Journal of the Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회논문지)

Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Factors Relevant to Effects of Shared Leadership, Organizational Trust and Job Performance

공유리더십, 조직신뢰, 직무성과의 영향 요인에 관한 연구

  • Kim, Jae-Boong (Department of Business Administration, Korea National University of Transportation)
  • 김재붕 (한국교통대학교 경영학과)
  • Received : 2019.06.17
  • Accepted : 2019.07.20
  • Published : 2019.07.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The change to the horizontal structure of the modern corporate management environment requires joint efforts and cooperation to share responsibility and purpose and to increase positive mutual influence in order to achieve the corporate goal beyond the individual capacity of the organizational members. In order to achieve the purpose of the organization, the organizational structure in which various members share information and aim at collective leadership is more effective than the structure concentrated on one individual (leader). This study was to examine the effectiveness of shared leadership, and to investigate the causal relationship and effect of shared leadership, organizational trust, and job performance. As a result of the analysis, shared leadership had a positive effect on organizational trust, and organizational trust had a positive effect on job performance. This means that high trust in organization has a positive effect on performance.This study is meaningful in that it examines the difference between shared leadership and existing leadership types that have not been studied yet.

현대 기업경영 환경의 수평적 구조화로의 변화는 조직구성원 개개인의 역량을 넘어, 기업의 목표를 이루기 위해 팀이나 조직 전체가 책임과 목적을 공유하고, 긍정적인 상호영향력을 높이기 위한 공동의 노력과 협력을 요구하고 있으며, 조직의 목적을 달성하기 위해 한 개인(리더)에게 집중화된 구조보다는 여러 구성원들이 정보를 공유하고 집합적인 리더십을 지향하는 조직 구조가 더 효과적이다. 이에 본 연구는 공유리더십의 효과성에 대해 살펴보고자 하였으며, 공유리더십과 조직신뢰 그리고 직무성과에 대한 인과관계 및 영향에 대해 조사하였다. 분석결과, 공유리더십은 조직신뢰에 정의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 조직신뢰는 직무성과에 정의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 조직에 대한 신뢰가 높으면 성과에도 긍정적인 영향을 미친다는 것을 의미한다. 본 연구는 아직 연구가 많이 되지 않은 공유리더십과 기존의 리더십 유형들과의 차별성을 살펴보고자 한 것에 의의가 있다.

Keywords

OHHGBW_2019_v10n7_183_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Research Model

OHHGBW_2019_v10n7_183_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2. Hypotheses Testing

Table 1. Discriminant Validity Analysis

OHHGBW_2019_v10n7_183_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Correlation between Latent Variable

OHHGBW_2019_v10n7_183_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Hypotheses Testing

OHHGBW_2019_v10n7_183_t0003.png 이미지

References

  1. J. Bae & C. Rowley. (2013). Changes and continuities in South Korean HRM. Asia Pacific Business Review. 9(4), 76-105. DOI: 10.1080/13602380312331288720
  2. K. L. Bettenhausen. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of management. 17(2), 345-381. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700205
  3. I. S. Yu. (2018). The effects of shared leadership on organizational performance in Korean public enterprise : focusing on the case of KOWEPO, Master's thesis. Seoul National University.
  4. D. Katz & R. L. Kahn. (1978) The social psychology of organizations. New York, Wiley.
  5. C. L. Pearce. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Perspectives. 18(1), 47-57. DOI: 10.5465/ame.2004.12690298
  6. C. L. Pearce & Jr. H. P. Sims. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice. 6(2), 172-197. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172
  7. L. G. Zucker. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure 1840-1920. Research in organizational behavior. 8, 53-111.
  8. A. K. Mishra. (1996). Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust. In: Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R., E., Eds., Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 261-287.
  9. R. Levering. (1988). A great place to work: What makes some employers so good (and most so bad). New York, Random House.
  10. R. Eisenberger, R. Huntington, S. Hutchison & D. Sowa.(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied psychology. 71(3), 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
  11. M. Blumberg & C. D. Pringle. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of management Review. 7(4), 560-569. DOI: 10.2307/257222
  12. J. E. Mathieu & D. M. Zajac. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological bulletin. 108(2), 171-194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
  13. J. D. Pincus. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human communication research. 12(3), 395-419. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00084.x
  14. E. J. McCormick & D. R. Ilgen. (1980) Industrial psychology. Englewood Cliffs. N. J., Prentice-Hall.
  15. T. N. Martin, J. L. Price, C. W. Mueller. (1981). Job performance and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology. 66(1), 116. DOI: 10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00032-7
  16. S. A. Stumpf & K. Hartman. (1984). Individual exploration to organizational commitment or withdrawal. Academy of Management Journal. 27(2), 308-329. DOI: 10.5465/255927
  17. T. Packard. (1989). Participation in decision making, performance, and job satisfaction in a social work bureaucracy. Administration in Social Work. 13(1), 59-73. DOI: 10.1300/J147v13n01_05
  18. A. Bandura & S. Wessels. (1997). Self-efficacy. W.H. Freeman & Company.
  19. W. A. Fisher, C. T. Miller, D. Byrne & L. A. White. (1980). Talking dirty: Responses to communicating a sexual message as a function of situational and personality factors. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 1(2), 115-126. DOI: 10.1207/s15324834basp0102_2
  20. W. R. Fisher. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communications Monographs. 51(1), 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/03637758409390180
  21. J. Barney. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management. 17(1), 99-120. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700108
  22. I. Bouty. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal. 43(1), 50-65. DOI: 10.2307/1556385
  23. S. A. Waddock & S. B. Graves. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic management journal. 18(4), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G
  24. M. H. Kim, K.W. Kim & C. H. Nam. (2013). The effects of corporate's social responsibility on the turnover intent for hotel employees. Journal of Food service Management. 16(4), 137-160.
  25. S. J. Kim. (2008). The Effect of Perceived Trusts in the Hotel On Organization Performance, Korean Hospitality and Tourism Academe. 17(4), 41-55.
  26. S. G. Ji & S. H. Jang. (2008). The Effects of the Relational Factors among Hotel Employees on Co-worker Trust and Performance, International Journal of Tourism Management and Sciences. 23(1), 23-42.
  27. B. M. Bass & R. M. Stogdill. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. Free Press.
  28. W. W. Chin. (1988). Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Quarterly. 22(1), 7-16.
  29. J. C. Nunnally. (1987). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  30. C. Fornell & D. Larcker. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 18(1), 39-50. DOI: 10.2307/3151312
  31. D. Barclay, C. Higgins & R. Thomson. (1995). The Partial Least Squares Approach to Causal Modeling, Personal Computer Adoption and Useasan Illustration. Technology Studies. 2(2), 285-309.
  32. R. F. Falk & N. B. Miller. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron: OH University of Arkon Press.