한국산학기술학회논문지 (Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society)

  • 제15권10호
  • /
  • Pages.6004-6013
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 1975-4701(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-4688(eISSN)
한국산학기술학회 (The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

경영자원의 속성이 자원공유에 미치는 영향: 자원기반관점을 중심으로

Impacts of Resource Attributes on Resource Sharing: An Approach from Resource-based View

  • 황재원 (한국교통대학교 경영학과) ;
  • 박경미 (농협대학교 협동조합경영과)
  • Hwang, Jaewon (Dept. of Business Administration, Korea National University of Transportation) ;
  • Park, Kyoungmi (Dept. of Cooperative Management, Agricultural Cooperative College)
  • 투고 : 2014.06.12
  • 심사 : 2014.10.10
  • 발행 : 2014.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

다각화 분야 내에서 자원공유의 사안을 다루는 연구들은 경영자원의 '공유'에 주목하였고, '경영자원'에 대한 관심은 부족하였다. 이에 따라 본 연구는 자원기반관점의 핵심적인 변수들과 논리들을 토대로 자원공유의 결정요인과 성과함의에 대해 접근하였다. 본 연구는 우리나라 35개 기업집단의 계열사 263개를 대상으로 실시된 설문조사를 토대로 경영자원의 양적 수준, 질적 수준, 활용성이 계열사 간 자원공유에 미치는 영향에 대한 가설을 수립하고 다중회귀분석을 통해 검증하였으며, 성과함의와 관련하여 경영자원의 양적 수준과 자원공유, 경영자원의 질적 수준과 자원공유, 경영자원의 활용성과 자원공유의 상호작용이 계열사의 성과에 미치는 영향에 대한 가설을 수립하고 상호작용항이 포함된 다중회귀분석을 통해 검증하였다. 가설검증 결과, 경영자원의 양적 수준이 낮을수록, 질적 수준이 높을수록, 활용성이 높을수록 자원공유의 정도는 증가하는 것으로 나타났으며, 경영자원의 양적 수준이 낮을수록, 활용성이 높을수록 계열사 간 자원공유가 성과에 미치는 긍정적인 영향이 증가하는 것으로 확인되었다. 하지만 경영자원의 질적 수준은 자원공유와 성과의 관계에 영향을 미치지 않았다. 본 연구는 경영자원의 질적 수준 및 활용성이 가설과는 상반된 방향으로 자원공유에 영향을 미치는 이유, 경영자원의 질적 수준이 자원공유에는 긍정적으로 작용하지만 성과향상으로 이어지지 않은 이유, 경영자원의 유형에 따라 가설검증의 결과가 달라지는지의 여부 등을 충분히 다루지 못했는데, 향후 연구에서는 이에 대한 보다 심화된 논의가 필요할 것으로 생각된다.

The research on resource sharing in the diversification field is concerned mainly with sharing, but there has been little interest in resources. This research examined resource sharing with the main variables and logics of resource-based view. Based on a survey of 263 affiliates of 35 diversified firms, the impacts of resource quantity, resource quality, and resource exploitability on inter-affiliate resource sharing were hypothesized and verified. To confirm the performance implications of resource sharing, the impacts of the combination of resource quantity and resource sharing, the combination of resource quality and resource sharing, and the combination of resource exploitability and resource sharing on the affiliate performance were also hypothesized and verified. According to the empirical results from multiple regression analyses, resource sharing increases in the order of low resource quantity, high resource quality, and high resource exploitability. The performance was advanced in resource sharing under a low resource quantity and resource sharing under high resource exploitability, but it was not advanced in resource sharing under high resource quality. The results highlight the need for a further study on why the resource quality and resource exploitability affect resource sharing in the opposite directions, as expected in the hypotheses, why resource sharing under high resource quality does not lead to high performance, even though resource quality increases resource sharing, and what they would be if resources are subdivided by the types.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. R. P. Rumelt, Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974.
  2. S. Chatterjee & B. Wernerfelt, "The link between resource type and diversification: Theory and evidence," Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), pp.33-48, 1991. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120104
  3. E. T. Penrose, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, New York, NY: Wiley, 1959.
  4. B. Wernerfelt, "A resource-based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), pp.171-180, 1984. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
  5. J. B. Barney, "Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage," Journal of Management, 7(1), pp.99-120, 1991. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
  6. C. K. Prahalad & G. Hamel, "The core competence of the corporation," Harvard Business Review, May-Jun, pp.79-93, 1990.
  7. K. M. Park & K. H. Kwon, "Collaboration Under Duplicated Diversification: The Strategic Contexts of a Business Unit and Their Differentiated Impacts on Between- and Within-Businesses Resource Sharing," Korean Management Review, 38(2), pp. 483-521, 2009.
  8. R. Daft, Organization Theory and Design, New York, NY: West, 1983.
  9. C. E. Helfat & M. A. Peteraf, "The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles," Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), pp.997-1010, 2003. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.332
  10. R. M. Grant, "The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation," California Management Review, 33(3), pp.114-135, 1991. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166664
  11. J. B. Barney & W. S. Hesterly, Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
  12. K. H. Kwon, "The effects of strategy, control systems, and resource sharing on subsidiaries' performance: Comparisons between Korean and U.S. diversified firms," Korean Management Review, 26(4), pp.753-786, 1997.
  13. K. H. Kwon & K. W. Jung, "Historical backgrounds and academic progress in strategic management," in D. Y. Shin, ed., Paradigm Shift in the 21st Century Management Theories, pp.520-581, 2008.
  14. D. Collis & C. Montgomery, "Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s," Harvard Business Review, 73(4), pp.118-128, 1995.
  15. G. Hamel & C. K. Prahalad, "Strategy as stretch and leverage," Harvard Business Review, Mar-Apr, pp.75-84, 1993.
  16. R. Amit & P. J. H. Schoemaker, "Strategic assets and organizational rent," Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), pp.33-46, 1993. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140105
  17. H. I. Ansoff, Corporate Strategy, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
  18. M. E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York, NY: Free Press, 1985.
  19. R. Davis & L. Thomas, "Direct estimation of synergy: A new approach to the diversity-performance debate," Management Science, 39(11), pp.1334-1346, 1993. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.11.1334
  20. J. Robins & M. F. Wiersema, "A resource-based approach to the multibusiness firm: Empirical analysis of portfolio interrelationships and corporate financial performance," Strategic Management Journal, 16(4), pp.277-299, 1995. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160403
  21. A. A. Thompson & A. J. Strickland, Strategic Management, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
  22. I. Dierickx & K. Cool, "Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage," Management Science, 35(12), pp.1504-1511, 1989. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504
  23. B. J. Avolio, F. J. Yammarino, B. M. Bass, "Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue," Journal of Management, 17(3), pp.571-587, 1991. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700303
  24. P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. Mackenzie, J. Y. Lee, "Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies," Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), pp.879-903, 2003. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  25. D. Miller & P. H. Friesen, "Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms," Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), pp.3-27, 1982. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250030102
  26. A. K. Gupta & V. Govindarajan, "Resource sharing among SBUs: Strategic antecedents and administrative implications," Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), pp.695-714, 1986 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255940
  27. A. P. Jacquemin & C. H. Berry, "Entropy measure of diversification and corporate growth," Journal of Industrial Economics, 27(4), pp.359-369, 1979. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2097958
  28. D. Miller, "Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications," Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), pp.280-308, 1988. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256549
  29. D. Miller & C. Droge, "Psychological and traditional determinants of structure," Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), pp.539-560, 1986. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392963