Journal of Agricultural Education and Human Resource Development (농업교육과 인적자원개발)

The Korean Society for Agricultural Education and Human Resource Development (한국농·산업교육학회)
권호 표지

The Effect of Individual and Organizational Learning Orientation Fit on Organizational Performance under Technical Turbulence

기술적 환경불확실성에 따른 개인과 조직 학습지향성 부합이 조직성과에 미치는 영향

Kim, Kang-Ho
김강호

  • Published : 20081200

⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between individual-organizational learning orientation fit and performance. The subjects for the study were 352 workers in 100PPM certified small and medium manufacturing enterprises. A survey questionnaire was used to measure the variables of this study. The questionnaire was composed of four sections, which were individual learning orientation, organizational learning orientation, performance, technical turbulence scale. The relationship between individual-organizational learning fit and performance was analyzed by Edwards' polynominal regression and responses surface methodology on the two group, separated high-aware group(N=62) and low-aware group(N=85) of the technical turbulence. The conclusions from this study on workers in small and medium manufacturing enterprises were as follows. First, the high-aware group of technical turbulence had higher individual and organizational learning orientation than the other group. Second, all of the individual and organizational learning orientation had positive relationship with performance if a group highly recognized technical turbulence. Third, individual-organizational learning orientation had significant relationship with performance only if a group highly recognized technical turbulence. Fourth, the more correspondent the learning orientation of individual and organization were, the higher performance the high-aware group showed. Based on the conclusions, several recommendations were made for the future research using polynominal regreesion and learning support system for improving enterprise performance.

이 연구의 목적은 기업 종사자가 인식하는 기술적 환경불확실성에 따라 개인 학습지향성과 조직 학습지향성의 부합이 조직성과에 미치는 영향을 구명하는데 있었다. 연구목적의 달성을 위해 제조업 분야 100PPM 인증을 받은 61개 기업 종사자 352명을 대상으로 수집된 자료를 분석에 활용하였다. 자료수집에 사용된 측정도구는 개인 학습지향성, 조직 학습지향성, 조직성과, 기술적 환경불확실성 척도로 구성된 질문지이었다. 개인 및 조직 학습지향성의 부합과 조직성과의 관계는 기술적 환경불확실성을 높게 인식하는 집단(N=62)과 낮게 인식하는 집단(N=85)으로 구분하여 Edwards의 다차항 회귀분석과 반응표면 방법을 활용하여 분석하였다. 주요 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 제조업 분야 종사자들의 경우 기술적 환경불확실성이 높은 집단이 낮은 집단에 비해 개인 학습지향성과 조직 학습지향성 모두 높게 인식한다. 둘째, 기술적 환경불확실성이 높은 경우 개인 학습지향성과 조직 학습지향성 모두 조직성과와 정적 상관이 있다. 셋째, 기술적 환경불확실성이 높은 경우 개인 학습지향성과 조직 학습지향성이 일치될수록 높은 조직성과를 나타낸다. 넷째, 기술적 환경불확실성이 높은 경우 개인 학습지향성과 조직 학습지향성이 높은 점수에서 일치할수록 높은 조직성과를 나타낸다. 또한, 연구결과에 터해 다차원회귀분석 활용 시 향후 연구에서 고려되어야 할 점, 그리고 성과 개선을 위한 기업내 학습지원에 대해 제언하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강소라, 김민수, 양희동. (2006). 업무-기술적합 영향에 대한 다차항 회귀분석과 반응표면 방법론적 접근: 그룹지원시스템의 경우. 경영정보학연구, 16(2), 47-67
  2. 김강호. (2008). 중소기업에서의 학습지향성, 학습행동, 조직환경 및 학습성과의 인과관계. 서울대학교대학원 박사학위논문.
  3. 김진모. (1997). 기업교육훈련 참가자의 개인 및 상황적 특성이 교육훈련 유효성에 미치는 영향. 평생교육학연구, 3(1), 217-253
  4. 김태기. (2004). 인적자원개발과 중소기업의 지배구조. 경제발전연구, 10(2), 321-342
  5. 김명형. (1996). 조직학습능력과 조직학습성과에 관한 연구. 고려대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.
  6. 나승일(역). (2006). 인간수행공학 가이드: 50가지 수행개선기법. 시그마프레스.
  7. 나승일, 김주섭, 김주일, 정연앙, 구자길, 김강호, 문세연. (2007). 국가직업능력표준 실용화를 위한 제도화 방안. 농업교육과 인적자원개발, 39(1), 191-215
  8. 나승일, 장석민, 정철영, 서우석, 김진모, 이성. (2004). 산업체 기초직업능력 표준과 활용방안. 한국산업인력공단.
  9. 박성환. (1995). 작업자의 다기능적 숙련화에 관한 이론적 고찰. 인사관리연구, 19, 345-371.
  10. 설현도. (2002). 조직의 학습지향성, 흡수능력과 지식창출. 고려대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.
  11. 성지영, 박원우, 윤석화. (2008). 개인-환경(조직, 상사, 동료) 적합성이 조직시민행동 및 개인성과에 미치는 영향과 공정성의 매개효과. 인사.조직연구, 16(2), 1-62.
  12. 이관표, 박형권. (2005). 호텔기업의 환경불확실성, 학습지향성, 조직성과의 관계에 관한 연구. 한국관광연구, 7(3), 7-26.
  13. 유태용, 현희정. (2003). 개인과 환경간 부합 연구에서 다차항 회귀분석과 반응표면 방법론의 적용. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 16(2), 1-19.
  14. 정철영, 서우석, 나승일, 송병국, 강경종. (2000). 직업기초능력 강화방안. 교육부.
  15. Baker, W. & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399274002
  16. Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flow. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 437-469 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00299
  17. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 26-48. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0063
  18. Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6
  19. Chaston, I., Badger, B., & Sadler-Smith, E. (1999). Organizational learning: Research issues and application in SME sector firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 5(4), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552559910293146
  20. Daft, R. L. & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295. https://doi.org/10.2307/258441
  21. Edmondson, A. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128-146. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.128.530
  22. Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  23. Edwards, J. (2008). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/256782
  24. Edwards, J. R. & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between perosn-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.). Perspectives on organizational fit. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  25. Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1108
  26. Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577-1613. https://doi.org/10.2307/256822
  27. Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientation and action control theory: Implications for industrial and organizational psychology, In C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International review of industrial and organizational psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
  28. Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organization. Organization Science, 5, 403-420. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.3.403
  29. French, J., Caplan, R., & Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanism of job stress and strain. New York: Willey.
  30. Jaworski, B. & Kohli, A. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251854
  31. Kelliher, F. & Henderson, J. B. (2006). A learning framework for the small business environment. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(7), 512-528. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590610704385
  32. Kim, D. H. (1993a). A framework and methodology for linking individual and organizational learning: Application in TQM and product development. unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  33. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement and implication. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
  34. Levitt, B. & March, J. G. (1988). Organisational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535
  35. Mavondo, F. T., Chimhanzi, J., & Stewart, J. (2005). Learning orientation and market orientation: Relationship with innovation, human resource practices and performance. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1235-1263. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560510623244
  36. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.