Designing a Model for Administrative Health in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade
Abstract
|
Objective: This study aims to present a model for administrative health in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade of the country. Methodology: To achieve this goal, a mixed-method research approach was employed. The statistical population in the qualitative section included organizational and academic experts, while the quantitative section included managers and employees involved in the administrative health system of the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade and its provincial offices. In the qualitative section, data were collected through semi-structured interviews, and in the quantitative section, a researcher-made questionnaire was used. The data analysis method in the qualitative section was thematic analysis, and in the quantitative section, structural equation modeling with a partial least squares approach was employed. Findings: The data analysis in the qualitative section led to the formation of the administrative health model in five dimensions, 40 components, and 92 indicators. The data analysis in the quantitative section identified the prioritization of dimensions, components, and indicators of the administrative health model in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade. Conclusion: According to the results, the prioritization of factors affecting the administrative health in this ministry includes organizational factors, value factors, employee-related factors, managerial factors, and environmental factors, respectively. Based on the obtained results, recommendations were made for achieving administrative health in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade. |
Introduction
The administrative system in any country holds special portance and credibility due to its direct and face-to-face interaction with various layers of society. Since a vast volume of government services is delivered to citizens through different governmental sectors, having a coherent, efficient, transparent, and accountable administrative system is always a concern for statesmen and policymakers in every society. Therefore, governments consistently strive to enhance the capabilities of their administrative systems and reduce public dissatisfaction through scientific investigations, necessary legislation, and administrative reforms (Nateghi, 2022: 1). In this context, administrative health and its realization have long been considered a crucial and fundamental issue in all governmental organizations, and achieving it is a shared goal of interest (Rahmani et al., 2023: 96).
The concept of organizational health first emerged in the 1960s due to concerns about how employees were treated within organizations. Since then, employee health and well-being have been significant issues. However, in today's business environment, organizational health, apart from employee health and well-being, has also become a vital issue for employers. According to Parsons (1985), a healthy organization is one that has successfully adapted to its environment. A healthy organization is one whose structure, culture, and managerial processes contribute to high levels of organizational performance in terms of financial, social, and environmental responsibilities. It also emphasizes the need to focus simultaneously on employee well-being and organizational outcomes, i.e., organizational performance (Singh & Jha, 2017: 2). Administrative health ensures the organization's survival in the environment and its adaptability, enhancing the organization's ability to adapt to its surroundings. Organizational health includes the organization's ability to effectively perform its tasks in a way that promotes organizational development. Furthermore, organizational health refers to the organization's ability for continuous development and improvement. A healthy organization has committed, successful, and high-performing employees, and communication within it is open and free. Employees take pride in working in such an organization (Aybaghi Esfahani et al., 2017: 203).
On the other hand, the industry, mine, and trade sector in Iran, having the largest economic share in the country, has extensive interactions with other social, economic, and political sectors of Iranian society and can be one of the most effective economic drivers of the country. The industry, mine, and trade sector can significantly contribute to organizing the livelihoods of society and can strengthen the country's authority and efficiency to achieve security, justice, welfare, freedom, independence, and national dignity. Hence, attention to administrative health in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade is of significant importance. Although previous research has been conducted regarding the examination of administrative health, a model suitable for the current conditions of Iranian organizations has not yet been presented.
Therefore, considering the aforementioned points and the emphasis that Islam, higher-order documents, and the country's legal foundations place on fighting corruption, the present research aims to answer the following question as an applied problem-oriented investigation: "What is the model of administrative health in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade?"
Methods and Materials
Study Design and Participants
This research is applied in terms of its goal and seeks to utilize existing knowledge in administrative health to improve and enhance the performance of the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade. Methodologically, it is descriptive and survey-based, and in terms of data nature, it is exploratory mixed-method.
In the qualitative section, the statistical population includes organizational and academic experts. Academic experts were selected based on several criteria: being a faculty member with the rank of assistant professor or higher, holding a PhD in management, having more than 15 years of teaching experience in this field, and having published books and articles on administrative health. Organizational experts were selected from among general managers, heads, and deputies in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade based on criteria such as having at least 20 years of work experience and more than 5 years in managerial positions, and holding at least a bachelor's degree.
In the quantitative section, the statistical population includes managers and employees involved in the administrative health system in the mentioned ministry and its provincial offices. The number of experts in the qualitative section was determined by data saturation, and interviews continued until no new data were obtained, resulting in 16 experts being purposefully sampled for in-depth interviews. Additionally, 10 experts were selected for the Delphi method to assess the validity of the indicators. In the quantitative section, the sample size was determined based on Krejcie and Morgan's table, resulting in 103 participants randomly selected from among managers and employees involved in the administrative health system in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade and its provincial offices, out of a total of approximately 142 individuals.
