고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 : 산업수준의특성을중심으로 1). 65 2,197,., R&D.. (HPWS: high-performance work systems), (adoption of HPWS) (Ordiz-Fuertes & - 1 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 ) Fernandez-Sanchez, 2003; Pil & MacDuffie, 1996).,, (consensus), (Denisi, Wilson, & biteman, 2014; Kaufman, 2012; Pil & MacDuffie, 1996). (research-practice gap),, (antecedent or determinant)., (industry-level)., (active role).,,.,,. (HPWS) - 2 -
(strategic human resource management) (Wright & McMahan, 1992).,, (Pfeffer, 1998).,,, (Wright & Boswell, 2002).,,,,,.,, (Bae & Lawler, 2000; Collins & Smith, 2006).,,, (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012; Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, & De Lange, 2010; Subramony, 2009)., (2013). (2013, 2015). CEO,,, ( - 3 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 ), 2010;, 2016;, 2012; Chadwick, Super, & Kwon, 2015). (2010) (past firm performance) (organizational values on HRM). 90 100,,. (2016). (2010),,.,. Chadwick et al.(2015) 190, CEO.,. (Liu, Guthrie, Flood, & MacCurtain, 2009), (complementary HR practice) (Pil & MacDuffie, 1996). Ordiz-Fuertes & Fernandez-Sanchez(2003) (environment rivalry),.,, - 4 -
.,..,.,.,, (constraint) (benefit).,, (discretion). (discretion theory), (mechanistic form) (organic form) (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Wright & Snell, 1999).,, (establishment-level) (industry-level). (Hambrick & Abrahamson, 1995: 1428-1430), - 5 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 ). 2) (product differentiability)..,,. (ultimate single solution),., (R&D).,,. 가설 1. 산업수준의 R&D 집약도가높을수록해당산업에속한사업장의 고성과작업시스템도입정도가증가할것이다. (market growth)., (environmental munificence), (Dess & Beard, 1984). (slack resources), (buffer) (Cyert & Martch, 1963).,, - 6 -
,. (Godard, 2004),. 가설 2. 산업수준의성장성이높을수록해당산업에속한사업장의고 성과작업시스템도입정도가증가할것이다. (indusry concentration). (monopolic) (oligopolistic), (Hambrick & Abrahamson, 1995).,,..,,.,. 가설 3. 산업수준의집중성이낮을수록해당산업에속한사업장의고 성과작업시스템도입정도가증가할것이다. (industry dynamism). (Dess & Beard, 1984). (uncertainty), (trial-and-error) - 7 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 ).,, (Adler, 2001; Grant, 1996).,. 가설 4. 산업수준의역동성이높을수록해당산업에속한사업장의고 성과작업시스템도입정도가증가할것이다. (capital intensity).,,,, (Datta, Guthrie, & Wright, 2005).,,.,. 가설 5. 산업수준의자본집약도가낮을수록해당산업에속한사업장의 고성과작업시스템도입정도가증가할것이다. - 8 -
(Korea Labor Institute) (Workplace Panel Survey. (workplace-level), 2005. 2005 1 (WPS2005) 2013 5 (WPS2013).,.,,,,,,,.,., ( ), (multi-source). 2,849 (8,922 )., 2,197 ( 77.1%), 6,358 ( 71.2%). 9 (KSIC: Korea Standard Industrial Classification) (KSIC 2), 65.,,, (KSIC 26), 178 (8.1%), (KSIC 49) 134 (6.1%), (KSIC 10) 102 4.6%, (KSIC 29) 101 4.6%, (KSIC 46) 90 (4.1%). - 9 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 ).,,,,,,,,,., (D106), (D108), (E203), (B106, B125)., (C106a1 ~ C106a9), (C107), (C108). (C215), (C305), (C404), (F113a1 ~ F113a18), (B115)., (D212), (D216), (E111a1 ~ E111a11), (E117)., (B218), (B116)., (D202) (D240), (D204), (D206), (D215), (D219), (D220), (D221), (D222)., (C117), - 10 -
(D402a9)., (D402a2), (D402a3), (D402a4), (D402a5), (D402a6), (D402a7). (Guthrie, 2001), (additive way). KSIC (KSIC 2), R&D,,,,,., R&D. R&D R&D, R&D., KSIC 2 3., 3, () 3. (+), 3. (-), 3.,, 4. 0, 1. 1 4,. 0 4-11 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 )., 0.,. (KSIC) (KSIC 2)., 3, () 3., 2005 (KSIC 10), 2002 2004 () (), 2002 2004. 3,.,,.,,,.,,...,. KSIC 2 65 64. - 12 -
SD M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 overall within 1..0000 12.2080 6.3378 1.000 2. 22.7511 14.9892 2.3323.062 *** 1.000 3. 5.5574 1.6408.3437.452 ***.239 *** 1.000 4. R&D.0086.0181.0063.093 *** -.063 *** -.019 1.000 5..0937.1087.0918.015 -.033 **.023 -.048 *** 1.000 6. -1.0574.5530.0886.201 *** -.095 ***.151 ***.300 ***.072 *** 1.000 7..0416.0739.0447.067 *** -.005.007.212 ***.041 ***.188 *** 1.000 8..4600.5592.1110.055 ***.001.048 *** -.089 *** -.007.185 ***.006 : 2,197, 6,358. * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001-13 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 ),, < 1>. < 1>, (+)., (r =.062, p <.001), (r =.452, p <.001), R&D (r =.093, p <.001), (r =.201, p <.001), (r =.067, p <.001), (r =.055, p <.001) (+).,. < 2>, < 3>. chi-square 22.367, p-value.26,. < 2> 1,. 2. 3 R&D ( 1), ( 2), ( 3), ( 4), ( 5)., R&D., R&D (b = 30.459, p <.05). (b = 2.390, p <.05). - 14 -
