خلاصة:
This research was done aiming at designing a comprehensive model of organizational inertia at Lorestan university. It is an applied research and in terms of the research method, it is qualitative-quantitative; the data were analyzed using the interpretive-fuzzy structural modeling method. To this end, in the first step, factors causing organizational inertia were extracted from theoretical literature and were approved by interviewing 23 selected faculty members from different departments using a purposeful sampling method. The output of this stage was the extraction of 12 main factors. In the next step, to connect and sequence the dimensions and present their structural model, an interpretive structural modeling technique was used in the fuzzy environment to resolve the language ambiguity of the experts' judgments, which is based on expert opinions and analysis. In this study, the results of the research led to the design of an integrated organizational inertia model at five levels, in which leveling the factors influencing the inertia formation in the organizations of the Lorestan province were conducted at eleven stages. Lack of competitive space and equal-based performance evaluation were identified as a basis for the model and the most effective factors in creating organizational inertia; they were placed in MICMAC matrix with high conductivity and low dependency power.
ملخص الجهاز:
The lack of a competitive space and equality-oriented performance evaluation were identified as the cornerstone of the model and the most effective factors in creating organizational inertia, and they were placed in an independent cluster of the drive-dependence matrix with high drive power and low dependence power.
Table (3) Factors affecting the creation of organizational inertia Row Factor Conceptual Definition Symbol Source Fear and ideology spirit whose goal is to maintain the existing basis Goodkin and Alcorn (2008): 1 Conservatism and values in the organization F1 Interviews 1, 5, 11, 19, 20 Solving new problems constant threats from various Goodkin and Alcorn (2008), Sepahvand and 2 with intra-organizational and extra-organizational F2 colleagues (2017): Interviews 23, 3, stress and negative behavioral consequences regarding organizational Hoff and Hoff (2000): Interviews 5, 3 anxiety of change changes F3 22, 12, 17 Lack of understanding failure to obtain proper information about the cause and Hoff and Hoff (2000): Interviews 4, 4 consequences of consequences of change in employees F4 6, 9, 10, 18, 21, 19 Limiting mental flow movements and Goodkin and Alcorn (2008), Larsen and 5 intellectual freezing closed thinking F5 Lomi (2002): Interviews 3, 9, threaten position constant threats from various Hoff and Hoff (2000), Ebrahimi 6 occupational intra and extra-organizational F6 (2015): Interviews 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, 17 No tendency lack of motivational stimuli for Larsen and Lomi (2002): Interviews 2, 7 to learning new learnings F7 3, 6, 13, 18, 20 Lack of competitive sluggishness and stillness due to fixed Ahrne & Papakostas (2001), Asano 8 space organizational F8 Etow (2005), O'Keefe and Wright (2009), Centering detached concepts in Ahrne & Papakostas (2001): Interview 9 fundamentalism ideology and thought F9 3, 7, 18 Laws and set of norms and organizational Larsen and Lomi (2002), Sepahvand and 10 legal requirements frameworks that restrict employees' freedom of action Fo1 colleagues (2017): Interviews 1, 3 ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ 1.
(
, 
, 
)
