تبیین نظریه‌ای دربارۀ پدیدۀ فسیل سازمانی در بین کارکنان وزارت نیرو: رویکرد داده بنیاد

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری مدیریت دولتی، گروه مدیریت، واحد همدان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، همدان، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت منابع انسانی، دانشگاه علوم انتظامی امین، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت منابع انسانی، دانشگاه علوم انتظامی، تهران، ایران

4 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت، واحد فراهان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، فراهان، ایران

چکیده

زمینه: کاهش خلاقیت و پویایی کارکنان در سازمان‌های دولتی، به‌ویژه وزارت نیرو، به دلیل موانع ساختاری و فرهنگی، منجر به بروز پدیده‌ای موسوم به «فسیل سازمانی» شده است؛ که نیازمند بررسی عمیق برای درک فرآیندها و پیامدهای آن است.
هدف: این پژوهش با هدف فهم پدیدۀ «فسیل شدن فرد خلاق در سازمان» یا به اصطلاح «فسیل سازمانی» انجام گرفته است؛ فرآیندی که طی آن کارکنان خلاق و پویا به افرادی فاقد نوآوری و تحرک تبدیل می‌‍‌شوند.
روش: پژوهش حاضر، کیفی مبتنی بر رویکرد داده بنیاد است. داده‌ها از طریق مصاحبه‌های نیمه‌ساختار یافته با 11 نفر از کارکنان وزارت نیرو شاغل در شرکت‌ مادر تخصصی توانیر گردآوری شد. نمونه‌گیری به روش هدفمند و با همکاری مطلعان سازمانی صورت گرفت. داده‌ها در سه مرحله کدگذاری باز، محوری و انتخابی تحلیل شدند. برای مدیریت و تحلیل داده‌ها از نرم‌افزار MAXQDA استفاده شد تا مدل نظری جامع تدوین گردد.
یافته‌ها: تحلیل داده‌ها به توسعه یک مدل نظری مبتنی بر رویکرد زمینه‌ای برای فسیل شدن کارکنان خلاق منجر شد. این مدل شامل 68 عامل در سه دسته اصلی بود: شرایط علّی (سبک مدیریت، ساختار سازمانی و فرآیندهای ناکارآمد)، شرایط زمینه‌ای (محدودیت‌های فرهنگی و فضای سازمانی)، و شرایط مداخله‌گر (شکاف شناختی، گسست عاطفی، حذف از مشارکت سیاسی و انفکاک در اهداف). این عوامل در تعامل با یکدیگر به پدیدۀ محوری فسیل شدن کارکنان خلاق منتهی می‌شوند؛ پدیده‌ای که با «سرد شدن روانی» و «انطباق اجباری» مشخص می‌شود. در واکنش به آن، کارکنان راهبردهایی نظیر فیلتر رفتاری، نقاب هویتی، سکوت هدفمند، پنهان‌کاری و مدیریت انتظارات را به کار می‌گیرند.
نتیجه‌گیری: این پژوهش چارچوبی جامع برای درک فسیل شدن کارکنان خلاق در سازمان‌های دولتی فراهم می‌آورد و بینش‌هایی کاربردی برای مدیران و سیاست‌گذاران ارائه می‌دهد. مدل پیشنهادی می‌تواند در تشخیص نشانه‌های اولیۀ فسیل شدن، شناسایی علل و طراحی مداخلات پیشگیرانه به کار ‌رود. همچنین، با ارائۀ راهبردهایی برای احیای خلاقیت و پویایی منابع انسانی، به غنای ادبیات نظری و مدیریت منابع انسانی و رفتار سازمانی کمک می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Theorizing the Phenomenon of Organizational Fossilization Among Employees of the Ministry of Energy: A Grounded Theory Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • meghdad mansori 1
  • AhmadReza Esmaeili 2
  • Hajieh RajabiFarjad 3
  • ameneh malmir 4
  • Dariush Dariush Rahmati 3
1 Ph.D in Public Administration, Department of Management, Ha. C., Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Human Resource Management, Amin Police University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor, Department of Human Resource Management, Amin University of Law Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
4 Associate Professor, Department Management, far. C., Islamic Azad University, Farahan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Background: The decline in creativity and dynamism among employees in public organizations, particularly the Ministry of Energy, due to structural and cultural barriers, has led to a phenomenon termed "organizational fossilization," necessitating an in- depth investigation to understand its process and consequences.
Aim: This study aimed to understand the phenomenon of the fossilization of creative individuals as a process that transforms creative and dynamic employees into individuals lacking these attributes.
Method: This qualitative research was conducted using the grounded theory approach. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 11 employees of the Ministry of Energy working at Tavanir Specialized Holding Company. Purposeful sampling was employed, with the target population being identified with the assistance of key organizational informants. The data were analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding techniques. MAXQDA software was utilized to facilitate this process and develop a comprehensive theoretical model.
Results: The findings identified a context-based theoretical model for the fossilization of creative employees, comprising 68 factors categorized as causal conditions (management style, organizational structure, inefficient processes), contextual conditions (cultural constraints, organizational climate), and intervening conditions (cognitive gap, emotional disconnection, exclusion from political participation, divergence in goals). These factors lead to the core phenomenon of creative employee fossilization, defined by psychological cooling-off and forced adaptation. In response to this phenomenon, employees adopt strategies such as behavioral filtering, identity masking, purposeful silence, concealment, and expectation management. This process ultimately results in negative consequences, including profound silence, capability collapse, emotional lethargy, persistent suffering, professional perplexity, meaning vacuum, hidden animosity, and social disconnection.
Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the fossilization of creative employees and offers practical insights for public organizations to identify and prevent this phenomenon. Recommendations are provided for revitalizing workforce creativity and dynamism. By presenting an indigenous model, this research contributes to the enrichment of the theoretical literature in human resource management and organizational behavior. The findings serve as a guide for managers and policymakers at the Ministry of Energy to detect early signs of fossilization, understand its causes, design preventive interventions, and enhance organizational efficacy.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • creativity and innovation
  • organizational fossilization
  • grounded theory
  • ministry of energy employees
  • human resource management