Data Collection
In the qualitative section, data collection was survey-based. Information was extracted through literature review, background research, and examining existing documents in databases using the note-taking method. Qualitative data were also gathered through in-depth semi-structured interviews with experts. In the quantitative section, data were collected through field methods using a researcher-made questionnaire.
For qualitative data analysis, thematic analysis with a deductive approach based on coding was used. There is no single method for coding in qualitative research; in this study, the Attride-Stirling (2001) method, one of the conventional coding methods in thematic analysis, was employed. This method is based on forming a network of themes and is used in various studies. The network of themes includes three categories of codes and concepts: 1. Basic themes, 2. Organizing themes, 3. Global themes. The steps include:
In this study, to collect qualitative data, the theoretical foundations of the research were reviewed, and the themes and texts related to the research topic in documents were carefully studied. Additionally, experts were considered the statistical population for the qualitative section to obtain complementary and new data, and identifying experts continued through purposive judgmental sampling until data saturation (data saturation in this study was determined through the absence of new concepts by the experts). Thus, a total of 16 individuals were selected for in-depth semi-structured interviews, each lasting between 60 to 90 minutes.
For thematic analysis, initially, the research problem was defined, its causes, dimensions, and limits were identified, and its importance was determined. In the next step, the research objective was defined, and based on it, the main interview questions were developed. Before conducting the interviews, an interview guide was prepared with open and general questions, which were refined during the interview into more specific questions if needed. The main questions asked during the interviews with the relevant experts and specialists included:
Define administrative health.
What actions and activities are required for administrative health?
What characteristics does a healthy administrative system have?
How and by which indicators can a healthy administrative system be distinguished from an unhealthy one?
Is health in organizational sections and units uniform?
What actions should be taken in the field of administrative health for organizational excellence?
What characteristics do managers who have performed more successfully in organizational health possess?
What are the methods for increasing organizational health?
If you were responsible for implementing the organizational health plan, what actions would you prioritize?
What indicators would you consider to measure the level of organizational health under your management?
How can Iranian governmental organizations be encouraged towards health?
What are the characteristics of organizational communication in a healthy organization?
What is the role and status of lawfulness in healthy organizations?
What characteristics should employees in a healthy administrative system have?
What skills and abilities should employees possess for administrative health?
What training should employees in a healthy administrative system receive?
What strategies can be used for administrative health?
Data Analysis
In the next stage, the researcher created initial codes from the collected data after repeatedly reading and becoming fully acquainted with them. These codes are interesting and meaningful aspects from the researcher's perspective. The initial codes and key points of the data are essentially the basic themes from which higher-level themes were developed.
At this stage, initial codes and key points from documents and interviews were combined and integrated to derive organizing and global themes. Organizing themes are derived from combining and summarizing basic themes or initial codes and key points of interview texts. In this phase, researchers created a set of themes and reviewed and refined them. Then, through a back-and-forth process between the text and sub-themes, global and main themes were extracted based on repeated data reviews and refinement of sub-themes. This way, data were categorized into logical and coherent groupings.
Findings and Results
The framework of categories and themes, along with descriptions related to the coding stages, was presented and explained. Some sample data were provided, and the analysis results were connected with the research questions and the related theoretical foundations. Thus, the results of identifying the basic, organizing, and overarching themes related to the administrative health system are reported in Table 1.
