بازاندیشی مدیریت از منظر معماری وضعیت: گامی به سوی نظریه‌ای وضعیت‌محور در علوم سازمانی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت دولتی، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

3 استاد، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران .

4 استادیار، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

10.48311/mri.2026.28894
چکیده
این پژوهش با هدف به چالش کشیدن پارادایم‌های سنتی و فردمحور در علوم سازمانی، چارچوب نظری نوین «معماری وضعیت» را ارائه و تبیین می‌کند. استدلال محوری این است که تکیه‌ی صرف بر ویژگی‌های ثابت افراد برای توضیح نوسانات عملکرد و رفتار کارکنان کافی نیست و ادبیات نظری نیازمند تمرکز بر «تعامل پویا میان فرد و وضعیت» است. این مطالعه که با رویکردی مفهومی-مروری انجام شده، ضمن مرور سیستماتیک انواع مدل‌های وضعیت‌شناسی و طبقه‌بندی ابعاد وضعیتی (شامل تهدید، استرس، وظایف، پردازش، سرگرمی و روزمرگی)، نقش مدیر را به‌عنوان «معمار وضعیت» بازتعریف می‌کند. یافته‌ی اصلی پژوهش، معرفی «مدل چهار مرحله‌ای معماری وضعیت» (شامل پایه‌گذاری، درگیری شناختی، مدیریت بحران، و بازیابی) است؛ این مدل به مدیران چارچوبی عملیاتی ارائه می‌دهد تا به‌جای واکنشی عمل کردن، به‌شیوه‌ای فعالانه و هوشمندانه محیط‌های کاری را شکل دهند و با مداخله در مؤلفه‌های سازنده‌ی وضعیت، ادراک کارکنان را هدایت کرده و زمینه را برای رسیدن به حالت‌های بهینه‌ عملکردی نظیر «غرقگی» فراهم آورند. در نهایت، پژوهش نتیجه می‌گیرد که این گذار پارادایمی، کارکردهای مدیریت، به‌ویژه مدیریت منابع انسانی را از «گزینش بهترین فرد» به «ایجاد تناسب بهینه میان فرد و وضعیت» سوق می‌دهد و نظریه‌ای واقع‌گراتر با قدرت تبیین بالاتر برای تحلیل پدیده‌های سازمانی ارائه می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Rethinking Management from the Perspective of Situation Architecture: A Step Towards a Situation-Centric Theory in Organizational Sciences

نویسندگان English

Seyed Mahdi Ghanizadeh 1
Lotfollah forozandeh dehkordi 2
Hasan Danaeefard 3
Seyed Hossein Kazemi 4
1 PhD Student in Public Administration, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

This research, aiming to challenge the traditional, individual-centric paradigms within organizational science, introduces and elucidates the novel theoretical framework of "Situation Architecture." The central argument posits that relying solely on stable individual traits is insufficient to explain fluctuations in employee performance and behavior; rather, the theoretical literature must shift its focus toward the "dynamic interaction between the individual and the situation."
Employing a conceptual-review methodology, this study systematically reviews various situational models and classifies situational dimensions (including threat, stress, tasks, processing, entertainment, and routine). Concurrently, it redefines the manager's role as that of a "Situation Architect."
The primary finding of this research is the introduction of the "Four-Stage Model of Situation Architecture," which comprises: Foundation, Cognitive Engagement, Crisis Management, and Recovery. This model offers managers an operational framework to move beyond reactive responses, allowing them to proactively and intelligently shape work environments. By intervening in the constituent components of a situation, they can guide employee perceptions and create the conditions necessary to achieve optimal performance states, such as "Flow."
Ultimately, the research concludes that this paradigm shift redirects management functions—particularly Human Resource Management—away from "selecting the best individual" and toward "creating an optimal fit between the individual and the situation." This approach provides a more realistic theory with greater explanatory power for analyzing organizational phenomena.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Situation Architecture
Organizational Behavior
Person-Situation Interaction
Human Resource Management
[1] Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171.
[2] Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. World Book Company.
[3] Eysenck, H. J. (1983). Is there a paradigm in personality research? Journal of Research in Personality, 17(4), 369–397.
[4] Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225–251.
[5] Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Holt.
[6] Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 350–360.
[7] Saklofske, D. H., & Zeidner, M. (1995). International handbook of personality and intelligence. Springer US.
[8] Edwards, J. A., & Templeton, A. (2005). The structure of perceived qualities of situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.271
[9] Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.003
[10] Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Situational similarity and behavioral consistency: Subjective, objective, variable-centered, and person-centered approaches. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(5), 421–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2003.10.001
[11] Reis, H. T. (2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(4), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308321721
[12] Yang, Y., Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (2009). The concept of situations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 1018–1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00236.x
[13] Lewin, K. (1946). Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of child psychology (pp. 791–844). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[14] Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1037/10019-000
[15] Funder, D. C. (2008). Persons, situations, and person-situation interactions. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. The Guilford Press.
[16] Green, J. P., Dalal, R. S., Swigart, K. L., Bleiberg, M. A., Wallace, D. M., & Hargrove, A. K. (2019). Personality consistency and situational influences on behavior. Journal of Management, 45(8), 3204–3234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318781950
[17] Moon, H., & Ahn, H. (2024). Integration of the DIAMONDS and CAPTION situation taxonomies based on the South Korean culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1342133
[18] Arabi, M., Seyyed Naghavi, M. A., Vaezi, R., & Kooshki Jahromi, A. (2023). Identifying the value creation components of human resources in selected government organizations in the field of culture. Management Research in Iran, 27(3), 30-55. [In Persian].
 