References

  1. Aghababayi, G., Shabani, A. & Siadat, A. (2019). Study of the relationship between components of meritocracy and creativity among librarians in governmental university libraries of isfahan. Library and Information Science Research, 8(2), 147-160. https://infosci.um.ac.ir/article_33390.html?lang=en
  2. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review Publishing. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7420
  4. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to The Social Psychology of Creativity. Westview Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-97996-000
  5. Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfield, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3(1), 6-21. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/10400419009534330
  6. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state of the science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
  7. Atarfar, A., & Azarbaijani, K. (2001). Investigating the extent of meritocracy in the selection of managers in the public and private sectors. Journal of Management Knowledge (Not Publish), 54, 1-28. https://jmk.ut.ac.ir/article_17121.html?lang=en
  8. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands- resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
  9. Blau, P. (1986). Exchange and Power in Social Life (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643
  10. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00284
  11. Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2011). Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research: A prism for public administration theory and research (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315701059
  12. Bysted, R., & Jespersen, K. R. (2013). Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behaviour: Comparing private and public employees. Public Management Review, 16(2), 217-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806576
  13. Bysted, R., & Hansen, J. R. (2013). Comparing public and private sector employees’ innovative behaviour: Understanding the role of job and organizational characteristics, job types, and subsectors. Public Management Review, 17(5), 698-717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841977
  14. Bousinakis, D., & Halkos, G. (2021). Creativity as the hidden development factor for organizations and employees. Economic Analysis and Policy, 71(5), 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.07.003
  15. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/constructing-grounded-theory/book255601
  16. Chen, L., & Wang, Y. (2024). Emotional exhaustion and turnover intention among public servants: The mediating role of psychological detachment and cynicism. Public Personnel Management, 53(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260231175623
  17. Cinar, E., Trott, P., & Simms, C. (2019). A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process. Public Management Review, 21(2), 264-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473477
  18. Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544-560. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794671
  19. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
  20. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: The psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Perennial. https://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Flow-Psychology-Discovery-Invention/dp/0062283251
  21. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta- analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
  22. Dashtizad, S., Farahmand, M., Afrasiyabi, H., & Afshani, S. A. (2021). Phenomenology of self-censorship in public relations of government organizations. Public Organizations Management, 10(1), 11-28. https://doi.org/10.30473/ipom.2021.59192.4387
  23. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  24. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
  25. Dedahanov, A. T., Lee, D. H., Rhee, J., & Yoon, J. (2016). Entrepreneur’s leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(5), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0177
  26. Demircioglu, M. A., & Van der Wal, Z. (2021). Leadership and innovation: what’s the story? The relationship between leadership support level and innovation target. Public Management Review, 24(8), 1289-1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1900348
  27. Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2095101
  28. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
  29. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
  30. Farooq, S., Akbar Mir, A., Ahmad Bhat, A., Ajaz, A., & Khan, S. (2025). Exploring the nexus of psychological safety, organisation- based self- esteem and job satisfaction: The mediating role of employee voice. Labour and Industry, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2025.2542050
  31. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self- determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