Basic Themes (Concepts) | Organizing Themes | Overarching Themes |
|---|---|---|
Prioritizing organizational and client interests over personal interests; having discipline and interest in performing job duties; empathy with clients and colleagues and caring for them; | Conscientiousness | Employee-related Factors |
Willingness to receive constructive criticism for better conditions; acceptance and maintaining composure when receiving constructive critical suggestions; | Criticism Receptiveness | |
Performing job duties in the best possible way to achieve goals; motivation to succeed in decision-making and improve productivity and performance; | Achievement Orientation | |
Skill in communicating with others in the workplace; skill in planning and correctly performing job duties; | Communication and Organizational Skills | |
Controlling decisions and work and personal behaviors to increase their efficiency; accepting negligence and work mistakes and striving not to repeat them; | Internal Locus of Control | |
Seeking information from experts to identify opportunities and threats; willingness to receive constructive and useful suggestions; | Consultation Seeking | |
Being sensitive to one's job duties; employees' interest, enthusiasm, and attachment to their job and workplace; | Job Commitment | |
Curiosity and willingness to gain new experiences; learning from situations and exhibiting appropriate behavior if they occur again; | Experiential Learning | |
Collaboration in planning, decision-making, and organizational matters; expressing opinions about organizational issues and taking voluntary action to solve problems; | Participation in Affairs | |
Having safety, hygiene, and physical health; having mental health and psychological well-being; | Job Security | |
Striving to acquire job knowledge and environmental knowledge; active participation in training courses and updating knowledge; | Emphasis on Knowledge | |
Job and workplace satisfaction; absence of stress and anxiety; having interest and motivation to perform job duties; | Morale | |
Controlling and managing stressors without personal harm; quickly recovering after facing psychological problems and stressful conditions; | Resilience | |
Striving to improve work procedures and control them; optimally performing all assigned job duties; feeling responsible for solving organizational problems and issues; | Responsibility | |
Managers' influence on employees to create constructive change and turn threats into opportunities; motivating employees for innovation and constructive change in work processes; | Transformational Leadership | Managerial Factors |
Anticipating the organization's future needs and requirements and developing strategies to respond to them; forecasting future changes and problems and making the right decisions for appropriate action; | Foresight | |
Willingness to create, reform, and improve oneself and conditions; initiative and leadership in improving processes voluntarily; | Proactiveness | |
Delegating the right to employees to determine work methods; encouraging employees to participate in decisions and surveys before making decisions; | Empowerment | |
Identifying, attracting, and utilizing talented employees; training, socializing, and retaining talented employees; | Talent Management | |
Identifying and implementing new ideas and technologies for work; identifying and utilizing new solutions to solve organizational problems; | Organizational Innovation | Organizational Factors |
Organizational adaptability to dynamic environmental conditions and response to environmental stimuli; flexible work conditions, instructions, and procedures; | Structural Flexibility | |
Organizational control in a decentralized manner; addressing complaints and collecting suggestions and criticisms; | Organizational Control and Supervision | |
Accessibility of organizational information for employees at all levels; healthy and open communication among personnel at different organizational levels; | Communication Sufficiency | |
Consistency of job plans and instructions with organizational policies and regulations; adherence of all organizational units to rules, policies, and laws; matching budget and costs with financial plans and timely provision of accounting documents; | Order and Discipline in Affairs | |
Transparency of strategies, instructions, and circulars for all stakeholders; informing clients about organizational duties and work processes; documenting processes and decisions with transparent recording of all administrative operations; | Procedural Transparency | |
Recruiting qualified individuals based on job qualifications through testing; employing, retaining, and promoting qualified and specialized employees; | Meritocracy | |
Adhering to standards in resource utilization and striving to reduce costs; appropriately and fairly allocating organizational resources to different sections; developing consumption patterns and reducing energy and resource consumption; | Optimal Resource Utilization | |
Providing necessary facilities and equipment to perform job duties; creating suitable conditions for executing organizational activities; establishing online systems and modern technologies; | Availability of Suitable Infrastructure | |
Managers' and employees' familiarity with mission-related laws and adherence to them; strict handling of legal and regulatory violations; | Law Abidance | Environmental Factors |
Identifying environmental opportunities for exploitation; identifying environmental threats and developing appropriate strategies to confront them; | Strategic Environmental Assessment | |
Identifying stakeholders' needs and expectations; meeting stakeholders' demands; | Attention to Stakeholders | |
Organization's ability to influence and change the environment; organization's ability to exploit environmental opportunities and mitigate threats; organization's ability to respond to emerging environmental phenomena; | Environmental Interaction | |
Mutual respect and affinity among employees; honesty in work; good manners and friendliness with managers and colleagues; | Ethical Conduct | Value-based Factors |
Participation in voluntary actions for environmental preservation; attention to community interests and participation in the community's economic development; | Corporate Social Responsibility | |
Respectful behavior with clients and addressing their demands; fair and equitable treatment of clients; | Client Respect | |
Managers' attention to employees' personal needs and fulfilling their expectations; supporting employees to develop strengths and talents; | Organizational Support for Employees | |
Justice orientation; preventing economic and administrative corruption; safeguarding public property; | Healthy Culture | |
Organization's good reputation in society; creating trust in the organization among its employees; creating trust in the organization among the public; | Trust Building | |
Correctly performing duties and being accountable to society for God's satisfaction; serving humanity due to sincere faith and trust in God; | Adherence to Religious Beliefs | |
Enhancing the sense of generosity and philanthropy; promoting a sense of selflessness and altruism; respect for high human values; | Enhancing Human Dignity |
Next, the validity of the identified indicators was evaluated through a survey of 10 organizational and academic experts using the fuzzy Delphi method. The purpose of using the fuzzy Delphi method was to assess the suitability of the identified indicators and provide supplementary suggestions to complete the initial model. The Delphi method is an accepted approach to achieving expert consensus. The steps of this technique and its results are explained below.
