저작자표시 - 비영리 - 변경금지 2.0 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다. 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시. 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다. 비영리. 귀하는이저작물을영리목적으로이용할수없습니다. 변경금지. 귀하는이저작물을개작, 변형또는가공할수없습니다. 귀하는, 이저작물의재이용이나배포의경우, 이저작물에적용된이용허락조건을명확하게나타내어야합니다. 저작권자로부터별도의허가를받으면이러한조건들은적용되지않습니다. 저작권법에따른이용자의권리는위의내용에의하여영향을받지않습니다. 이것은이용허락규약 (Legal Code) 을이해하기쉽게요약한것입니다. Disclaimer
국문초록, 2013.,. ㆍ.,,,.,.. K, - i -
...,.,, (+), (+).,,,,., (+), (+) (+).,. - ii -
. :,,,,,, : 2014-23662 - iii -
목 차 제 1 장서론 1 제 1 절연구의배경및목적 1 제 2 절연구의대상및범위 3 제 2 장이론적논의및선행연구의검토 3 제 1 절직무만족, 조직몰입에관한이론적논의 3 1. 조직유효성 3 2. 조직몰입 5 3. 직무만족 7 제 2 절보상의공정성에관한이론적논의 8 1. 보상의분배공정성 10 (1) 보상의외부공정성 11 (2) 보상의내부공정성 12 2. 보상의절차공정성 19 제 3 절선행연구의검토 20 제 3 장연구설계 27 제 1 절연구모형 27 제 2 절가설의설정 28 1. 보상의분배공정성과조직몰입의관계 28 2. 보상의절차공정성과조직몰입의관계 29 3. 보상의분배공정성과직무만족의관계 29 4. 보상의절차공정성과직무만족의관계 30 - iv -
제 3 절변수의조작적정의및설문구성 31 1. 보상의분배공정성 31 2. 보상의절차공정성 32 3. 조직몰입 33 4. 직무만족 34 5. 통제변수 35 제 4 장분석결과 37 제 1 절표본의인구통계적특성 37 제 2 절타당성분석과신뢰성분석 38 제 3 절상관관계분석 42 제 4 절가설검정 44 1. 보상의공정성이조직몰입에미치는영향 44 2. 보상의공정성이직무만족에미치는영향 45 제 5 절결론 47 1. 연구결과의요약및시사점 47 2. 연구의한계 50 참고문헌 52 부록 57 Abstract 64 - v -
표목차 < 표 1 > 표본의인구통계적특성 37 < 표 2 > 독립변수요인분석및신뢰도분석결과 40 < 표 3 > 종속변수요인분석및신뢰도분석결과 41 < 표 4 > 상관관계분석결과 43 < 표 5 > 조직몰입에관한회귀분석결과 45 < 표 6 > 직무만족에관한회귀분석결과 47 그림목차 < 그림 1 > 아담스의공정성모델 11 < 그림 2 > 연구모형 28 - vi -
1 1, 2013 18 38.,,. 2014 10, 4.3(21.3%), 38 1 37.,,,. - 1 -
ㆍ. ㆍ.,.,,, ㆍ,.,,, ㆍ, (social support),. - 2 -
2 K 3() 4(,,, ),,,. K,. 2 1, 1. (organizational effectiveness),., (Etzioni, - 3 -
1965)., (efficiency),., (internalities) (Mayer, 1975; 1, 2010: ),. (More is better.), (New and complex is better.), (Knowing what others don't know is better.). (Parkinson, C. N.) (Parkinson s law), ㆍ. (Price, 1968). - 4 -
(Seashore, S. E. & Yuchtman, E., 1967).., (organizational citizenship behavior), (, 2010).,.. 2. (organizational commitment) (, 2012).,., - 5 -
. (affective attatchment), (perceived costs), (obligation to remain with the organization) (Meyer, J. P. & Allen N. J., 1991).,,...,..,,,,, (, - 6 -
2000)..,,,,,,,,,. (,, 2014)., (, 2013).., (agency problem), ㆍ. 3. (job satisfaction) (, 2012)., (external satisfaction), (internal satisfaction) (Porter & Steers, 1973).. - 7 -
.,,.(,, 2014).,...,,,,, (,, 2014). (Harter, J. K. 2, 2002). (Swaminathan S. & Jawahar, P. D., 2013). 2-8 -
.,.,,,,., ( 2, 2010).,,...,., ㆍ. - 9 -
,...,,,.,. 1., (Homans, 1961), (contribution) (inducement), (Barnard, C., 1938;, 2010: ). Input Output, Input Output. (equity) - 10 -
(inequity)., (Adams, J. S., 1965).,. < 1> Op < => Oa IP Ia O: Output, I: Input, p: 자신, a: 타인 (1) (Gap). (, ),, ( 1, 2010)., ( /) (, 2010)., - 11 -
,. (2)..,,.,...,,.. - 12 -
.,,...,,....,.,, ( 秘傳 ) (, 2010).,, - 13 -
..,.. ㆍ, ( 2, 2010)....,,,,. - 14 -
,,,.,.. 1970, ( 2, 2010). 1980 knowledge or skill based pay. 1990 (competency-based pay)..,, - 15 -
,.,,.,.,.... 1...,. ( 年 ). - 16 -
. (,, 2014)..,,. 50%..,,,, (,, 2014). ( 逆轉 ) - 17 -
,,. ㆍ, (internalities), 1997, 1999. 1.,. 2000 1. 2010,. - 18 -
1), (pay-band),. 30%, 2....,, ( ) (, 2010). 2., 1),, 2010. 6. - 19 -
. (Leventhal)..,., (, ),.,,. 3. (, 1999) (, 2013), (, 2010), ( 2, 2010). (2013) ( ㆍ ) ( K ), - 20 -
,... (2010).,,,.,.. (2008),. 12,., - 21 -
,.,.,,., (+). 18 223., (+),.,,,.,, ( 2, 2010)., - 22 -
(1998) (job equity) 2),., ㆍ,,. 1,.,,.. 1980 (New Public Management) (Input) 2) - 23 -
