Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Empirical Study on the Relationships between Leader Supervisory Style, Psychological Contract Breach and Employee Resistance in the convergence age

융·복합 시대의 리더 감독 유형, 심리적 계약위반과 종업원 저항에 관한 실증적 연구

  • Kim, Yuen-Kyu (Dept. of Business School, Kumoh National Institute of Technology) ;
  • So, Byung-Sam (Dept. of Business School, Kumoh National Institute of Technology) ;
  • Lee, Sun-Kyu (Dept. of Business School, Kumoh National Institute of Technology) ;
  • Kang, Eun-Gu (Dept. of Business School, Kumoh National Institute of Technology) ;
  • Cho, You-Jin (Dept. of Business School, Kumoh National Institute of Technology)
  • 김연규 (금오공과대학교 경영학과) ;
  • 소병삼 (금오공과대학교 경영학과) ;
  • 이선규 (금오공과대학교 경영학과) ;
  • 강은구 (금오공과대학교 경영학과) ;
  • 조유진 (금오공과대학교 경영학과)
  • Received : 2015.08.11
  • Accepted : 2015.10.20
  • Published : 2015.10.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this paper, we study the conflict management plan of the organization in the age of convergence. More specifically, we reveal the impact of the conflict according to behavior of the leader. To this purpose, The behavior of the leader were classified as Supportive Leader and Controlled Leader, and forms of Resistance wert classified as Functional Resistance and Dysfunctional Resistance that results of the conflict. Also, Psychological Contract Violation and Breach was set up as a mediate variable. The results were as follows. First, When employee resistance comes up in the organization, Support behavior of Leaders leads to desirable changes in the organization through the functional and constructive resistance. In contrast, Controlled behavior of Leaders leads the destructive and dysfunctional resistance of employee. Second, Since the perception that the follower is receiving assistance to leaders, it reduces the perception of psychological contract violation, but Controlled leader is largely perceived as the Psychological Contract Violation to the followers. Third, Supportive Leader is not influence the affect of employee, and They resolve the Conflict in objective and positive way. Therefore, the results of this study have many theoretical and practical implications.

본 연구는 융 복합 시대에 조직에서 빈번히 발생하는 갈등관리 방안을 다루며, 특히 리더 감독 유형에 따른 종업원의 저항을 밝히고자 한다. 이를 위해, 리더 감독 유형을 지원적 리더와 통제적 리더로 분류하였으며, 갈등의 결과로써 나타나는 종업원 저항행위도 기능적 저항과 역기능적 저항으로 분류하였다. 또한, 심리적 계약위반을 정서와 인지 차원으로 구분하여, 매개효과를 분석하고자 하였다. 분석 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 지원적 리더 행위는 조직 내에서 발생하는 갈등의 결과를 기능적 저항으로 이끌어 내며, 반면에 통제적 리더 행위는 갈등의 결과를 역기능적 저항으로 발생시킨다. 둘째, 지원적 리더 행위는 종업원에게 정서차원의 심리적 계약 위반을 덜 인식하게 하지만, 통제적 리더는 심리적 계약 위반을 인식하게 하는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 지원적 리더는 조직 내의 갈등을 긍정적인 방향으로 해결하여, 종업원으로 하여금 조직내 갈등을 인식하지 못하게 하는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 이론적 실무적으로 기여하는 바가 클 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men. S, 222-236.
  2. Bretz, R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of management, 18(2), 321-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800206
  3. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19(2), 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
  4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(6), 1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024
  5. Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of applied psychology, 74(4), 580.) https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580
  6. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and furtherdevelopment. Academy of Management Review. 11: 618--634
  7. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining andsocial support in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45,331-351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069350
  8. Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638-652. https://doi.org/10.2307/256490
  9. Graen, George B., & Mary Uhl-Bien. "Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective." The leadership quarterly 6.2 (1995): 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
  10. Janis, Irving L. "Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes." (1972).
  11. Kickul, Jill, & Scott W. Lester. "Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior." Journal of business and psychology 16.2 (2001): 191-217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011105132252
  12. Levinson, Harry, et al. "Men, management, and mental health." (1962).
  13. Milgram. S (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
  14. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 607-634. https://doi.org/10.2307/256657
  15. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of management Review, 22(1), 226-256. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9707180265
  16. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of organizational Behavior, 21(5), 525-546. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::AID-JOB40>3.0.CO;2-T
  17. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of organizational behavior, 16(3), 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160309
  18. Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 819-830. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819
  19. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative science quarterly, 574-599.
  20. Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of management Journal, 37(1), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/256773
  21. Rousseau, D M, & McLean Parks, J M (1993). The contracts of individuals and organisations. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 15, 1-43.
  22. Rousseau D. M. 1990. New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: a study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior 11: 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030110506
  23. Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. Cooper & D. Rousseau(Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior, (Vol 1, pp. 91-109). Wiley: New York
  24. Suazo (2009), "The mediating role of psychological contract violation on the relations between psychological contract breach and work-related attitudes and behaviors", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 Iss: 2, pp.136 - 160. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910928856
  25. Tepper, J. E., O'Connell, M. J., Niedzwiecki, D., Hollis, D., Compton, C., Benson, A. B., ... & Mayer, R. J. (2001). Impact of number of nodes retrieved on outcome in patients with rectal cancer. Journal of clinical oncology, 19(1), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.1.157
  26. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812
  27. Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M. K. (2007). Being ethical when the boss is not. Organizational Dynamics, 36(2), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.03.006
  28. Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900102