Collecting Expert Opinions: Experts were asked to specify the suitability of the identified indicators on a scale with linguistic variables including: very low, low, medium, high, and very high. They were also asked to provide corrective and supplementary suggestions if deemed necessary.
Calculating the Fuzzy Value of Each Question: Based on the collected data, the fuzzy value for each indicator was calculated.
Converting the Obtained Fuzzy Values of Each Indicator to Defuzzified Values (Sj): After calculating the fuzzy value for each research indicator, these values were defuzzified using Chang's method for comparison purposes.
Evaluating Indicators Based on a Threshold: After calculating the defuzzified value of each indicator, their importance was assessed using a threshold (r). If r>Sj, the indicator was considered of low importance and could be eliminated. The mean spectrum of the questionnaire, which is 3 on a 5-point scale, was used as the threshold. Table 2 shows the fuzzy value of each question, its defuzzified value, and the status of each question.
Indicator Number | Fuzzy Value of Each Question | Defuzzified Value | Question Status | Indicator Number | Fuzzy Value of Each Question | Defuzzified Value | Question Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
L | M | U | L | M | |||
1 | 2 | 3.939 | 5 | 3.719 | Approved | 21 | 2 |
2 | 1 | 3.675 | 5 | 3.337 | Approved | 22 | 1 |
3 | 3 | 4.011 | 5 | 4.005 | Approved | 23 | 3 |
4 | 2 | 3.939 | 5 | 3.719 | Approved | 24 | 3 |
5 | 3 | 4.443 | 5 | 4.221 | Approved | 25 | 2 |
6 | 3 | 4.443 | 5 | 4.221 | Approved | 26 | 1 |
7 | 3 | 4.443 | 5 | 4.221 | Approved | 27 | 3 |
8 | 1 | 3.220 | 5 | 3.110 | Approved | 28 | 1 |
9 | 2 | 4.054 | 5 | 3.777 | Approved | 29 | 1 |
10 | 2 | 3.827 | 5 | 3.663 | Approved | 30 | 3 |
11 | 2 | 3.939 | 5 | 3.719 | Approved | 31 | 2 |
12 | 2 | 3.675 | 5 | 3.587 | Approved | 32 | 1 |
13 | 3 | 4.011 | 5 | 4.005 | Approved | 33 | 1 |
14 | 3 | 4.317 | 5 | 4.158 | Approved | 34 | 2 |
15 | 1 | 3.675 | 5 | 3.337 | Approved | 35 | 1 |
16 | 2 | 3.353 | 5 | 3.426 | Approved | 36 | 3 |
17 | 3 | 4.102 | 5 | 4.051 | Approved | 37 | 2 |
18 | 2 | 3.353 | 5 | 3.426 | Approved | 38 | 3 |
19 | 1 | 3.451 | 5 | 3.225 | Approved | 39 | 3 |
20 | 1 | 3.451 | 5 | 3.225 | Approved | 40 | 3 |
Based on the results, none of the identified indicators were eliminated, and no new indicators were suggested. The second questionnaire for the second round of the fuzzy Delphi was then provided to the experts. Table 3 shows the fuzzy value, defuzzified value, indicator status, and consensus percentage.