[19] Abrahams, L., Rauthmann, J. F., & De Fruyt, F. (2025). Understanding person-situation dynamics at work: Effects of traits, states, and situation characteristics on teaching performance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(5), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241236812
[20] Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Thunnissen, M., & Scullion, H. (2020). Talent management: context matters. Taylor & Francis.
[21] van der Merwe, M., Nel, P., & Hoole, C. (2024). How talent management execution impacts career experiences: Exploring the organization-individual intersect. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1272645. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1272645
[22] Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2020). The situation of situation research: Knowns and unknowns. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(5), 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420925546
[23] Oreg, S., Edwards, J. A., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2020). The situation six: Uncovering six basic dimensions of psychological situations from the Hebrew language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 835–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000280
[24] Zampetakis, L. A., & Arvanitis, A. (2024). From trait affect to situated performance of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: The pathway through situational construal and emotion utilization. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 2, 1443994. https://doi.org/10.3389/forgp.2024.1443994
[25] Rauthmann, J. F. (2014). Structuring situational information: A road map of the many pathways to different situational taxonomies. European Psychologist, 20(3), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000225
[26] Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015). Principles of situation research: Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. European Journal of Personality, 29(3), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1994
[27] Block, J., & Block, J. (1981). Studying situational dimensions: A grand perspective and some limited empiricism. In Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 85–106). Erlbaum.
[28] Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2016). Situation change: Stability and change of situation variables between and within persons. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01938
[29] Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
[30] Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of management studies, 47(3), 551–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00908.x
[31] Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
[32] Mischel, W. (2009). From personality and assessment (1968) to personality science, 2009. Journal of research in personality, 43(2), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.037
[33] Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Brown, N. A., Serfass, D. G., & Jones, A. B. (2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109(5), 872–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000036
[34] Pashaei Holaso, A., & Alirezaei, A. (2021). The impact of organizational culture on organizational agility capabilities (Case study: one of the organizations of the Armed Forces). Management Research in Iran, 20(2), 149-176. [In Persian].
[35] Javadi, M., Kordnaeij, A., Khodadad Hosseini, S. H., & Ganjali, A. (2022). Examining the role of historical dimensions of the organization in the managers' decision to implement strategic changes; a systematic review. Modern Research in Decision Making, 7(4), 157-188. [In Persian].
[36] Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
[37] Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. (1928). Studies in the nature of character: Studies in deceit (Vol. 1). Macmillan.
[38] Brown, N. A., Neel, R., & Sherman, R. A. (2015). Measuring the evolutionarily important goals of situations: Situational affordances for adaptive problems. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915593662
[39] Gerpott, F. H., Balliet, D., Columbus, S., Molho, C., & de Vries, R. E. (2018). How do people think about interdependence? A multidimensional model of subjective outcome interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(4), 716–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000166
[40] Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., et al. (2014). The situational eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 677–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037250
[41] Griffo, R., & Colvin, C. R. (2019). An exploration of subjective situation dimensions associated with situation-specific behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 504–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618765073
[42] Parrigon, S., Woo, S. E., Tay, L., & Wang, T. (2017). Caption-ing the situation: A lexically-derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(4), 642–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000111.
[43] Ziegler, M., Horstmann, K. T., & Ziegler, J. (2019). Personality in situations: Going beyond the OCEAN and introducing the Situation Five. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000654
[44] Taheri, F. (2021). Psychosocial work environment; a novel mechanism in reducing occupational stress (Case study: Qom University of Medical Sciences and its vice-chancellors). Management Research in Iran, 24(4), 49-71. [In Persian].
[45] Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
[46] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
[47] Liem, V. T., & Hien, N. N. (2020). Exploring the impact of dynamic environment and CEO’s psychology characteristics on using management accounting system. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1712768. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1712768
[48] Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2017). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? In The SMS Blackwell handbook of organizational capabilities (pp. 341–363). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164054.ch21
[49] Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
[50] Barsade, S. G., Coutifaris, C. G. V., & Pillemer, J. (2018). Emotional contagion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.005
[51] Columbus, S., Thielmann, I., & Balliet, D. (2019). Situational affordances for prosocial behaviour: On the interaction between honesty–humility and (perceived) interdependence. European Journal of Personality, 33(6), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2224
[52] Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Macmillan.
[53] Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1960). Socio-technical systems. Management Science, Models and Techniques, 2, 83–97.
[54] Horstmann, K. T., & Ziegler, M. (2020). Assessing personality states: What to consider when constructing personality state measures. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1037–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2266
[55] Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Why we hate performance management—And why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54(6), 503–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.06.001
[56] Liu, C., & De Rond, M. (2016). Good night, and good luck: Perspectives on luck in management scholarship. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 409–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1120971
[57] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
[58] Argandona, A. (2015). Humility in management. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2311-8
[59] Nielsen, R., & Marrone, J. A. (2018). Humility: Our current understanding of the construct and its role in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(4), 805–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12160