Korea Journal of Hospital Management (한국병원경영학회지)

Korean Society of Hospital Management (한국병원경영학회)
권호 표지

A Study on the Influence of Middle Managers' Leadership on Organizational Innovation in General Hospitals - Focused on the Moderating Effect of Employee's Readiness

병원중간관리자의 리더십과 조직혁신성 간의 관계에서 구성원 성숙도의 조절효과분석

  • Kim, Hee Rae (Dept. of Financial Management, GangNam Severance Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Young Hoon (Dept. of Healthcare Management, Eulji University) ;
  • Kim, Han Sung (Dept. of Healthcare Informatics, Korea Polytechnics) ;
  • Woo, Jung Sik (Dept. of Health Administration, Cheju Halla University)
  • 김희래 (강남세브란스병원 재무관재팀) ;
  • 김영훈 (을지대학교 의료경영학과) ;
  • 김한성 (한국폴리텍대학 서울강서캠퍼스 의료정보과) ;
  • 우정식 (제주한라대학교 보건행정과)
  • Received : 2016.02.15
  • Accepted : 2016.06.10
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The study was conducted to compare organizational innovation depending on the leadership type of middle managers in general hospital. Moreover, the study was also to prove whether employees'readiness causes any differences to the link between leadership and organizational innovation. The result is based on 769 sheets of survey paper answered by administrations and nurses working at general hospitals or the same level of hospitals located in the metropolitan area. The methods of analysis used are as follows: reliability analysis, frequency analysis, t-test, ANOVA, multiple regression analysis, and hierarchical regression analysis. Main results of the study can be summarized as below. First, by analyzing the influence of task-behavior leadership on organizational innovation, R squre on knowledge management which is organizational innovation factor was 12.5%, R squre on creativity was 9.1%, and R squre on innovation behavior was 10.3%. Regression model appeared to be statistically significant as well. Both task-behavior and relationship-behavior leadership have influence on organizational innovation and it is learned that relationship-behavior leadership has a bigger influence on all the organizational innovation factors. Second, moderating effect of the employee's readiness is examined in terms of the link between leadership and organizational innovation. As a result, the member's readiness had positive influence when it comes to the link between leadership and organizational innovation. Also, after verifying moderating effect of readiness (ability/willingness), this study shows that ability readiness has positive influence on the link between task-behavior(or relationship-behavior) leadership and creativity, and innovation behavior while willingness readiness positively influences the link between task-behavior(or relationship-behavior) leadership and creativity & innovation behavior. To summarize results of the study, this study shows that the members who possess high readiness also have high organizational innovation, which promises their positive role in a group.

Keywords

References

  1. Min J. Organizational Management. DaeYoung; 2014.
  2. Kim SH. A study on the effect of the leadershiip type of hospital middle management on organizational menbers' job satisfaction, organization immersion and turnover intention. Daegu: keimyung University; 2009.
  3. Ahn BJ. A study on the effect of leadership type of superiors on the organizational effectiveness and job performance. Seoul: Dongguk University; 2013.
  4. Dobbs, K. Plagued by turnover? Train your managers. Training 2000;37(8):62-66.
  5. Epitropaki O, Martin R. Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004;89(2):293-310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293
  6. Bin Ahmad KZ. Relationship between leader -.subordinate personality congruence and performance and satisfaction in the UK. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 2008;29(5):396 -411. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730810887012
  7. Nichols AL, Cottrell CA. What do people desire in their leaders? The role of leadership level on trait desirability. The Leadership Quarterly 2014;25(4): 711-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.001
  8. Yukl GA. Leadership in organizations. PEARSON; 2013.
  9. Hersey P, Blanchard KH. Management of organizational behavior : utilizing human resources. 6th Edition. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall; 1993.
  10. Kim g. Organizational Innovation. Korean Studies Information; 2011.
  11. Drucker P. Innovation and entrepreneurship : practice and principles. Harper Business Press, New York, 1993.
  12. Quinn JB. Managing innovation : controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review 1985;63(3):73-84.
  13. Davenport TH, Prusak L, Wilson JH. Who's bringing you hot ideas and how are you responding? Harvard Business Review 2003; 81(2):59-64.
  14. Abou-Zeid ES, Cheng Q. The effectiveness of innovation : a knowledge management approach. International Journal of Innovation Management 2004;8(3):261-274. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919604001052
  15. Becker SW, Whisler TL. The innovative organization : a selective view of current theory and research. Journal of Business; 1967, 462-469.
  16. Cumming TG, Huse EF. Organization Development and Change. 4thed. West Publishing(NY); 1989.
  17. Dunphy DC, Stace DA. Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizatioanl change : beyond the OD Model. Organization Studies 1988;9(3):317-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900302
  18. Jones G. Organization theory. New Jersey. Pearson education; 2010.
  19. Baek KB. Organizational Behavior Research. 9th. Changminsa; 2014.
  20. Alavi M, Leidner D. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly; 2001, 107-136.
  21. Redmond MR, Mumford MD, Teach R. Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 1993;55(1):120-151. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1027
  22. Scott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of innovative behavior : A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 1994;37(3):580-607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701
  23. Oldham GR, Cummings A. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal 1996;39(3):607-634. https://doi.org/10.2307/256657
  24. Mumford MD, Gustrafson SB. Creativity syndrome : integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin 1988;103(1):27-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27
  25. Zhou J, George JM. Awakening employee creativity : The role of leader emotional intelligence. The leadership quarterly 2003;14(4):545-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00051-1
  26. Kanter RM. When a thousand flowers bloom : structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. Entrepreneurship : the social science view; 2000, 167-210.
  27. Glass AJ, Saggi K. International technology transfer & the technology gap. Journal of development economics 1988;55(2):369-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(98)00041-8
  28. De Jong JP, Den Hartog DN. How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour. European Journal of innovation management 2007;10(1): 41-64. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710720546
  29. Stogdill RM, Coons AE. Leader Behavior. Its description and measurement, research monograph No. 88. Columbus. Bureau of Business Research. the Ohio State University; 1957.
  30. Filius R, De Jong JA, Roelofs EC. Knowledge management in the HRD office:a comparison of three cases. Journal of Workplace Learning 2000;12(7):286-295. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010353360
  31. Zhou J, George JM. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal 2001; 44(4):682-696. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069410
  32. Ettlie, JE, O'Keefe, RD. Innovative attitudes, values, and intertions in organizations[1]. Journal of Management Studies 1982;19(2):163-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1982.tb00066.x
  33. Krause DE. Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The leadership quarterly 2004; 15(1):79-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.006
  34. Lee HS. Marketing Survey. Jibhyunjae; 2012.
  35. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator varible distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, Strategic, Statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1986; 51(9):1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173