(Output),, ㆍ. (2013)...,. ㆍ 15,,,,. (Tyler & Bies, 1990),. - 24 -
.,,,,. (2009) 2008, S,,.,,,., (+),.,, - 25 -
,. (fairness of performance appraisal) (Salleh), (+), (Salleh, M. 2, 2013). (Choi, Sungjoo), ㆍ (2005 Merit System Protection Board Survey). (organizational justice) (distributive justice), (procedural justice), (interpersonal justice),, (turn-over intention), ㆍ (trust).,, (+), (-).., - 26 -
(trust), (trust) (Choi, S., 2011). (pay satisfaction),, (trust in supervisor) (Folger),, (Folger, R. & Konovosky, M. A., 1989). 3 1 < 2> K 5,.,,. - 27 -
< 2> 2 (, ),,. 1. - 28 -
, (+) (, 2008) (, 2013). (+). 1.. 1-1.. 1-2.. 2. (satisfaction) (Salleh, M. 2, 2013), (+). 2.. 3. - 29 -
(pay satisfaction) (+)., (Judge, T. A. 4, 2010),,,,,. 3.. 3-1.. 3-2.. 4. (+), (, 2009;, 2013). 4.. - 30 -
3,. 1. (2009), (2000), (2011),,,,,,, 3... K,., - 31 -
., ( ) 5 2001,.. 1.,,, (,,, )? 1-1. ( ) 1-2. ( ) 1-3. (,, 5 ) 1-4. ( 裝置 ) (.,,,, ) 2. ( ),,,, (,, )? 2. - 32 -
(Folger) (Folger, R. & Konovsky, M. A., 1989),. 1.? 2.? 3.? 4.? 5.? 6.? 3. (Mowday) OCQ(Organizational Commitment Questionnaire) (Mowday, R. T. 2, 1979). 7. ( 移職 ) 8. - 33 -
1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6.. 7.. 8.. 4..,, ㆍ,, (,, 2014)., (National Psychology Research) (Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire), ㆍ,,,, ㆍ,, ㆍ - 34 -
.? 1., 2. 3., 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 5.,,,,. (2000). - 35 -
1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. (2013). 1.. 2.. 3..,,,,, (,, 2014), (2010), (2000). 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6.. 7.. - 36 -
4 1 < 1> - 37 -
< 1> 190., 4.5., 30 40 (43.9%), 30 (24.8%), 40 50 (21.2%), 50 (10.1%). 30 20 3. 16.8%, 83.2%. 68.4%, (21.1%), (5.3%), (4.2%), IT (1.1%)., 3 27.4%, 4(,,, ) 72.6%. 2 (factor analysis),. (principle component analysis), (factor loading) (varimax). 0.4-38 -
, (eigenvalue) 1.. (Cronbach α) 0.6,. 3) 10, 0.4.. 3) (),. - 39 -
< 2> α α, < 2> IEE04.,, 0.4 3, 3 < 3> - 40 -
2. < 3> α α, < 3> 2 ( ) - 41 -
. 3,. (Pearson). 0 ±1, ±1. 0.9, 0.7 0.9, 0.4 0.7, 0.2 0.4, 0.2.,. - 42 -
< 4>, < 4>. (Pearson) 0.2., (+). - 43 -
. 4. 1., (+)., 0.604 0.05 1-1. t 3.345, 0.001 1-2. 0.203 2. 0.496 49.6%, -(Durbin-Watson) 1.846 2 0 4. (Tolerance) 0.1, - 44 -
0.454, 0.863. < 5> β 2., - 45 -
0.281 0.05 3-1. 0.570 0.05 3-2. t 3.875, 0.000 4. 0.624 62.4%, - (Durbin-Watson) 1.986 2 0 4. 0.449, 0.873 0.1,. - 46 -
< 6> β 5 1. - 47 -
, ㆍ,., ㆍ.,. 1-1,. 1-2. K., - 48 -
.. 2.,. 3-1... 3-2.,,. K,, - 49 -
., K, ( 査定 ) ㆍ. 2. K.,,, K., K 2001 ( 分社 ), ㆍ, K 3, 4. K 5., - 50 -
....,,, (+).,. - 51 -
1.,, 2010.6.,, (2010),, (2009), - S -,, (2010),,, 19, 2 (2004),, (2013),, GRI, 15, 3 (2000), -, (2001), -, (2010),, 16 (2005), 1 ( ), - 52 -
(2004),,, 19. (2012),, (2010),,, 19, 2010.4, pp. 127-169 (2010),, :,,, 1999, 1998.10., (2010),, (2000),,, -,,, (2010), :, 10 3 (2013), K -, (1998),, (1998.3.28.) (2014),, (2000),,, - 53 -
, (2011),, -, (2008),, 2. Adams, J. S.(1965), Inequity in Social Exchange, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press, pp. 422-436 Barnard, C.(1938), The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press Choi, S.(2011), Organizational Justice and Employee Work Attitude: The Federal Case, The American Review of Public Admini- stration, 41(2), pp. 185-204 Etzioni, A.(1965), Modern Organization, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Folger, R. Konovsky, M. A.(1989), Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions, Academy of Management Journal 32 Harter J. K., Schmidt, F. I. and Hayes, T. L.(2002), Business Unit Level Relationship between Employee - 54 -
Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, April 2002 Homans, G. C.(1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., Podsakoff, N. P., Shaw, J. C. and Rich, B. L.(2010), The relationship between pay and job satisfaction - A meta analysis of the literature, Journal of Vocational Behavior Mayer, Marshall W.(1975), Organizational domains, American Socialogical Review, Vol.40(Oct), pp. 599-615 Meyer, J. P. and Allen N. J.(1991), A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment, Human Resource Management Review, Vol.1 Mowday R. T., Steers R. M., Porter L. W.(1979), The measurement of organizational commitment, Journal of vocational behavior Price, J. L.(1968), Organizational effectiveness: An inventory of propositions, Illinois; Homewood Salleh, M., Amin, A., Muda, S. and Halim, S. A.(2013), Fairness of performance appraisal and organizational commitment, Asian Social Science, 9(2) Schein, E. H.(1971), The individual, the organization, and the career: A conceptual scheme, Journal of Applied Behacioral Science, 7-55 -
Schein, E. H.(1968), Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management, Industrial Management Review, 9(2) Seashore, S. E. and Yuchtman, E.(1967), Factorial Analysis of Organizational Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3 Smith, P. C., Kendal, L. M. & Hulin, C. L.(1969), Measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement, Chicago Rand Mcnally Swaminathan, S. and Jawahar, P.D.(2013), Job Satisfaction as a Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: An Empirical Study, Global Journal of Business Research, 7(1) - 56 -
안녕하십니까? 먼저바쁘신가운데에도귀중한시간을내어주신데대하여깊 이감사드립니다. 저는현재서울대학교행정대학원에서공기업정책학을전공하고있으며, 현재공기업구성원의조직몰입과직무만족에영향을미치는요인에대한연구를진행하고있습니다. 본설문조사는위연구의기초자료로활용하기위한것입니다. 본설문조사는특정인에대한정보취득을목적으로하지않으며 익명으로처리됩니다. 설문조사결과는통계법제 33 조에따라학 술연구에만이용되며비밀이보장됨을알려드립니다. 응답하시는데에는약 8 분정도소요됩니다. 아무쪼록모든질문 사항에대해빠짐없이귀하께서느끼고생각하는대로진솔하게 답변해주시면연구에큰도움이되겠습니다. 협조해주셔서진심으로감사드립니다. 2015 년 1 월 서울대학교행정대학원공기업정책학과 지도교수김상헌 연구자하영훈 - 57 -
Ⅰ. 조직몰입에관한내용입니다. 아래의문항을읽고귀하의생각과일 치하는곳에체크 ( ) 하여주시기바랍니다. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8........ Ⅱ. 직무만족에관한내용입니다. 본인의직무및직장에관한아래항목 에대하여어느정도만족하는지를해당되는곳에체크 ( ) 하여주시기바 랍니다. - 58 -
1 2 3,, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ⅲ. 보상에관한내용입니다. 노력, 경력, 성과, 역량등자신의회사에대한공헌도를고려할때, 자신이받는보상 ( 임금, 복리후생, 승진, 생활의안정등총체적인보상 ) 의수준이아래의비교집단에종사하는직원에비해어떻다고생각하시는지해당되는곳에체크 ( ) 하여주시기바랍니다. - 59 -
1 2 ( ) ( ) 3 (,, 4 ) 4 ( 裝置 ) (.,,,, ) Ⅲ-1. 회사내의보상 ( 임금등 ) 의분배와관련하여, 노력, 경력, 성과, 역 량등자신의회사에대한공헌도를고려할때자신이받는보상 ( 임금, 복 리후생, 승진등총체적인보상 ) 의수준이공정하다고생각하십니까? 1 - Ⅲ-2. 아래의문항을읽고귀하의생각과일치하는곳에체크 ( ) 하여주 시기바랍니다. - 60 -
1 2 3 4 5 6?????? Ⅳ. 성취욕구에관한내용입니다. 아래의문항을읽고귀하의생각과일 치하는곳에체크 ( ) 하여주시기바랍니다. - 61 -
1 2 3 4.... Ⅴ. 사회적인정감에관한내용입니다. 아래의문항을읽고귀하의생각과 일치하는곳에체크 ( ) 하여주시기바랍니다. 1 2 3... Ⅵ. 자기개발가능성, 조직내사회적지원등에관한내용입니다. 아래의문 항을읽고귀하의생각과일치하는곳에체크 ( ) 하여주시기바랍니다. - 62 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7....... Ⅶ. 다음은귀하의일반적인사항에관한질문입니다. 1) 연령만 ( ) 세 2) 성별 1남성 2여성 3) 근무사업소 1본사 2당진 3울산 4호남 5동해 6일산 4) 직군 1사무 2발전 3토건 4화학 5IT 5) 직급 13직급 24직급 6) 근속년수 11년미만 21년~3년미만 33년~10 년미만 410년~20 년미만 520년이상설문조사에응해주셔서진심으로감사드립니다. - 63 -
