장병고충신고저해요인에대한 주관적인식유형탐색 : 육군부사관을대상으로 김영곤 * 1) Ⅰ. 서론 Ⅱ. 장병고충처리에대한이론및제도적논의 Ⅲ. 연구설계 Ⅳ. 분석결과 Ⅴ. 결론및정책적함의 Abstract A Study on the Types of Subjective Cognition Towards Factors That Hinder Soldiers from Filing a Military Grievance: Based on Non-commissioned Officers in ROK Army In the military nowadays, there are various institutional strategies to effectively settle the major grievance or an infringement of rights experienced by soldiers in the barracks life. However, when a major grievance or infringement of rights occurs, soldiers who are entitled to these institutional strategies often remain silent rather than telling people freely and asking for help. This can be attributed to the various factors that hinder soldiers from filing a grievance in the military. Based on this phenomenon, this study attempts to conduct a Q Methodology on army Non- Commissioned Officers in order to identify factors that prevent soldiers from filing a grievance and soldier s various cognitive attributes towards the factors. After deriving three major factors(personal, institutional and organizational perspectives) that hinder filing a grievance from the results of several interviews and literatures, 34 specific Q questions were constituted and applied in the analysis. Based on the 4 types of subjective perception among army Non-Commissioned Officers that appeared in the analysis result, effective measures to revitalize grievance procedure are suggested. Key Words : Filing a Grievance, Subjectivity, Type of Cognition, Non-commissioned Officers in ROK Army, Q-methodology *,, ygkim@kida.re.kr
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) Ⅰ. 서론 2014 22 GOP, 28,,,,.,,, (Schmidt, 2008; 2014)., 2017 7 19,, K. 7 31.,,,,., ( ), 1303,, 1).,..,. 2) 1). 2), 176
,,, (, 2010). (2013),,, (2005),,..,, (, 2001;, 2014). (, 2011;, 2011;, 2009).. (relationship conflict),.. ( 2017 8 11. <&> OOO OO ), (2017 8 4 ). 177
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ),.,., 3).. ( ). ( ),.,,.,.,,.,.,,, 3) 2018 5 178
. Q..,., Q., Q.,. Ⅱ. 장병고충처리에대한이론및제도적논의 1. 고충처리및신고 가. 고충및고충처리의개념과범위 (grievance), (, 2011)..,, (, 2009)..,,,., 179
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) 4).,.,.,.,,,, (, 2003).,.. 39 1..,,.,,,,,,,, -. 4),.. 180
,, (, 2011).,,,,,, ().,,,,...,, (, 2011).,.,,..,.,., (,,, ) 181
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ),.. 나. 고충신고 : 내부고발관점에서의접근 (whistle blowing),. Miceli et al.,(1999). Denhardt(1991),,, Vandekerckhove(2006),.. (1997), (1998),.,,,,, (, 2002). 182
..,.,,., (, 2012).,.,,,,..,, (, 2009)...,,,, 183
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 )..,, 3,.,. 다. 고충신고저해의심리적요인 : 조직침묵관점에서의접근,. Morrison & Milliken(2000); (2015) (organizational silence).,,.,, (, 2014).,.. Morrison & Milliken(2000). 184
.,. Pinder & Harlos(2001). (employee silence),,,.,,,. Van Dyne, Ang & Botero(2003),,.., Van Dyne, Ang & Botero(2003) -, -,,,,., (2015).,,. 185
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ),. Van Dyne, Ang & Botero(2003),,. : (2014) < 그림 1> 조직침묵의하위요인 < 표 1> 조직침묵유형별개념정의,,,,,,,, : Van Dyne, Ang & Botero(2003); (2015). 186