  32. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:Strategies for qualitative research. In Aldine Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
  33. Gorondutse, A. H., & John, J. (2018). The effect of workload pressure on creativity in private higher education institutions (pheis). International Academic Journal of Business Management, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.9756/IAJBM/V5I1/1810015
  34. Hamzavi, H., Rezaee Manesh, B., & Rudsaz, H. (2023). The effect of servant and ethical leadership styles on employees creativity. Management Studies in Development and Evolution, 32(110), 35-72. https://jmsd.atu.ac.ir/article_16362.html?lang=en
  35. Heydari, M., Zarei, Z., Najafi, M., & Hashemi, R. (2024). Investigating the relationship between organizational climate and innovative behavior with regard to the mediating role of creativity of employees. The Journal of Human Resources Excellence, 5(2), 103-117. https://sanad.iau.ir/en/Article/927074
  36. Hundschell, A., Razinskas, S., Backmann, J., & Hoegl, M. (2022). The effects of di- versity on creativity: A literature review and synthesis. Appl Psychol, 71(4), 1598-1634. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12365
  37. Houtgraaf, G. (2022). Public sector creativity: Triggers, practices and ideas for public sector innovations: A longitudinal digital diary study. Public Management Review, 25(8), 1610-1631. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2037015
  38. Houtgraaf, G., Kruyen, P. M., & Van Thiel, S. (2021). Public sector creativity as the origin of public sector innovation: A taxonomy and future research agenda. Public Administration Early Cite, 101(2), 539-559. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12778
  39. Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method- interviewing andobservation. Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4), 87-88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-0105.141942
  40. Kačerauskas, T. (2016). Creativity management: Towards soft control. Economics and Sociology, 9(4), 336-343. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-4/21
  41. Karimi, S., Ahmadi Malek, F., & Yaghoubi Farani, A. (2022). The relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment with creativity and innovative behavior of experts in agriculture jihad organization of hamedan province. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 53(2), 347-366. https://ijaedr.ut.ac.ir/article_83856.html?lang=en
  42. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2010). The cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205
  43. Kruyen, P. M., & Van Genugten, M. (2017). Creativity in local government: Definition and determinants. Public Administration, 95(3), 825-841. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12332
  44. Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2015). Perceived organizational support: A meta- analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
  45. Lee, J., Kim, M., & Park, S. (2023). Why creative employees become silent in public organizations: The role of supervisors' negative feedback. The American Review of Public Administration, 53(1), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740221128335
  46. Liu, C. H., & Jiang, J. F. (2020). Assessing the moderating roles of brand equity, intellectual capital and social capital in Chinese luxury hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43, 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.03.003
  47. Liu, W., Mao, J., & Chen, X. (2023). How authoritarian leadership impacts employee innovation: The mediating roles of psychological safety and silence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 30(2), 198-214. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221130341
  48. Maarefi, F., & Rahmani, S. (2022). The effect of workplace incivility on creativity with mediator variables of emotional exhaustion and intrinsic motivation. Akhlāq-I zīstī i.E., Bioethics Journal, 12(37), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.22037/bioeth.v12i37.37200
  49. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
  50. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice Hall. https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Fives-Designing-Effective-Organizations/dp/013855479X
  51. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707697
  52. Mortazavi, S., Nazemi, Sh., & Parishani Froshani, H. (2016). The mediating role of creativity on psychological empowerment and employees. Management Studies in Development and Evolution, 25(81), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.22054/jmsd.2016.6759
  53. Mumford, M. D. (2012). Handbook of organizational creativity. Academic Press. https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Organizational-Creativity-Michael-Mumford/dp/0123747147
  54. Nadaf, M., Mehrabi, A., & Salarvand, J. (2019). Social exchange of organization and innovative work behavior: Focused on mediating role of work engagement (Studied case: Iran national steel industrial group). Innovation Management in Defensive Organizations, 2(3), 129-154. https://www.qjimdo.ir/article_101888.html
