﻮرة‪ ،‬آﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﻠﻮم‬
‫اﻹدارﻳﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮد ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻳﺎض‪.‬‬
‫اﻟ‪‰‬ﺒﻐﺪادي‪،‬ﻋﺎدل ه‪‰‬ﺎدي‪ ،(2008) ،‬اﻟﻌﻼﻗ‪‰‬ﺔ ﺑ‪‰‬ﻴﻦ ﺧﺼ‪‰‬ﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻤ‪‰‬ﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ وﺟﺎهﺰﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‪:‬دراﺳﺔ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﻓﻲ آﻠﻴﺘﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣ‪‰‬ﻦ آﻠ‪‰‬ﻴﺎت اﻟﺘﻌﻠ‪‰‬ﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎﻟ‪‰‬ﻲ اﻟﺨﺎص ﻓﻲ ﺑﻐﺪاد‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﻠﺔ اﻟﻘﺎدﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮم اﻹدارﻳﺔ واﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺪ ‪ ،10‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪،1‬‬
‫ص ص ‪.78-57‬‬
‫اﻟ‪‰‰‬ﺪوري ‪ ،‬زآ‪‰‰‬ﺮﻳﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻄﻠ‪‰‰‬ﻚ ‪ ، (2003) ،‬اﻹدارة اﻹﺳ‪‰‰‬ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﻔﺎه‪‰‰‬ﻴﻢ وﻋﻤﻠ‪‰‰‬ﻴﺎت وﺣ‪‰‰‬ﺎﻻت دراﺳ‪‰‰‬ﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ط‪ ، 1‬اﻟﻤﻜﺘ‪‰‰‬ﺒﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬دار اﻟﻜﺘﺐ واﻟﻮﺛﺎﺋﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﺪاد ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺴﺎﻟﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﻳﺪ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‪ ، 2005 ،‬ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎت اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‪ :‬اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ اﻹدارﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺼ‪‰‰‰‬ﺮن ‪ ،‬رﻋ‪‰‰‰‬ﺪ ﻋ‪‰‰‰‬ﺪﻧﺎن ‪ ، (2000) ،‬إدارة اﻹﺑ‪‰‰‰‬ﺪاع واﻻﺑ‪‰‰‰‬ﺘﻜﺎر ‪ ،‬اﻟﺠ‪‰‰‰‬ﺰء اﻷول ‪ ،‬اﻟﻄ‪‰‰‰‬ﺒﻌﺔ اﻷوﻟ‪‰‰‰‬ﻰ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻠﺴ‪‰‰‰‬ﻠﺔ اﻟﺮﺿ‪‰‰‰‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ‪ ،‬دار اﻟﺮﺿﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮرﻳﺎ ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻌﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺴﺘﺎر‪ ،‬وﻗﻨﺪﻳﻠﺠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﻣﺮ‪ ،2006 ،‬اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ إﻟﻰ إدارة اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﺎن‪ :‬دار اﻟﻤﺴﻴﺮة‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻜﺴﺎﺳ‪‰‬ﺒﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻤ‪‰‬ﺪ ‪ ،‬وﺁﺧ‪‰‬ﺮون‪ ،2009 ،‬ﺗﺄﺛﻴ‪‰‬ﺮ ﺛﻘﺎﻓ‪‰‬ﺔ اﻟﺘﻤﻜ‪‰‬ﻴﻦ واﻟﻘ‪‰‬ﻴﺎدة اﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻠ‪‰‬ﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺔ اﻻردﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲ إدارة اﻻﻋﻤﺎل ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺪ ‪ ،5‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪.1‬‬
‫ﻧﺠ‪‰‰‬ﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋ‪‰‰‬ﺒﻮد ﻧﺠ‪‰‰‬ﻢ‪ ، 2005 ،‬إدارة اﻟﻤﻌ‪‰‰‬ﺮﻓﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻤﻔﺎه‪‰‰‬ﻴﻢ واﻻﺳ‪‰‰‬ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎت واﻟﻌﻤﻠ‪‰‰‬ﻴﺎت‪ ،‬ﻋﻤ‪‰‰‬ﺎن‪ :‬ﻣﺆﺳﺴ‪‰‰‬ﺔ اﻟ‪‰‰‬ﻮراق ﻟﻠﻨﺸ‪‰‰‬ﺮ‬
‫واﻟﺘﻮزﻳﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳ‪‰‬ﻮﻧﺲ ‪ ،‬ﻃ‪‰‬ﺎرق ﺷ‪‰‬ﺮﻳﻒ ‪ ، (2002) ،‬اﻟﻔﻜ‪‰‬ﺮ اﻹﺳ‪‰‬ﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻲ ﻟﻠﻘﺎدة ‪ :‬دروس ﻣﺴﺘﻮﺣﺎة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺠﺎرب اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ واﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺸﻮرات اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ اﻹدارﻳﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﻤﻬﻮرﻳﺔ ﻣﺼﺮ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫‪Alexiou, A, (2005), “A tale of the field: reading power and gender in the learning organization”,‬‬
‫‪Studies in Continuing Education, 27 (1):17-31.‬‬
‫‪Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1996). Organization Learning: Theory, Method and Practice,‬‬
‫‪Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.‬‬
‫‪Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and‬‬
‫‪research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.‬‬
‫‪Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational‬‬
‫‪readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management,15(2), 169–183.‬‬
‫‪Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for‬‬
‫‪organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703.‬‬
‫‪Bernerth, J. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human Resource‬‬
‫‪Development Review, 3(1), 36–52.‬‬
‫‪Brooks, K. (1992). Building learning organizations: The individual- culture interaction. Human‬‬
‫‪Resource Development Quarterly, 3(4): 323-344.‬‬
‫‪25‬‬
Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010 ‫ ﺷﺘﺎء‬:45 ‫ اﻟﻌﺪد‬:‫ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‬WWW.ULUM.NL ‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
Bryan, S.( 2009). The Application of Learning Organization Principles to Church Growth,
phd Dissertation, Walden University.
Calvert, G., Mobley, S., & Marshall, L. (1994). Grasping the learning organization. Training &
Development, 48(6), 38–43.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B.,Rosenbloom,
D., et al. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace,
psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 75(4), 377–392.
Cunningham, P., & Ve Iles, P. (2002). Managing learning climates in a financial services
organization. Journal of Management Development, 21(6), 477–492.
Dibbon, D. C. (1999). Assessing the organizational learning capacity of schools. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 61(01), 38. ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (University
Microfilms No. AAT NQ45800).
Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1989).The
development of an attitude toward change instrument. Paper presented at the Academy
of Management Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Fahey, Kathryn. 2008. Learning To Lead: Leading To Learn in A Post-Secondary Learning
Organization, thesis master , Royal Roads University.
Holt, D. T. (2002). Readiness for change: The development of a scale. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63(11), 4006. ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (University
Microfilms No. AAT 3070767).
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational
change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 43(2), 232–255.
Hoogendoorn, M., Jonker, C. M., Schut, M. C., & Treur, J. (2007). Modeling centralized
organization of organizational change. Computational and Mathematical Organization
Theory, 13(2), 147–184.
Huang, T. (1993). The relationships between elementary school principals’ psychological
types and openness to selected changes in organizational culture. Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Hudspeth, J. 2004. A study of organizational learning culture, strategic responsiveness and
mass customization capabilities of United States manufacturing enterprises. Available
at http:// busphdutoledoedu/srao/Dissertation_listshtm28/1/2009.
Hyatt, L., & Haque, M. M. (2007). May the force be with you: Toward the theory of learned
change. Published proceedings of the Society of Management International Business
Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
Karash, R. 2002. Learning-Org Dialog on Learning Organizations. Available at
http;//wwwworldstdcom, 2007, Jun 17.
Knutson, K A. and Miranda, A. O. 2000. Leadership characteristics, social interest, and learning
organizations. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 56(2):205-213.
26
Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010 ‫ ﺷﺘﺎء‬:45 ‫ اﻟﻌﺪد‬:‫ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‬WWW.ULUM.NL ‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
Knutson, K. A., Miranda, A. O. and Washell C. 2005. The connection between school culture
and leadership social interest in learning organizations. The Journal of Individual
Psychology, 61 (1): 25-36.
Lau, C., & Woodman, R. W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A schematic
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 537–554.
Lynch, Richard, (2000), Corporate Strategy, 2nd.ed., Prentice-Hall, Person Education Limitd,
London.
Mabin, V. J., Forgeson, S., & Green, L. (2001). Harnessing resistance: Using the theoryof
constraints to assist change management. Journal of European Industrial Training,
25(2), 168–191.
Mallet, L. 1995. Organizational learning, coordination and incentive. European Journal, 5: 1016.
Mariotti, J. (1998). 10 steps to positive change. Industry Week, 247(14), 82.
Peach, M., Jimmieson, N. L., & White, K. M. (2005). Beliefs underlying employee readiness to
support a building relocation: A theory of planned behaviour perspective. Organization
Development Journal, 23(3), 9–22.
Pellettiere, V. (2006). Organization self-assessment to determine the readiness and risk for a
planned change. Organization Development Journal, 24(4), 38.
Rashid, Z. A., Sambasivan, M., & Rahman, A. A. (2004). The influence of organizational culture
on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25(1/2), 161–179.
Rastogi, P. N. 1998. Building a Learning Organisation, Wheeler Publishing .
Revans, R.W. 1983. Action Learning: Kindling Tech touch paper. Management Development,
21(6):679-704.
Rowden, W.R. 2001. The learning organization and strategic change. Advanced Management
Journal, Summer, 14:57-74.
Savolainen, T., & Haikonen, A. (2007). Dynamics of organizational learning and continuous
improvement in Six Sigma implementation. The TQM Magazine,19(1), 6–17.
Self, D. R. (2007). Organizational change—Overcoming resistance by creating readiness.
Development and Learning in Organizations, 21(5), 11–13.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of Learning Organization.
London: random Century.
Song , Ji. 2008 August. The Integrative Determinants Of Organization; Performance
Improvement: The Impacts Of Dimensions Of Learning Organization and Dynamic
Knowledge Creation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State
University.USA.
Staniforth, D. (1996). Understanding levers for organizational change: The case of ABLtd.
Management Decision, 34(10), 50–55.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1999). Sculpting the learning community: New
forms of
working and organizing. National Association of Secondary School Principals:NASSP
Bulletin, 83(604), 78–87.
27
Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010 ‫ ﺷﺘﺎء‬:45 ‫ اﻟﻌﺪد‬:‫ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‬WWW.ULUM.NL ‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art
and science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1996). In action: Creating a learning organization. Alexandria,
VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization:
Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
15(1), 31–56.
Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment as a mediator of the relationship between
Islamic work ethic and attitudes toward organizational change. Human Relations, 53(4),
513–537.
28
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺤﻖ‪:‬أداة اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ )اﻻﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ(‬
‫ت‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫‪16‬‬
‫‪17‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫‪19‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪21‬‬
‫ﻻ ‪-‬اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ‪ :‬اﻟﺮﺟﺎء ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﺲ اﺗﺠﺎهﻚ ﻧﺤﻮ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس‬
‫أو ً‬
‫اﻷآﺜﺮ ﻣﻼءَﻣﺔ ﻟﻚ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬
‫ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬
‫ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬
‫اﻟﻔﻘﺮات‬
‫ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬
‫ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬
‫اﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺪة‬
‫ﺑﺸﺪة‬
‫ﻣﺎ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻳُﺴﺎﻋﺪ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻳﺨﺼﺺ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ وﻗﺘﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻳﻜﺎﻓَﺄ اﻷﻓﺮا ُد ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﻄﻲ اﻷﻓﺮا ُد ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ ﺗﻐﺬﻳﺔ راﺟﻌﺔ ﺻﺮﻳﺤﺔ وﺻﺎدﻗﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻳﻄﺮح اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ ﺁراءهﻢ ﻓﻲ أي وﻗﺖ دون ﻗﻴﻮد‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫َﻳﻘْﻀﻲ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ وﻗ ِﺘﺎ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﺜﻘﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻟﻔﺮق اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ اﻟﺤﺮﻳ ُﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﻴﻴﻒ أهﺪاﻓﻬﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ت اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻌ ِﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ت أو اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎ ِ‬
‫ﺗُﺮاﺟ ُﻊ ﻓﺮق اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ َﺗﻔْﻜﻴﺮهﺎ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤُﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎ ِ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ف ﺑﻨﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎﺗِﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺮق اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ واﺛﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ أن اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ َﺳﺘَﺘﺼ ّﺮ ُ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ت ﺑﻴﻦ اﻷداء اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ واﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗّﻊ ‪.‬‬
‫َﺗﻄﻮ ُر ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻲ اﻷﻧﻈﻤ َﺔ ﻟﻘ َﻴﺎْس اﻟﻔﺠﻮا ِ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻞ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻲ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻤﺘَﻌﻠّﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻟ ُﻜﻞّ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻴﻦ ﻟﻬﺎ ‪.‬‬
‫َﺗﺠْﻌ ُ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺖ و اﻟﻤﻮارد اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﻠﻜﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺪرﻳﺐ‬
‫ﺗُﻘ ﱢﻴ ُﻢ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻲ اﻟﻨَﺘﺎ ِﺋ َﺞ ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻮﻗ ِ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺚ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘُﻲ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻋﻠﻰ َأﺧْﺬ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدر ِة ‪.‬‬
‫َﺗﺤ ﱡ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺗَﻌﻄﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻲ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﺳﻴﻄﺮة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺼﺎد ِر اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳَﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮ َن إﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ إﻧْﺠﺎز ﻋﻤﻠِﻬﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫َﺗﺪْﻋ ُﻢ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻲ اﻷﻓﺮاد اﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺄﺧﺬون ﻣﺒﺪأ اﻟﻤﺨﺎﻃﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺴﻮﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻬﻢ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺗُﺸﺠّ ُﻊ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻲ اﻷﻓﺮاد ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻲ ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ت اﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎدﻟ ِﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻞ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻲ ﺳﻮﻳﺔ ﻣَﻊ اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻲ ﻟ َﺘﻠْﺒِﻴﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺎ ِ‬
‫َﺗﻌْﻤ ُ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺤﺼُﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻠﻮل ِﻣﻦْ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺗُﺸ‪‰‬ﺠّ ُﻊ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘﻲ اﻷﻓﺮا َد ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟ ُ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤ ِﺔ ﻟﺤﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼت ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ ‪ ،‬اﻟﻘﺎدة هﻢ ﻣﺮﺷﺪون وﻣﺪرﺑﻮن ﻟﻸﻓﺮاد اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺚ اﻟﻘﺎد ُة ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻔﺮص ﻟﻠ َﺘ َﻌﻠّﻢ ‪.‬‬
‫َﻳﺒْﺤ ُ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫َﻳﺆآﺪ اﻟﻘﺎدة ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺘِﻲ أن ﺗﻜﻮن اﻷﻋﻤﺎل ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤ َﺔ ﻣﺘّﺴﻘﺔ ﻣﻊ ِﻗ َﻴﻤِﻬﺎ‬
‫ب‪ .‬اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪاد اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺮﺟﺎء ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﺲ اﺗﺠﺎهﻚ ﻧﺤﻮ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس اﻷآﺜﺮ ﻣﻼءﻣﺔ ﻟﻚ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻔﻘﺮات‬
‫ت‬
‫‪29‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ WWW.ULUM.NL‬اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺪد ‪ :45‬ﺷﺘﺎء ‪Issue 45, Year 7th , Jan. - 2010‬‬
‫‪22‬‬
‫‪23‬‬
‫‪24‬‬
‫‪25‬‬
‫‪26‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
‫‪29‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪31‬‬
‫‪32‬‬
‫‪33‬‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫‪35‬‬
‫‪36‬‬
‫‪37‬‬
‫‪38‬‬
‫‪39‬‬
‫َأﺗﻄﻠّ ُﻊ إﻟﻰ اﻟ َﺘﻐْﻴﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳُﻔﻴ ُﺪ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ ُﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤ َﺔ ﻋﺎدة ‪.‬‬
‫أُﻗﺎو ُم اﻷﻓﻜﺎ َر اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ َة ﻋﺎدة ‪.‬‬
‫ﺐ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ َﺮ ‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺎ ﻻ أَﺣ ﱡ‬
‫ن ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ ِﺮ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﻈﻢ زﻣﻼ ِء ﻋﻤﻠﻲ ﻳَﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪو َ‬
‫ﻞ إﻟﻰ ُﻣﺤَﺎ َوﻟَﺔ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺐ اﻷﻓﻜﺎ ِر اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ ِة ‪.‬‬
‫أَﻧﺎ َأﻣﻴ ُ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻳُﺤﺒﻄُﻨﻲ ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻳُﺴﺎﻋﺪُﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ أﻏﻠﺐ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن ﻋﻠﻰ إﻧﺠﺎز اﻷﻓﻀﻞ ‪.‬‬
‫َأدْﻋ ُﻢ اﻷﻓﻜﺎ َر اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ َة ﻋﺎدة ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺆدي اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ ﺗَﺤﻔﻴﺰي ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳَﻌﺘﻘﺪ اﻵﺧﺮون أﻧّﻨﻲ َأدْﻋ ُﻢ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ‪.‬‬
‫ح ﻣﺪاﺧﻞ وأﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻓﻲ أﻏﻠﺐ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن ﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻷﺷﻴﺎ ِء ‪.‬‬
‫أَﻗﺘﺮ ُ‬
‫ت ﻣُﺰﻋِﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫أآﺜﺮ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮا ِ‬
‫ت ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟ ُﻤﺮْﺿﻴ ِﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳُﺴﺎﻋ ُﺪ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ ُﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗَﺤﺴﻴﻦ اﻟﺤﺎﻻ ِ‬
‫َأﻣﻴﻞ إﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻞ أي ﺷﻲء ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻳ َﺪﻋْﻢ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟ ُﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ أآﺜﺮ ﺳﺮورا ﻋﻨﺪ ﺣﺪوث اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ‪.‬‬
‫َأ ِ‬
‫أَﺳﺘﻔﻴ ُﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴ ِﺮ ﻋﺎدة‪.‬‬
‫أَﺗﺮدّ ُد ﻓﻲ ُﻣﺤَﺎ َوﻟَﺔ ﺗﺠﺮي اﻷﻓﻜﺎ ِر اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ ِة ﻋﺎدة ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺪة‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺎﻳﺪ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺪة‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪30‬‬