2. 현행장병고충처리제도 가. 군내부고충처리제도, 1303,,.,., 173.,.,,,.,, 5)., 1303 1732,, /, / 24.,,,,,. 81%, 12%. 6), 41. 5).,, (, 2018). 6) 2017 5 24. 187
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) (, 2016).,,,,,.,.,, (, 2014).. 2014 41 2...,, (, 2018). 나. 군외부고충처리기관 188
., 7) 2 ( ) 30 ( ). 3.,,,, 1 (, 2010).. ( ) ( ).,,,.,, (,, ), /, / (). 8) (, 2018).. 7) [ 1988.2.25.] [ 10, 1987.10.29, ] 8) (http://www.acrc.go.kr) 189
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) 3. 주요선행연구및본연구의차별성, (, 2009;, 2011; Katz, Kochan & Gobeille, 1983; Norsworthy & Zabala, 1985)., (, 2011;, 2009a; 2009b; 2009c), (bias) (Klaas & DeNisi, 1989)., (, 1993;, 2001;, 2014).. (2010), (2014), (2018).,,..,,,,., 190
.,..,,., Q.,.,.,.,,,,,.,. 191
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) < 표 2> 고충처리에관한주요선행연구정리 Keyword, / (2006) (2009) (2010) (2011), IT,,,, (2011) (2009a, 2009b, 2009c) Klaas & DeNisi(1989) Katz, Kochan & Gobeille(1983) Norsworthy & Zabala(1985),,,,,,,,,,,,,, (1993),,,,, (2001) (2014), (2010) (2014) (2018),,,,,,,,,,,, 192
Ⅲ. 연구설계 1. Q 방법론 Stephenson(1953) Q,,,. Q. R.. Q.. Q. Q. Q(Q ). P. R Q P, 9)., Q, Q (, 2017). Q P,, 9) P 30~50 (, 2010). 193
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ). 2. Q 진술문의작성 Q Q. R (, 1999). Q (ready made sample).,,,. Q.,,,,., 2017 10 26 11 2 94. 1, 2 10), P. Q,,,. P Q 10) Q TV,, 2. 194
11) (Brown, 1980). 34 Q. 15, 10,, 9. < 3>. < 표 3> Q 진술문구성 ( ) 1. 2. 3. 2 4. 5. 6. 7. 2 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 11) Q. Q, Q (, 2008). 195
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22.......,.,., (, ). 23. 24. 25,. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 196
32. 33. 34 (,, ). Q Q. Q < 2>. 34, 9 Q. -4-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 4 (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5) (6) < 그림 2> Q 분류의형태 3. P 표본의선정 P Q. (Steelman & Maguire, 1999). 35 P (extensive study). Q, 197
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ).,. ( )..,. P Q 2018 9 12,, Q. < 4> P. < 표 4> P 표본의특성 N=35 ( ) (%) 20 57.1 15 42.9 33 94.3 2 5.7 20 24 68.6 30 11 31.4 Ⅳ. 분석결과 1. Q 요인분석결과 Q.,,, 198
(varimax rotation). PQMethod 2.35. < 표 5> 인식유형별아이겐값과변량및상관관계 1 2 3 4 10.7801 5.5362 2.4998 2.2843 (%) 30.8004 15.8176 7.1423 6.5267 (%) 30.8004 46.6180 53.7603 60.2870 1 1 - - - 2 0.0348 1 - - 3 0.3317 0.2341 1-4 0.2786 0.2727 0.1732 1 Q, 4 12).. 1 35 P 15. 6, 9, 14, 1. 2 10, 5, 5,. 3 3,. 4 3 2, 1., P 10, 17, 20, 32. 12) Q 7 (, 2008). 7 4. 1 P. 199
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) < 표 6> 유형별 P 표본의구성 13)14) 1 2 3 4 1 0.4287 0.2234 0.6233X -0.0485, 2 0.8530X -0.1322 0.2271-0.1057, 3-0.1052 0.6341X 0.3704-0.0037, 4 0.2314 0.7787X 0.0964 0.2111, 5 0.0355 0.2169 0.7680X -0.0048, 6-0.4403 0.5987X -0.0245 0.0549, 7 0.7400X 0.1189 0.1976 0.0098, 8 0.7416X 0.0131 0.2832 0.1120, 9-0.4934 0.6100X -0.1603 0.1580, 10 0.0575 0.2461 0.5692 0.5314, 11 0.1327 0.5239X 0.3837-0.0984, 12 0.7268X 0.3320 0.1543 0.1600, 13 0.7501X 0.1241 0.0322-0.3399, 14 0.5662X 0.0957 0.2946-0.2253, 15 0.1791-0.1438 0.6325X 0.1015, 