  55. Nählinder, J. (2013). Understanding innovation in a municipal context: A conceptual discussion. Innovation, 15(3), 315-325. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2013.15.3.315
  56. Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2022). Employee adaptation to dysfunctional organizational environments: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 48(4), 843-871. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211007806
  57. Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). The school-to-work transition: A role identity perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(1), 114-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.004
  58. Niks, I. M. W., de Jonge, J., Gevers, J. M. P., & Houtman, I. L. D. (2017). Divergent effects of detachment from work: A day- level study on employee creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(2), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1241767
  59. Pan, Y., Shang, Y., & Malika, R. (2020). Enhancing creativity in organizations: The role of the need for cognition. Management Decision, 59(9), 2057-2076. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2019-0516
  60. Popkova, E. G. & Sergi, B. S. (2020). Human capital and ai in industry 4.0. convergence and divergence in social entrepreneurship in russia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(4), 565-581. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-09-2019-0224
  61. Potts, J., & Kastelle, T. (2010). Public sector innovation research: What’s next? Innovation, 12(2), 122-137. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.12.2.122
  62. Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 15(4), 504-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3380636
  63. Raipa, A., & Giedraitytė, V. (2014). Innovation process barriers in public sector: A comparative analysis in lithuania and the european union. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(10), 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n10p10
  64. Rasooli, H., Mousakhani, M., Alvani, S. M., & Azimi, P. (2023). Designing a comprehensive model of innovative human resources: iranian government organizations. Innovation Management in Defensive Organizations, 6(1), 1-32. https://www.qjimdo.ir/article_167810.html?lang=en
  65. Sabaghi Rostami, M., & Hoseini Shakib, M. (2020). Innovation climate and employee creativity, entrepreneurial orientation and intrapreneurship: A model for defining the role of transformational leadership. Innovation Management in Defensive Organizations, 2(4), 27-50. https://www.qjimdo.ir/article_103947.html
  66. Saks, M., & Allsop, J. (2012). Researching health: Qualitative, quan-titative and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/researching-health/book254604
  67. Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research: A practical hand-book (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/doing-qualitative-research/book276570
  68. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion- centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00049-9
  69. Stashevsk, Sh., Burke, R., Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self‐ leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720610652853
  70. Toroghdar, G., & Hajiamiri, R., & Tafreshi, H. (2014). Administrative creativity in organizational management and investigation of its impacts on business. New Approaches in Sport Sciences, 1(2), 116-120. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347964715
  71. Vahdati, H., Hakkak, M., Shariatnejad, A., & Amraei, M. (2025). Identifying open innovation barriers in service enterprise using meta synthesis approach. Innovation Management in Defensive Organizations, 8(2), e225531. https://www.qjimdo.ir/article_225531.html
  72. Visser, E. L., & Kruyen, P. (2021). Discretion of the future: Conceptualizing everyday acts of collective creativity at the street- level. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 676-690. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13389
  73. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. Harcourt, Brace and Company. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Art_of_Thought.html?id=ZlF9AAAAMAAJ
  74. Zhou, L., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The dark side of public service motivation: A moderated mediation model of psm and employee silence. Public Management Review, 24(5), 731-751. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1862285
پژوهش های کیفی در علوم رفتاری
دوره 4، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 7
تابستان 1404
شهریور 1404
صفحه 53-80

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 18 تیر 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 10 شهریور 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 13 شهریور 1404

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار