Korean Public Administration Review (한국행정학보)

The Korean Association for Public Administration (한국행정학회)
권호 표지

조직의 관리적 혁신의지(innovation willingness)와 조직성과(performance)간의 관계에 관한 연구

Nam, Seung-Ha
남승하

  • Published : 20080300
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigates how internal/external organizational factors and innovation engage (if at all) in affecting organizational performance. Structural equation modeling analysis results point towards the importance of management matters (internal organizational factors) and stakeholder-relations (external organizational factors) to organizational performance. The results highlight the mediating role that innovation plays in the management-stakeholders-performance relationship. The research concludes that organizational innovation is likely to be a solid facilitator for organizational performance; it is likely to be a mediator of internal/external management factors that affect organizational performance. In turn, innovation willingness is supported by a good quality of internal management practice and external stakeholder support. Knowledge about this mediating effect provides a more complete understanding of how internal/external management factors relate to organizational performance. The incorporation of the organizational innovation constructs in the context of linking internal/external organizational factors and organizational performance provides a significant contribution to understanding public agency performance.

조직 내/외부적 관리역량은 공공기관의 성과향상에 뚜렷한 기여를 한다. 또한 조직의 혁신의지(innovation willingness)는 조직의 성과라는 공공관리와 조직의 성과를 매개하는 중요한 기능을 한다. 이러한 맥락에서 본 연구는 구조방정식 모형을 이용하여 조직 내/외부적 관리요인과 혁신의지가 각각 어떻게 성과에 직접적 영향을 미치는 지를 분석하고, 조직의 혁신의지가 조직 내/외부적 요인들을 매개하여 간접적으로 어떻게 성과 향상에 기여하는지를 분석하였다. 그 결과 혁신의지는 조직의 성과를 향상시킬 수 있는 실질적이고 구체적인 촉진자(solid facilitator)로서의 역할을 하며 다양한 조직내/외적 변수들을 매개하여 조직성과 향상에 긍정적으로 영향을 끼친다는 것을 경험적으로 증명하였다. 이에 더하여 명확한 목표를 수반한 합리적 조직문화는 더 높은 수준의 혁신을 달성하며, 조직의 혁신과 성과향상을 위한 정치적 지원의 중요성과 수평적 조직구조의 중요성을 강조하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Altshuler, A. A., & Behn, R. D. (1997). Innovation in American government: Challenges, opportunities, and dilemmas. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC
  2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1992). Assumptions and comparative strengths of the two-step approach. Sociological Methods and Research, 20: 321-333 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192020003002
  3. Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2006). Strategy content and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 66(1): 52-63 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00555.x
  4. Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1971). The organic organization and innovation. Sociology, 5: 563-582
  5. Behn, R. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5): 586-606 https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00322
  6. Berman, E. M., & West, J. P. (1998). Responsible risk-taking. Public Administration Review, 58(4): 346-352 https://doi.org/10.2307/977564
  7. Berry, F. S. (1994). Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic planning. Public Administration Review, 54(4): 322-330 https://doi.org/10.2307/977379
  8. Boschken, H. (1994). Organizational performance and multiple constituencies. Public Administration Review, 54(3): 308-14 https://doi.org/10.2307/976739
  9. Boyne, G. A. (2003). Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3): 367-394 https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug027
  10. Boyne, G. A., Meier, K., O'Tool, L. J. Jr., & Walker, R. M (2005). Where Next? Research Directions on Performance in Public Organizations. Journal of Public administration Research and Theory, 15(4): 633-639 https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui037
  11. Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 58(1): 109-122 https://doi.org/10.2307/976358
  12. Brewer, G. A. (2005). In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4): 505-527 https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui031
  13. Brewer, G. A., & Seldon, S. C. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agency. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4): 685-711 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024287
  14. Brudney, J. L., Herbert, F. T., & Wright, D. S. (1999). Reinventing government in the American states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review, 59(1): 19-30 https://doi.org/10.2307/977476
  15. Chun, Y., & Rainey, H. (2005). Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1): 1-30 https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui001
  16. Damanpour, F. (1988). Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process. Communication Research, 15: 545-567 https://doi.org/10.1177/009365088015005003
  17. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 555-590 https://doi.org/10.2307/256406
  18. Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag." Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 392-409 https://doi.org/10.2307/2393031
  19. Damanpour, F., Szabat, K., & Evan, W. M. (1989). The relationship between type of innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6): 587-601 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1989.tb00746.x
  20. Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 949-969 https://doi.org/10.2307/256718
  21. Dess, G., & Robinson, R. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 265-273 https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050306
  22. Donahue, A. K., Seldon, S. C., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Measuring government management capacity: A comparative analysis of city human resources management systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2): 381-411 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024274
  23. Druckman, D., Singer, J. E., & Van Cott, H. (Eds.). (1997). Enhancing organizational performance. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press
  24. Epstein, P. D. (1992). Measuring the performance of public services. In Public Productivity Handbook, ed. Holzer, M., p. 161-193. New York: Marcel Dekker
  25. Fischoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S., & Keney, R. (1981). Acceptable risk. New York: Cambridge University Press
  26. Garson, G. D. (2007). Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved 02/12/2007 from http://www2. chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm
  27. Gianakis, G., & Wang, X. (2000). Decentralization of the purchasing function in municipal government: A national survey. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 12(3): 421-440 https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-12-03-2000-B004
  28. Grindle, M. S., & Hilderbrand, M. E. (1995). Building sustainable capacity in the public sector: What can be done. Public Administration and Development, 15: 441-463 https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230150502
  29. Hage, J. T. (1999). Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 597-622 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.597