16 0.6345X -0.0491-0.0805 0.4050, 17 0.6183 0.6146 0.0586 0.0882, 18-0.0605 0.6555X 0.0025 0.3753, 19 0.8286X 0.0193 0.2148 0.2210, 20 0.3302 0.4668 0.0604 0.3455, 21-0.2655 0.6384X 0.2171 0.3329, 22 0.5843X -0.0966-0.1539 0.3818, 23 0.0908 0.2389-0.1177 0.6456X, 24 0.5125X 0.4371-0.1214-0.2358, 25 0.4710 0.2175-0.0879 0.5719X, 26 0.8581X -0.1011-0.1239 0.0783, 27 0.8560X 0.0513 0.2078 0.1359, 28 0.8461X -0.1186-0.0338 0.1480, 13) (standard error of factor scores) 0.124, 0.174, 0.243, 0.277. 14) Q,,, (, 2012). 4. 200
29 0.6853X 0.3577-0.0943 0.0605, 30 0.2863 0.4918X 0.2965 0.0212, 31 0.0340-0.0469 0.3221 0.6761X, 32-0.3861 0.3790 0.2027 0.3549. 33 0.6681X 0.0757 0.3828 0.0421, 34 0.1229 0.6757X -0.3444-0.1073, 35 0.3454 0.4760X 0.1252-0.0834, 28 15 9 8 - * : P X 2. 각유형별특성분석 (Z-score s) 15) 1.. (consensus item) (distinguishing item). 4, (, 2008). (15 ),, (25 ), (5 ), (11 ). (, 2014).. 15) ( ) (Watts & Stenner, 2012). 201
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) 가. 제 1 유형 : 개방적고충신고의장려 / 역기능에대한경계 1. (2, z=1.640) 2 (4, z=1.277). (3, z=-1.547), (7, z=-1.017), (6, z=-1.139). (1, z=-1.278). (17, z=1.652), (25, z=1.433)., (15, z=1.145) (13, z=-1.445) (14, z=-1.313).,... 202
< 표 7> 제 1 유형의진술문과표준점수 () Z-scores 17 1.652 2 1.640 25 1.433 4 2 1.277 15, 1.145 18 1.109 7-1.017 6-1.139 11-1.230 1-1.278 14-1.313 13-1.445 3-1.547 5-1.804 나. 제 2 유형 : 방어, 체념인식의체화 / 현행법 규정, 상담여건의불충분 2,... (6, z=1.824), (12, z=1.142), (9, z=1.026)., (1, z=1.714), (2, z=-1.995). (29, z=-1.717) (16, z=-1.828). 203
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ). (31, z=-1.319), (17, z=1.616) (18, z=1.200).,. < 표 8> 제 2 유형의진술문과표준점수 () Z-scores 6 1.824 1 1.714 17 1.616 18 1.200 12 1.142 9 1.026 5-1.200 31-1.319 11-1.320 29-1.717 16-1.828 2-1.995 다. 제 3 유형 : 군의제도와활동을존중 / 군의역량, 문화미흡 3,. (34, 204
z=-1.184), (33, z=1.773)., (32, z=-1.159) / 2 (8, z=-1.423), (19, z=-1.214). (16, z=-1.483), (27, z=1.154)., (22, z=1.265). < 표 9> 제 3 유형의진술문과표준점수 () Z-scores 33 1.773 15, 1.423 22 1.265 27 1.154 25 1.081 32-1.159 17-1.179 34-1.184 19-1.214 8 / 2-1.423 16-1.483 5-1.646 11-1.727 205
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) 라. 제 4 유형 : 군의특수성고려 / 사용자용이성미흡 4. (31, z=1.709), (2, z=-1.344). (28, z=1.222)., (32, z=-1.609), (19, z=-1.244). (33, z=-1.218)., (18, z=1.694), (23, z=1.244) (24, z=1.609). (21, z=1.488). < 표 10> 제 4 유형의진술문과표준점수 () Z-scores 31 1.709 18 1.694 24 1.609 21 1.488 23 1.244 28 1.222 206
25 1.037 33-1.218 19-1.244 2-1.344 5-1.406 11-1.429 32-1.609 3. 논의의종합 4. 5, 11, 15, 25.,.,,.,, 1. 1.,.. 207
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ) 2.. 2.,,,.. 3.,.,,. 4..,,,,. < 표 11> 유형별주요견해에대한정리 1( ) - -, -, 208
2( ) 3( ) 4( ) - -, -, - -, -, - - -,,, Ⅴ. 결론및정책적함의 (, 2011).,, (, 2011)... Q..,.,, 209
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ),,,.,. Q,..,. 1. (, 2001).,.,.,,.. P, 4.. 210
.,,,.,.., 2.,.....,.,., 211
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ),..,,..,.,. 논문접수 : 2018 10 21 논문수정 : 2019 1 2 게재확정 : 2019 1 9 참고문헌. (2014). :... (2015). :.. pp. 168-192.. (2013). : 2... (2012).., 28 1. pp. 157-184.. (2018).. ( ).. (2014). : Q., 18 4. pp. 27-53.. (1999). Q., 9 2. pp. 201-216. 212