Abstract A study on the effects of perceived justice of compensation on the organizational commitment and the job satisfaction - Focusing on the case of K public enterprise - Ha, Young Hun Department of Public Enterprise Policy The Graduate School of Public Administration Seoul National University As the current government of South Korea prioritized a reduction in the size of public enterprises debt, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance carried forward the public institutions normalization measures which contained debt scale reduction of public enterprises in the end of 2013. These efforts raised the achievement to reduce the debt of public enterprises to more than the original reduction target. However, in the process, the need of "normalization of abnormal" about the public business manage- - 64 -
ment was highlighted and the welfare of public enterprises was reduced considerably. Consequentially, there is concern that the public agency workers morale and their workplace satisfaction may also be declined. Under such a background, I believe that empirical study on the factors which influence the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of public corporation employees has the meaning in relation to the public enterprise policy. Organizational commitment is the individual's psychological state to have the attachment to a particular organization, to want to remain in the organization, and to make further efforts for the organization, and to accept gladly the value and goals of the organization. Job satisfaction means the condition of positive emotions that individuals have their own fun that results from evaluation of job and work experience. These organizational commitment and job satisfaction, as typical indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of the organization, are the dependent variables in this study. In this study, hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationship between the independent variables that are organizational commitment and job satisfaction and dependent variables that are distributive justice of compensation and procedural justice of compensation were tested by multiple regression analysis on the basis of the result of the survey targeting the "K public enterprise" workers in the power industry. Distributive justice of compensation can be defined as the recognition of the proper allocation of compensation according to the degree of contribution to the organization. Distributive justice of compensation can be divided into external justice of compensation and internal justice of compensation. The former is about the gap in wage - 65 -
level between the one s own company and competitors which mean comparable companies in the same field. The latter is about how the total amount that the corporation can pay shall be distributed among employees. Both are classified as independent variables. Procedural justice of compensation is the justice of the process of making decision about compensation. As a result of the test of hypotheses, hypothesis which gives a definition that internal justice of compensation affects organizational commitment has been adopted. For job satisfaction, the hypothesis which gives a definition that procedural justice of compensation affects job satisfaction has been adopted. Keywords : Distributive justice of compensation, External justice of compensation, Internal justice of compensation, Procedural justice of compensation, Organizational commitment, Job satisfaction Student number : 2014-23662 - 66 -