  30. Hage, J. T., & Aiken, M. (1967). Social change and organizational properties: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 72: 503-519 https://doi.org/10.1086/224380
  31. Hale, S. J. (1996). Achieving high performance in public organizations. In Handbook of public administration, J. L. Perry (ed.), 151-166. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
  32. Hartley, J., & Pike, A. (2005). Innovation in governance and public service. In Managing to improve public service. Hartley, J., & Pike, A. (Eds.). A report by the Advanced Institute of Management Research Public Service Fellows
  33. Heinrich, C. (2002). Outcome-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62(6): 712-725 https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00253
  34. Hennessey, J. T., Jr. (1998). Reinventing government: Does leadership make a difference? Public Administration Review, 58(6): 522-532 https://doi.org/10.2307/977579
  35. Holzer, M., & Callahan, K. (1998), Government at Work, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
  36. Ingraham, P. W. (2005). Performance: Promises to keep and miles to go. Public Administration Review, 65(4): 390-395 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00466.x
  37. Ingraham, P. W., Joyce, P. G., & Donahue, A. K. (2003). Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press
  38. Ingraham, P. W., & Kneedler, A. E. (2000). Dissecting the black box revisited: Characterizing government management capacity. In L. E. Lynn, Jr., (ed.), Models and methods for the empirical study of governance. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press
  39. Ingraham, P. W., & Moynihan, P. D. (2000). Evolving dimensions of performance from the CSRA to the present. In The future of merit: Twenty years after the Civil Service Reform Act, ed. Pfiffner, J. P. and Douglas A. Brook D. A, 103-126. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press
  40. Jobson, J. D., & Schneck, R. (1982). Constituent views of organizational effectiveness: Evidence from police organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 25: 25-46 https://doi.org/10.2307/256022
  41. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced score: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 1: 10
  42. Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 679-713
  43. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. The Gulfrod Press
  44. Lynn, L. E., Jr., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2): 233-261 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024269
  45. MacCrimmon, K.R., & Wehrung, D.A. (1986). Taking risks: The management of uncertainty, New York: The Free Press
  46. March, J. M., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11): 1404-1418 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1404
  47. Meier, K. (2000). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government, 4th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt
  48. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw Hill
  49. Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3): 421-439 https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui016
  50. Osborne, D. D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial government is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin
  51. Pandey, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. (2006). Exploring public sector communication performance: Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1): 37-51 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00554.x
  52. Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4): 325-335 https://doi.org/10.2307/3110115
  53. Popovich, M. G. (ed.). (1998). Creating high performance government organization. San Francisco: Jossey Bass
  54. Quinn, R. E., & Kimberly, J. R. (1984). Paradox, planning, and perseverance: Guidelines for managerial practice. In Managing organizational translations, Kimberly, J. R & Quinn, R. E (Eds.). Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin
  55. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Productivity Review, 5 (2): 122-140 https://doi.org/10.2307/3380029
  56. Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service ethic. American Review of Public Administration, 16(4): 288-302 https://doi.org/10.1177/027507408201600402
  57. Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals and individual roles. Administration & Society, 15(2): 207-242 https://doi.org/10.1177/009539978301500203
  58. Rainey, H. G. (1997). Understanding and managing public organizations 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
  59. Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1): 1-32 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024401
  60. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation. (4rd ed.). New York: The Free Press
  61. Seldon, S. C., & Sowa, J. E. (2004). Testing a multi-dimensional model of organizational performance: Prospects and problems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3): 395-416 https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh025
  62. Stone, D. C. (1981). Innovative organizations require innovative manager. Public Administration Review, 41(5): 507-513 https://doi.org/10.2307/976260
  63. Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 10: 1-20 https://doi.org/10.2307/2391646
  64. Van De Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32: 590-607 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
  65. Walker, R. M. (2004). Innovation and organizational performance: Evidence and a research agenda. AIM Research Working Paper Series, June 2, 2004
  66. Walker, R. M. (2005). Excellence, performance and innovation. In Managing to improve public service. Hartley, J. & Pike, A. (Eds.). A report by the Advanced Institute of Management Research Public Service Fellows
  67. Wang, X., & Berman, E. (2001). Hypotheses about performance measurement in counties: Findings from a survey. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3): 403-428 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003508
  68. Wolf, P. J. (1993). A case study of bureaucratic effectiveness in U.S. Cabinet agencies: Preliminary results. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(2): 161-181
  69. Wolf, P. J. (1997). Why must we reinvent the federal government? Putting historical developmental claims to the test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3): 353-388 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024354
  70. Wolfe, R. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 31: 405-431 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00624.x
  71. Wright, B. E. (2001). Public sector work motivation: Review of current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4): 559-586 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003515
  72. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley
  73. Zammuto, R. F., & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development, (5): 83-114
  74. Zammuto, R. F., & O'Connor, E. J. (1992). Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies' benefits: The roles of organization design and culture. Academy Management Review, 17(4): 701-444 https://doi.org/10.2307/258805