مسعود احمدی

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to design a model to improve the physiological performance of human resources, based on the biorhythm cycle in educational and medical centers. Methodology: the combined research method is based on exploratory mixed research (qualitative - quantitative). Statistical population in the qualitative section of a group of experts including professors in the field of organizational behavior management in universities and higher education centers, Vice Chancellor for Management Development and Resources of Medical Universities and experts on physiological performance and biorhythm cycle and in the quantitative section; The staff in rotation of Imam Khomeini Educational and Medical Center in Sari consisted of 820 nurses, midwives, paramedics, services, laboratory and radiology; In the qualitative part, using the snowball method to achieve theoretical saturation, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 experts, and in the quantitative part, to measure the model, a researcher-made questionnaire with relative class sampling method was used among 264 people. was distributed. To determine the validity and reliability in the qualitative stage, the necessary tests, including acceptability and capability, are used, and in the quantitative stage, the validity of the 74-item questionnaire by face and content method (CVR and CVI range for items between 0.6 to 0.1, 0.85 and 0.1, respectively) and its reliability by Cronbach's alpha method by 83% of the cases Confirmed. Data were analyzed in qualitative stage with grounded theory technique with MAXqda2018 software and in quantitative stage with structural equations (heuristic and confirmatory factor analysis) with SPSS and AMOS software. Finding: The results of the qualitative part indicate that the physiological performance model of human resources, based on the biorhythm cycle has 16 dimensions in terms of causal conditions (working conditions, demographic characteristics and individual conditions), contextual conditions (organizational structure, motivation of managers and employees and intelligence Ethical), intervention conditions (culture building, teamwork and organizational and non-organizational challenges), strategy (training and awareness, biorhythm cycle planning and performance management) and outcome (job performance improvement, physiological performance of human resources and improvement Organizational performance) has been. Conclusion: The results of the quantitative section showed that all dimensions of the research model were confirmed.

Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to identify, quantify, and prioritize the components of reducing the resistance of managers of government organizations in the administrative transformation plan. Methodology: The mixed study method is based on exploratory mixed study. The statistical population in the qualitative section was university professors, managers, and experts of executive systems, in the quantitative section, managers and experts of government agencies, and in the prioritization section, high and middle managers of executive systems of selected organizations. In-depth interviews were used in the qualitative part, while questionnaires were used in the quantitative part, and matrix questionnaires were used in the prioritization one. Acceptability (expert review) and confirmability (expert review) were used to determine the validity and reliability in the qualitative stage, while in the quantitative stage, the validity of the questionnaires was confirmed by three methods: form, content, and structure. Reliability was estimated and confirmed by three methods of determining factor loadings of items, Cronbach's alpha of components (between 0.760 and 0.888) and combined reliability (between 0.842 and 0.923). In the prioritization section, the content of the matrix questionnaire was approved by five academic and organizational experts in terms of comprehensibility and expressiveness, and the rate of inconsistency of the criteria was calculated and confirmed as 0.05 to 0.07. Qualitative data were analyzed with the ground theory technique, while quantitative data with structural equation modeling technique, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis tests in SPSS and Smart PLS software, and the prioritization section, data were analyzed through hierarchical analysis (AHP) in EXPERT CHOICE software. Findings: The results of the qualitative part indicated that the paradigm model includes 10 dimensions (categories) and 22 components (concepts) in the form of causal, contextual, interventional, strategy, and consequence conditions. Conclusion: The results of the quantitative part showed that all the components of the study model were confirmed. The results of the prioritization section show the greater importance of the outcome and organizational productivity component.