International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology

The International Promotion Agency of Culture Technology (국제문화기술진흥원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Relationship between Organizational Size and Performance in Public Management : Mediating Effect of Organizational Goal Ambiguity

  • Lee, Soochang (Department of Police Administration, Kyungwoon University) ;
  • Kim, Daechan (Byuckkang Liberal Arts School, Kyungwoon University)
  • Received : 2020.07.15
  • Accepted : 2020.08.18
  • Published : 2020.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is to corroborate the relationship between organizational size and performance in the Korean government context. Hence, this study aims to advance research on the relationship between organization size and performance by considering mediating variable: organizational goal ambiguity, which helps understand how organizational size affects organizational goal ambiguity in government and the organizational goal ambiguity has an influence on organizational performance. Bases on theoretical review, we assume that there is the inverted U-shaped relationship between the number of employees and budget size and organizational performance. From the results of path analysis, it shows that organizational size in the Korean government has a negative correlation, "a linear relationship", with organizational performance. Budget size has mediating variables, but the number of employees not. We try to suggest implications on the relationship between organizational size and performance in terms of theoretical perspectives in the context of the Korean government.

Keywords

References

  1. R. E., Miles & C.C., Snow, "Causes and Failure in Networked Organizations," California Management Review, July 1, pp. 53-72, 1992. doi: org/10.2307/41166703.
  2. G. A., Boyne, "Sources of Public Service Improvement: A Critical Review and Research Agenda," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 367-369, 2003. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mug027.
  3. C. S, Jung, "Navigating a Rough Terrain of Public Management: Examining the Relationship between Organizational Size and Effectiveness," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 663-686, 2013. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mus.
  4. G. A., Boyne, "What is Public Service Improvement?" Public Administration, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 211-227, 2003. doi: org/10.1111/1467-9299.00343.
  5. C. Pollitt, "Justification by Works or by Faith?" Evaluation, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 133-154, 1995. doi: org/10.1177/135638909500100202.
  6. R. Z., Gooding and J. A., Wagner, "A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship between Rise and Performance: The Productivity and Efficiency of Organizations and their Subunits," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 462-481, 1985. doi: EJ335697. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392692
  7. R. H., Hall and P. S., Tolbert, Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, 10th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.
  8. D. D., Baker & J. B., Cullen, "Administrative Reorganization and Configurational Context: The Contingent Effects of Age, Size, and Change in Size," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 1251-1277, 1993. doi: org/10.5465/256811.
  9. R. L., Daft, Essentials of Organizational Theory and Design, South-Western Thomson, Learning, 2003.
  10. P. M, Blau & R. A., Schoenherr, The Structure of Organizations, New York: Basic Books, 1971.
  11. P.M., Blau, "A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations," American Sociological Review, Vol. 35, No. pp. 201-218, 1970. doi: 10.2307/2093199.
  12. D. R., Dalton, W. D., Todor, M. J., Spendolini, G. J., Fielding, and L. W., Porter, "Organization Structure and Performance: A Critical Review," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 49-64, 1980. doi: 10.2307/257804.
  13. J. R., Kimberly, "Organizational Size and the Structuralist Perspective: A Review, Critique, and Proposal," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 571-597, 1976. doi: 10.2307/2391717.
  14. N. Gupta, "Some Alternative Definitions of Size," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 761-68, 1980. doi: org/10.5465/255562.
  15. P. M., Blau, "Interdependence and Hierarchy in Organizations," Social Science Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-24, 1972. doi: org/10.1016/0049-089X(72)90055-5.
  16. H. E., Aldrich, "Technology and Organizational Structure: A Reexamination of the Findings of the Aston Group," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 26-43, 1972. doi: 10.2307/2392089.
  17. A. H., Van De Ven, R. W., Rogers, J. P., Bechara and K. Sun, "Impact of Organizational Size & Alliance Formations on Perceived Organizational Performance", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.335-354, 2008. doi: 10.1002/job.511.
  18. J. Child, "Predicting and Understanding Organization Structure," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 168-185, 1973. doi: 10.2307/2392061.
  19. K. E., Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1979.
  20. J. Kirby, "Toward a Theory of High Performance, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83, No. 7, pp. 30-39, 2005.
  21. J. G., March & R. I., Sutton, "Organizational Performance as a Dependent Variable," Organization Science, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 698-706, 1997. doi: org/10.1287/orsc.8.6.698.
  22. R. L., Thorndike, Personnel Selection: Test and Measurement Techniques, New York, NY: Wiley, 1949.
  23. W. Martz, "Evaluating Organizational Performance: Rational, Natural, and Open System Models," American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 385-401, 2013. doi: org/10.1177/1098214013479151.
  24. B. S., Georgopoulos and A. S., Tannenbaum, "A Study of Organizational Effectiveness," American Sociological Review, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 534-540, 1957. doi: 10.2307/2089477.
  25. G. A., Brewer and S. C., Selden, "Why Elephants Gallop: Assessing and Predicting Organizational Performance in Federal Agencies," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 685-711, 2000. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024287.
  26. D. P., Forbes, "Measuring the Unmeasurable: Empirical Studies of Nonprofit Organization Effectiveness from 1977 to 1997," Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1998. doi: org/10.1177/0899764098272005.
  27. C. Ostroff, "The Relationship between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 6, pp. 963-674, 1992. doi: org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.963.
  28. K. S., Cameron, "Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness," Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 539-553, 1986. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.539.
  29. F. M., Scherer and D. Ross, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990.
  30. G. Brewer, "In the Eye of the Storm: Frontline Supervisors and Federal Agency Performance," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 505-527, 2005. doi: org/10.1093/jopart/mui031.
  31. J. Pfeffer and G. R., Salancik, The External Control of Organizations, New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1978.
  32. W. Niskanen, Bureaucracy and Representative Government, A Division of Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (U.S.A) and London (U.K), 1971.
  33. F. Damanpour, "Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 555-590, 1991. doi: 10.2307/256406.
  34. K, Imau, L. Keele, and D. Tingley, "A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis," Psychological Methods, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 309-234, 2010. doi: 10.1037/a0020761.
  35. Y. H., Chun and H. G., Rainey, "Goal Ambiguity in US Federal Agencies," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-30, 2005. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui001.
  36. C. S., Jung, "Organizational Goal Ambiguity and Performance: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Relationships," International Public Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 193-127, 2011. doi: org/10.1080/10967494.2011.589760.
  37. J. R., Rizzo, R. J., House, and S. I., Lirtzman, "Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 150-163, 1970. doi: 10.2307/2391486.
  38. J.A., Shantz, "Battling Parkinson's Law," Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 179, No. 9, p. 968, 2008. doi: org/10.1503/cmaj.081266.