. (2010). Q., 20 4. pp. 1-25.. (2008). Q :,,. :.. (2003). (IPP) :... (2001). : Q., 35 1. pp. 109-125.. (2009a). : (1). :, 2. pp. 118-132.. (2009b). : (2). :, 4. pp. 72-83.. (2009c). : (3). :, 6. pp. 88-99.. (1998). (Whistleblowing) :., 32 1. pp. 195-209.. (2002). :... (2009).., 23 1. pp. 177-203.. (1997).., 35 2. pp. 1-30.. (2011). ADR., 21 1. pp. 95-114.. (2012). N., 25. pp. 95-119.. (2010).. ( ) SMI.. (2006).. ( ). 213
국방정책연구제 34 권제 4 호 2018 년겨울호 ( 통권제 122 호 ). (2014).., 1 2. pp. 44-52.. (2011).... (1993). :... (2014).. ( ) SMI.. (2001).., 5 1. pp. 259-279.. (2017). : Q., 31 1. pp. 151-174.. (2014).., 25 1. pp. 349-373.. (2009).... (2016).... (2005).. ( ). Brown, S. R. (1980). Political Subjectivity. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press. Denhardt, R. B. (1991). Public Administration: An Action Orientation. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove. Katz, H. C., Kochan, T. A., & K. R. Gobeille. (1983). Industrial Relations Performance, Economic Performance and QWL Programs: An Interplant Analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 37, No. 1. pp. 3-17. Klaas, B. S. & A. S. DeNisi. (1989). Managerial Reactions to Employee Dissent: The Impact of Grievance Activity on Performance Rating. Academy of Management Journal, No. 32. pp. 705-717. Miceli, M. P., Rehg, M., Near, J. P., & K. C. Ryan. (1999). Can Laws Protect Whistle-blowers?: Results of a Naturally Occurring Field Experiment. Work and Occupations, No. 26. pp. 129-151. 214
Morrison, E. W. & F. J. Milliken. (2000). Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World. Academy of Management Review, No. 25. pp. 706-725. Norsworthy, J. & C. Zabala. (1985). Worker Attitudes, Worker Behavior and Productivity in the U.S. Automobile Industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, No. 38. pp. 544-557. Pinder, C. C. & K. P. Harlos. (2001). Employee Silence: Quiescence and Acquiescence as Response to Perceived Injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, No. 20. pp. 331-369. Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and Validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale. A master s thesis. University of Maryland.. (2014). An Examination of Toxic leadership, Job Outcomes, and the Impact of Military Deployment. A Doctor of Philosophy s Thesis. University of Maryland. Steelman, T. A. & L. A. Maguire. (1999). Understanding Participant Perspectives: Q-methodology in National Forest Management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 18, No. 3. pp. 361-388. Stephenson, W. (1953). The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & I. C. Botero. (2003). Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40, No. 6. pp. 1359-1392. Vandekerckhove, W. (2006). Whistleblowing and Organizational Social Responsibility: A Global Assessment. Portland: Ashgate. Watts, S. & P. Stenner. (2012). Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. London: Sage Publishing. 215