Indicator Number | Fuzzy Value of Each Question | Defuzzified Value | Indicator Status | Consensus Percentage | Indicator Number | Fuzzy Value of Each Question | Defuzzified Value | Indicator Status | Consensus Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
L | M | U | L | M | U | ||||
1 | 4 | 4.676 | 5 | 4.588 | Approved | 70 | 21 | 4 | 4.676 |
2 | 4 | 4.781 | 5 | 4.6408 | Approved | 80 | 22 | 3 | 4.646 |
3 | 4 | 4.676 | 5 | 4.588 | Approved | 70 | 23 | 4 | 4.781 |
4 | 4 | 4.676 | 5 | 4.588 | Approved | 70 | 24 | 3 | 4.543 |
5 | 4 | 4.889 | 5 | 4.694 | Approved | 90 | 25 | 3 | 4.414 |
6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Approved | 100 | 26 | 3 | 4.646 |
7 | 4 | 4.781 | 5 | 4.640 | Approved | 80 | 27 | 4 | 4.781 |
8 | 4 | 4.676 | 5 | 4.588 | Approved | 70 | 28 | 4 | 4.889 |
9 | 4 | 4.781 | 5 | 4.640 | Approved | 80 | 29 | 3 | 4.543 |
10 | 3 | 4.5436 | 5 | 4.271 | Approved | 70 | 30 | 4 | 4.781 |
11 | 3 | 4.646 | 5 | 4.323 | Approved | 80 | 31 | 3 | 4.543 |
12 | 3 | 4.751 | 5 | 4.375 | Approved | 90 | 32 | 3 | 4.543 |
13 | 4 | 4.676 | 5 | 4.588 | Approved | 70 | 33 | 4 | 4.676 |
14 | 4 | 4.889 | 5 | 4.694 | Approved | 90 | 34 | 3 | 4.543 |
15 | 3 | 4.646 | 5 | 4.323 | Approved | 80 | 35 | 4 | 4.676 |
16 | 4 | 4.676 | 5 | 4.588 | Approved | 70 | 36 | 4 | 4.781 |
17 | 4 | 4.676 | 5 | 4.588 | Approved | 70 | 37 | 4 | 4.889 |
18 | 4 | 4.676 | 5 | 4.588 | Approved | 70 | 38 | 3 | 4.543 |
19 | 4 | 4.781 | 5 | 4.640 | Approved | 80 | 39 | 4 | 4.676 |
20 | 4 | 4.676 | 5 | 4.588 | Approved | 70 | 40 | 5 | 5 |
Based on the results from the second round, none of the indicators had a defuzzified value less than 3 and thus were not eliminated. No new indicators were suggested, and since all indicators had a consensus above 70%, the stopping criterion was met, and there was no need to continue the Delphi process. Hence, the Delphi process concluded.
Next, to evaluate the model in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade, structural equation modeling was used. Analysis using the partial least squares structural equation modeling approach includes three main stages.
In this model, reliability and convergent and discriminant validity are evaluated. The acceptable numerical value for factor loadings is 0.4, and for AVE, it is 0.5. Additionally, the acceptable numerical value for Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and homogeneous reliability is 0.7 for each.
Rank | Items | Factor Loading | Rank | Items | Factor Loading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First | Conscientiousness -1q | 0.899 | First | Environmental Interaction -70q | 0.850 |
First | Conscientiousness -2q | 0.851 | First | Environmental Interaction -71q | 0.759 |
First | Conscientiousness -3q | 0.620 | First | Environmental Interaction -72q | 0.799 |
First | Criticism Receptiveness -4q | 0.885 | First | Ethical Conduct -73q | 0.741 |
First | Criticism Receptiveness -5q | 0.840 | First | Ethical Conduct -74q | 0.784 |
First | Achievement Orientation -6q | 0.666 | First | Ethical Conduct -75q | 0.854 |
First | Achievement Orientation -7q | 0.838 | First | Corporate Social Responsibility-76q | 0.935 |
First | Skills -8q | 0.900 | First | Corporate Social Responsibility-77q | 0.923 |
First | Skills -9q | 0.853 | First | Client Respect -78q | 0.927 |
First | Internal Locus of Control-10q | 0.659 | First | Client Respect -79q | 0.912 |
First | Internal Locus of Control -11q | 0.871 | First | Organizational Support -80q | 0.917 |
First | Consultation Seeking -12q | 0.744 | First | Organizational Support -81q | 0.882 |
First | Consultation Seeking -13q | 0.788 | First | Healthy Culture -82q | 0.751 |
First | Job Commitment -14q | 0.852 | First | Healthy Culture -83q | 0.803 |
First | Job Commitment -15q | 0.559 | First | Healthy Culture -84q | 0.835 |
First | Experiential Learning -16q | 0.892 | First | Trust Building -85q | 0.805 |
First | Experiential Learning -17q | 0.595 | First | Trust Building -86q | 0.746 |
First | Participation in Affairs -18q | 0.473 | First | Trust Building -87q | 0.420 |
First | Participation in Affairs -19q | 0.896 | First | Adherence to Beliefs -88q | 0.881 |
First | Job Security -20q | 0.949 | First | Adherence to Beliefs -89q | 0.711 |
First | Job Security -21q | 0.922 | First | Enhancing Human Dignity -90q | 0.842 |
First | Emphasis on Knowledge -22q | 0.961 | First | Enhancing Human Dignity -91q | 0.728 |
First | Emphasis on Knowledge -23q | 0.654 | First | Enhancing Human Dignity -92q | 0.897 |
First | Morale -24q | 0.785 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Conscientiousness | 0.731 |
First | Morale -25q | 0.620 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Criticism Receptiveness | 0.715 |
First | Morale -26q | 0.862 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Achievement Orientation | 0.779 |
First | Resilience -27q | 0.738 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Skills | 0.839 |
First | Resilience -28q | 0.860 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Internal Locus of Control | 0.824 |
First | Responsibility -29q | 0.796 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Consultation Seeking | 0.641 |
First | Responsibility -30q | 0.586 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Job Commitment | 0.828 |
