مطالعات مدیریت ورزشی

ارائه مدل ذهنی در بخش تولیدی صنعت ورزش ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

الهام سعیدی 1
مهدی کهندل 2
علی زارعی 3
عباس خدایاری 4

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت ورزشی، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،کرج، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت ورزشی، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران

3 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت ورزشی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

4 دانشیار دانشکده تربیت بدنی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج

https://doi.org/10.22089/smrj.2020.9211.3128
چکیده
هدف این پژوهش ارائه مدل‌ ذهنی، شناسایی و رتبه‌‌بندی مولفه‌های مدل ‌ذهنی مدیران شرکت‌های ورزشی در بخش تولیدی صنعت ورزش ایران با استفاده از تکنیک دلفی فازی می‌باشد .پژوهش حاضر از نوع پژوهش‌های ترکیبی (کیفی و کمی)، بر اساس زمان حال‌نگر، از نظر هدف کاربردی، و به لحاظ جمع‌آوری اطلاعات میدانی می‌باشد. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل مدیران شرکت‌های تولیدکنندۀ لوازم ورزشی ایران بنا بر آمار اعلام شده از طریق سایت رسمی وزارت صنعت، معدن و تجارت کشور 255 نفر (236 نفر مرد و 19 نفر زن) می‌باشند. نمونه آماری در بخش کیفی به صورت هدفمند، و در بخش کمی به روش کل شمار انتخاب شد. در بخش کیفی از روش دلفی فازی و در بخش کمی از تحلیل عامل اکتشافی و معادلات ساختاری استفاده شد. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که مولفه‌های توانایی ذهنی، درگیری ذهنی، سوابق ذهنی و ویژگی‌های روانشناختی نقش تبیین‌کننده در شکل‌گیری مدل‌ ذهنی مدیران دارند. سایر یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که بالاترین رتبه مربوط به توانایی ذهنی و پایین‌ترین رتبه مربوط به درگیری ذهنی می‌باشد. بنابراین مدیران با استفاده از توانایی ذهنی می-توانند به حل مشکل‌های شرکت دست پیدا کنند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

بخش‌ تولیدی
روش دلفی فازی
صنعت‌ ورزش
مدل ذهنی

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Presenting a mental model in the production sector of Iran's sports industry

نویسندگان English

Elham Saeedi 1
mehdi kohandel 2
Ali zarei 3
abas khodayari 4
1 . Ph.D. Student of Sports Management, Karaj branch, Islamic Azad University Karaj, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Sport Management, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Sport Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
4 Associate professor faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, karaj, Iran
چکیده English

The purpose of this study was present the mental model, identifying and ranking the mental model components of the sports companies managers in manufacturing sector of Iranian sports industry, using fuzzy Delphi technique. The present study is a combination (qualitative and quantitative), descriptive-analytic, and time-based research, which is applied in terms of purpose and is a field research, in terms of data collection. The statistical population of the study includes the managers of companies producing Iranian sports equipment, according to statistics announced through the official website of the Ministry of Industry, Mines and Trade of the country, 255 people (236 men and 19 women). The statistical sample was selected purposefully in the qualitative part and in the quantitative part by the total number method. In the qualitative part, fuzzy Delphi method was used and in the quantitative part, exploratory factor analysis and structural equations were used. Findings showed that the components of mental ability, mental involvement, mental history and psychological characteristics have an explanatory role in shaping the mental model of managers. Other findings showed that the highest rank is related to mental ability and the lowest rank is related to mental conflict. Therefore, managers can use their mental ability to solve the company's problems.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Production section
Fuzzy Delphi method
Sports industry
Mental model
  1. Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York: The Free Press.
  2. Abele, A. E., & Spurk, D. (2009). The longitudinal impact of self-efficacy and career goals on objective and subjective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 53-62.
  3. Cheng, C. H., & Lin, Y. (2002). Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 174-186.
  4. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 1-9.
  5. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.
  6. Fisher, E., Biviji, M., & Nair, I. (2011). New perspectives on teaching innovation to engineers – An exploration of mental models of innovation experts. American Society for Engineering Education, 23, 1-12.
  7. Flatau, J., & Emrich, E. (2013). Asset specificity in the promotion of elite sports: efficient institutions of governance for the production of long-term future sporting success. International Journal of Sport Finance, 8(4), 327-340.
  8. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  9. Gary, M. S., & Wood, R. E. (2011). Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 32(6), 569-594.
  10. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 16(1), 91-109.
  11. Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123.
  12. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
  13. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 20, 277-319.
  14. Howard, M. C. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51-62.
  15. Hsueh, S. L. (2013). A fuzzy logic enhanced environmental protection education model for policies decision support in green community development. The Scientific World Journal, 2(42), 1-8.
  16. Johnson, D. R., & Hoopes, D. G. (2003). Managerial cognition, sunk costs, and the evolution of industry structure. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1057-1068.
  17. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010). Mental models and human reasoning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(43), 18243-18250.
  18. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications.
  19. Lee, J., & Marlowe, J. (2003). How consumers choose a financial institution: decision-making criteria and heuristics. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(2), 53-71.
  20. Mullen, P. (2003). Delphi: Myths and reality. Journal of Health Organisation and Management, 17(1), 37-52.
  21. Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224-240.
  22. Purmirza, H. R., & Sajjadi, Kh. (2013). Investigation of mental models of successful bank managers. Knowledge Management, 70, 81-115. (in Persian).
  23. Salami, T., & Taheri Lari, M. (2016). Identifying the factors affecting managers' mental models and ranking them. First International Conference on Modern Management in Horizon 1404, 1-11. (in Persian).
  24. Speziale, H. S., Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  25. Tesone, D. V., Platt, A., & Alexakis, G. (2004). The Human capital factor: Strategies for dealing with performance challenges in business and sport management. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 9(3), 22-33.
  26. Villinger, M. (2018). Challenging mental models: A novel method to facilitate the implementation of new business models in a corporate environment (Doctoral dissertation). University of St. Gallen.
  27. Wilson, J. R., & Rutherford, A. (1989). Mental models: Theory and application in human factors. Human Factors, 31(6), 617-634.
  28. Yannopoulos, P., Gorish, N., & Kefalaki, M. (2011). Mental models as barriers to innovation. Journal of Business and Policy Research, 6 (3), 115–124.
  29. Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79-94.
  30. Yousefi Zarandi, M. H., Sharafian, E., & Ghahram Tabriz, K. (2016). Barriers to the competitiveness of domestic goods with foreign models in the manufacturing sector of Iran's sports industry. Contemporary Research in Sports Management, 11, 73-83. (in Persian).
  31. Zhang, B. (2019). Regional Sports industrial development strategy in the vision of healthy China 2030. Ekoloji, 28(107), 3913-3917.
  32. Zhang, J. J., Kim, E., Mastromartino, B., Qian, T. Y., & Nauright, J. (2018). The sport industry in growing economies: critical issues and challenges. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 19(2), 110-126.
  33. Zhang, Y. (2008). Undergraduate students' mental models of the Web as an information retrieval system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2087-2098.
مطالعات مدیریت ورزشی
دوره 14، شماره 73 - شماره پیاپی 73
مرداد و شهریور 1401
صفحه 171-202

  • تاریخ دریافت 19 تیر 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری 05 مهر 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش 21 مهر 1399

صفحه اصلی

اصول اخلاقی

ارسال مقاله

اخبار و اعلانات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

تماس با ما