: 1 2 3 b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. 3.035 *** (.952) -14.504 *** (1.036) -17.786 *** (2.058) 2007 -.274 (.313) -.142 (.313) -.170 (.317) 2009-5.229 *** (.321) -5.028 *** (.324) -5.103 *** (.326) 2011-4.143 *** (.319) -3.982 *** (.325) -4.049 *** (.334) 2013-5.790 *** (.330) -5.722 *** (.340) -5.842 *** (.356) KSIC2 -.015 (.012).015 (.012) 2.916 *** (.111) 2.921 *** (.111) R&D 30.459 * (14.959) 2.390 * (1.060) -1.798 (1.112) -.973 (2.125).559 (.765) within R-sq.0991.0879.0894 between R-sq.2687.4698.4702 overall R-sq.2156.3744.3751 Chi-sq 1237.14 *** 2295.37 *** 2306.39 *** : 2,197, 6,358. 61 (KSIC 2). * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001-15 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 ) : 1 2 3 b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. 3.261 (1.931) 12.584 *** (2.660) 10.368 *** (2.872) 2007.113 (.325) 1.450 *** (.290) 1.463 *** (.293) 2009-4.759 *** (.336) -2.081 *** (.283) -2.071 *** (.287) 2011-3.597 *** (.336).408 (.281).422 (.284) 2013-5.327 *** (.353) KSIC2 -.665 *** (.044) -.689 *** (.046).557 * (.271).568 * (.271) R&D 20.535 (15.827) 2.234 * (1.107) -2.444 * (1.198).191 (2.245) -.186 (.861) within R-sq.1014.1024.1039 between R-sq.0270.0007.0026 overall R-sq.0407.0005.0000 F-value 36.02 *** 33.77 *** 25.29 *** : 2,197, 6,358. 61 (KSIC 2). * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001-16 -
< 3>. < 2> 1,, 2. 3., R&D,., (b = -2.444, p <.05).,, (b = 2.234, p <.05). < 4>., R&D 1. 2 1 2 3 4 5 R&D..... - 17 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 )., 3. 4 5.? (between industries),.,,., (overall) (within) < 1>, R&D,,,,.,,., KSIC 2., (KSIC 3) (KSIC 4),., (firm-level) (workplace-level),. KSIC 2,. - 18 -
. 65 2,197,.,., R&D,..,.,.,,,..,., (Godard, 2004; Wright et al., 2005)., - 19 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 ),,.,,,. (Denisi et al., 2014; Kaufman, 2012; Pil & MacDuffie, 1996)., Kaufman(2012), (knowing gap), (doing gap), (interest gap)..,,..,,..,.,,. - 20 -
.,.,..,., (reliability).,.,.. 2010.. 노동정책연구, 10(4): 125-152.. 2016.. 인사조직연구, 24(3): 101-126.. 2013. :. 대한경영학회지, 26(10): 2583-2607.. 2015. :. 인적자원관리연구, 22(1): 45-71.. 2012. - 21 -
고성과작업시스템의결정요인에대한연구 ( 옥지호 ). 경영연구, 27(3): 23-61. Adler, P. S. 2001. Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12(2): 215-234. Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. 2000. Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 502-517. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London, UK: Tavistock. Chadwick, C., Super, J. F., & Kwon, K. 2015. Resource orchestration in practice: CEO emphasis on SHRM, commitment-based HR systems, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 360-376. 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. Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. 2006. How much do high performance work practices matter? A meta analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3): 501-528. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. 2005. Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(1): 135-145. Denisi, A. S., Wilson, M. S., & Biteman, J. 2014. Research and practice in HRM: A historical perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24: 219-231. Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. 1984. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1): 52-73. 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. Godard, J. 2004. A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(2): 349-378. Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 109-122. Guthrie, J. P. 2001. High involvement work practices, turnover and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 180-190. Hambrick, D. C., & Abrahamson, E. 1995. Assessing managerial discretion across - 22 -
industries: A multimethod approach. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1427-1441. Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. 2012. How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6): 1264-1294. Kooij, D. T., Jansen, P. G., Dikkers, J. S., & De Lange, A. H. 2010. The influence of age on the associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: A meta analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8): 1111-1136. Liu, W., Guthrie, J. P., Flood, P. C., & MacCurtain, S. 2009. Unions and the adoption of high performance work systems: Does employment security play a role? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 63(1): 109-127. Ordiz-Fuertes, M., & Fernández-Sánchez, E. 2003. High-involvement practices in human resource management: Concept and factors that motivate their adoption, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(4), 511-529. Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Pil, F., & MacDuffie, J. P. 1996. The adoption of high-involvement work practices. Industrial Relations, 35(3): 423-455. Subramony, M. 2009. A meta analytic investigation of the relationship between HRM bundles and firm performance. Human Resource Management, 48(5): 745-768. Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. 2002. Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28(3): 247-276. Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 1992. Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2): 295-320. Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. 1999. Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 23: 756-772. - 23 -