First | Responsibility -31q | 0.909 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Experiential Learning | 0.655 |
First | Transformational Leadership -32q | 0.728 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Participation in Affairs | 0.779 |
First | Transformational Leadership -33q | 0.952 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Job Security | 0.748 |
First | Foresight -34q | 0.824 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Emphasis on Knowledge | 0.665 |
First | Foresight -35q | 0.850 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Morale | 0.689 |
First | Proactiveness -36q | 0.886 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Resilience | 0.792 |
First | Proactiveness -37q | 0.893 | Second | Employee-related Factors-Responsibility | 0.695 |
First | Empowerment -38q | 0.904 | Second | Managerial Factors-Transformational Leadership | 0.846 |
First | Empowerment -39q | 0.574 | Second | Managerial Factors-Foresight | 0.841 |
First | Talent Management -40q | 0.854 | Second | Managerial Factors-Proactiveness | 0.846 |
First | Talent Management -41q | 0.879 | Second | Managerial Factors-Empowerment | 0.836 |
First | Organizational Innovation -42q | 0.937 | Second | Managerial Factors-Talent Management | 0.802 |
First | Organizational Innovation -43q | 0.945 | Second | Organizational Factors-Organizational Innovation | 0.586 |
First | Structural Flexibility -44q | 0.902 | Second | Organizational Factors-Structural Flexibility | 0.647 |
First | Structural Flexibility -45q | 0.928 | Second | Organizational Factors-Organizational Control | 0.827 |
First | Organizational Control -46q | 0.849 | Second | Organizational Factors-Communication Sufficiency | 0.548 |
First | Organizational Control -47q | 0.920 | Second | Organizational Factors-Order and Discipline | 0.867 |
First | Communication Sufficiency -48q | 0.935 | Second | Organizational Factors-Procedural Transparency | 0.856 |
First | Communication Sufficiency -49q | 0.938 | Second | Organizational Factors-Meritocracy | 0.566 |
First | Order and Discipline -50q | 0.825 | Second | Organizational Factors-Optimal Resource Utilization | 0.510 |
First | Order and Discipline -51q | 0.912 | Second | Organizational Factors-Suitable Infrastructure | 0.458 |
First | Order and Discipline -52q | 0.881 | Second | Environmental Factors-Law Abidance | 0.890 |
First | Procedural Transparency -53q | 0.877 | Second | Environmental Factors-Strategic Environmental Assessment | 0.857 |
First | Procedural Transparency -54q | 0.911 | Second | Environmental Factors-Attention to Stakeholders | 0.801 |
First | Procedural Transparency -55q | 0.810 | Second | Environmental Factors-Environmental Interaction | 0.765 |
First | Meritocracy -56q | 0.916 | Second | Value-based Factors-Ethical Conduct | 0.753 |
First | Meritocracy -57q | 0.896 | Second | Value-based Factors-Corporate Social Responsibility | 0.642 |
First | Optimal Resource Utilization -58q | 0.695 | Second | Value-based Factors-Client Respect | 0.780 |
First | Optimal Resource Utilization -59q | 0.747 | Second | Value-based Factors-Organizational Support | 0.827 |
First | Optimal Resource Utilization -60q | 0.677 | Second | Value-based Factors-Healthy Culture | 0.799 |
First | Suitable Infrastructure -61q | 0.645 | Second | Value-based Factors-Trust Building | 0.825 |
First | Suitable Infrastructure -62q | 0.895 | Second | Value-based Factors-Adherence to Beliefs | 0.437 |
First | Suitable Infrastructure -63q | 0.843 | Second | Value-based Factors-Enhancing Human Dignity | 0.616 |
First | Law Abidance -64q | 0.780 | Third | Employee-related Factors-Administrative Health | 0.588 |
First | Law Abidance -65q | 0.895 | Third | Managerial Factors-Administrative Health | 0.551 |
First | Strategic Environmental Assessment -66q | 0.769 | Third | Organizational Factors-Administrative Health | 0.635 |
First | Strategic Environmental Assessment -67q | 0.830 | Third | Environmental Factors-Administrative Health | 0.520 |
First | Attention to Stakeholders -68q | 0.855 | Third | Value-based Factors-Administrative Health | 0.607 |
First | Attention to Stakeholders -69q | 0.631 |
Discussion and Conclusion
The results of the present study, based on the collection and analysis of opinions from academic and professional experts and members of a statistical sample composed of managers and employees involved in the administrative health system in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade and provincial offices, have been extracted. The present research model, designed based on a study of theoretical foundations and existing literature on administrative health as well as in-depth interviews with experts, identifies four factors: organizational factors, managerial factors, employee-related factors, and environmental factors as influential on the administrative health system. Additionally, value-based factors were considered a native (Iranian, Islamic, and governmental) component of administrative health in Iranian governmental organizations. The most significant achievement of this research is the construction of a model for administrative health in Iranian governmental organizations, which can be used for assessment and decision-making regarding the administrative health system in the country's governmental organizations. The results of the data analysis are interpreted below.
In this research, managerial, organizational, environmental, employee-related, and value-based factors were identified as dimensions of the administrative health system in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade.
In the present study, managerial factors include components: transformational leadership, foresight, proactiveness, empowerment, and talent management.
Organizational factors include components: organizational innovation, structural flexibility, organizational control and supervision, communication sufficiency, order and discipline, procedural transparency, meritocracy, optimal resource utilization, and suitable infrastructure.
Environmental factors include components: law abidance, strategic environmental assessment, attention to stakeholders, and environmental interaction.
Employee-related factors include components: conscientiousness, criticism receptiveness, achievement orientation, communication skills, internal locus of control, consultation seeking, job commitment, participation in affairs, job security, emphasis on knowledge, morale, resilience, and responsibility.
Value-based factors include components: ethical conduct, corporate social responsibility, client respect, organizational support for employees, healthy organizational culture, trust building, adherence to religious beliefs, and enhancing human dignity.
The ranking of the dimensions of the administrative health model in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade is as follows: organizational factors (first rank), value-based factors (second rank), employee-related factors (third rank), managerial factors (fourth rank), and environmental factors (fifth rank).
The highest-ranking components within the organizational factors dimension in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade are: order and discipline, procedural transparency, organizational control and supervision, structural flexibility, organizational innovation, meritocracy, communication sufficiency, optimal resource utilization, and suitable infrastructure. The highest-ranking components within the value-based factors dimension in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade are: organizational support for employees, trust building, healthy organizational culture, client respect, ethical conduct, corporate social responsibility, enhancing human dignity, and adherence to religious beliefs. The highest-ranking components within the employee-related factors dimension in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade are: communication and organizational skills, job commitment, internal locus of control, resilience, achievement orientation, participation in affairs, job security, conscientiousness, criticism receptiveness, responsibility, morale, emphasis on knowledge, experiential learning, and consultation seeking. The highest-ranking components within the managerial factors dimension in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade are: transformational leadership, foresight, empowerment, talent management, and proactiveness. The highest-ranking components within the environmental factors dimension in the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade are: law abidance, strategic environmental assessment, attention to stakeholders, and environmental interaction.
The ranking of the indicators related to the order and discipline component from the organizational factors dimension is as follows: adherence of all members and units of the organization to the organization's rules, policies, and regulations; aligning budget and costs with financial plans and timely provision of accounting documents; consistency of job plans and instructions with the organization's policies and regulations. The ranking of the indicators related to the organizational support for employees component from the value-based factors dimension is as follows: managers' attention to employees' personal needs and fulfilling their expectations; supporting employees to develop strengths and talents. The ranking of the indicators related to the communication and organizational skills component from the employee-related factors dimension is as follows: skill in communicating with others in the workplace; skill in planning and correctly performing job duties. The ranking of the indicators related to the transformational leadership component from the managerial factors dimension is as follows: motivating employees for innovation and creating constructive changes in work processes; managers' influence on employees to create constructive changes and turn threats into opportunities for progress. The ranking of the indicators related to the law abidance component from the environmental factors dimension is as follows: strict handling of legal and regulatory violations; managers' and employees' familiarity with mission-related laws and adherence to them.
Compared to previous research results, it can be said that the findings of this study regarding the dimensions, components, and indicators constituting the construct align with studies such as: Imani et al. (2019), in the components of transparency and accountability; Sink et al. (2022), in the communication component; Verai et al. (2019), Suvaniouha and Rintaisong (2018), and Kamalouglu (2011), in the transformational leadership component; Smith et al. (2012), in the healthy organizational culture component; Trang-Toran (2013), in the corporate social responsibility component; Sink and Jiha (2017), and Bakht-Azma et al. (2020), in the morale component; Sink and Jiha (2018), in the job security component; Imani et al. (2019), in the law-abiding component.
References
- Albrizio, S., Choi, S., Furceri, D., & Yoon, C. (2020). International Bank Lending Channel of Monetary Policy. Journal of International Money and Finance, 102, 102124. doi 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2019.102124
- Anzuini, A., & Rossi, L. (2021). Unconventional Monetary Policies and Expectations on Economic Variables. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi 10.2139/ssrn.3852360
- Assenmacher, K. (2008). Modeling Monetary Transmission in Switzerland With a Structural Cointegrated VAR Model. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 144(2), 197-246. doi 10.1007/bf03399253
- Atanasova, C. (2003). Credit Market Imperfections and Business Cycle Dynamics: A Nonlinear Approach. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, 7(4). doi 10.2202/1558-3708.1112
- Carare, A., Resende, C. d., & Zhang, C. (2020). Do Monetary Policy Frameworks Matter in Low Income Countries? Imf Working Paper, 2020(139), 1. doi 10.5089/9781513550671.001
- Dery, C., & Serletis, A. (2021). Disentangling the Effects of Uncertainty, Monetary Policy and Leverage Shocks on the Economy*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 83(5), 1029-1065. doi 10.1111/obes.12437
- Famoroti, J. O., & Omolade, A. (2022). Impact of Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism in West African Countries. Studia Universitatis „vasile Goldis” Arad – Economics Series, 32(1), 20-42. doi 10.2478/sues-2022-0002
- Foresti, P. (2017). Monetary and Fiscal Policies Interaction in Monetary Unions. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(1), 226-248. doi 10.1111/joes.12194
- Galí, J., & Monacelli, T. (2005). Optimal Monetary and Fiscal Policy in a Currency Union. doi 10.3386/w11815
- Güler, A. (2020). Interaction of Monetary and Fiscal Policies in Turkey: A Dynamic Time Series Data Analysis. Business and Economics Research Journal, 10(5), 1039-1049. doi 10.20409/berj.2019.220
- Hajj, F. A., Dufrénot, G., Sugimoto, K., & Wolf, R. (2013). Reactions to Shocks and Monetary Policy Regimes: Inflation Targeting Versus Flexible Currency Board in Ghana, South Africa and the WAEMU. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi 10.2139/ssrn.2370623
- Jato, T. P. J., & Ayaga, J. M. (2022). External Economic Shocks and Monetary Policy Tools in Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 06(07), 110-119. doi 10.47772/ijriss.2022.6709
- Ji, H., & Wu, L. (2018). Monetary-Policy Rule as a Bridge: Predicting Inflation Without Predictive Regressions. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 53(6), 2559-2586. doi 10.1017/s0022109018000467
- Kliem, M., & Kriwoluzky, A. (2013). Reconciling Narrative Monetary Policy Disturbances With Structural VAR Model Shocks? Economics Letters, 121(2), 247-251. doi 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.08.006
- Lanne, M., & Lütkepohl, H. (2008). Identifying Monetary Policy Shocks via Changes in Volatility. Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 40(6), 1131-1149. doi 10.1111/j.1538-4616.2008.00151.x
- Lei, W. (2024). Global Spillovers of China's Monetary Policy. China & World Economy, 32(3), 1-30. doi 10.1111/cwe.12530
- Mountford, A. (2005). Leaning Into the Wind: A Structural VAR Investigation of UK Monetary Policy*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(5), 597-621. doi 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2005.00133.x
- Mukhtar, T., & Younas, M. Z. (2019). Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism of Pakistan: Evidence From Bank Lending and Asset Price Channels. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, 7(3), 121-139. doi 10.18488/journal.8.2019.73.121.139
- Ogbuabor, J. E., Manasseh, C. O., & Orji, A. (2020). Disaggregated Analysis of Monetary Policy Effects on the Agricultural Sector in Nigeria. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 14(3-4), 47-58. doi 10.19041/apstract/2020/2-3/6
- Song, Y., Yang, Y., Yu, J., & Zhao, Z. (2021). The Post-Covid-19 Economic Policy Uncertainty and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy: Evidence From China. Frontiers in Public Health, 9. doi 10.3389/fpubh.2021.771364
- Ülke, V., & Berument, H. (2015). Asymmetric Effects of Monetary Policy Shocks on Economic Performance: Empirical Evidence From Turkey. Applied Economics Letters, 23(5), 353-360. doi 10.1080/13504851.2015.1073836
- Wen, F., Ming, F., Zhang, Y., & Yang, C. (2018). Crude Oil Price Shocks, Monetary Policy, and China's Economy. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 24(2), 812-827. doi 10.1002/ijfe.1692
