고성과 인적자원관리 시스템이 기업의 경영성과에 미치는 영향 = 프로파일 방식 적용을 통한 인과관계 규명

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The effects of human resource management (HRM) system on firm-level performance have been extensively examined since the early 1990s, and the effect sizes were reportedly very promising. Huselid and Becker (2000), based on their research using four national surveys over 2,000 firms, concluded that the effect of a one standard deviation change in the HPWPs is 10-20% of a firm`s market value. In addition, according to Combs et al.`s (2006) meta-analysis, the corrected effect size of the HPWPs on firm performance was .20, which means that a one standard deviation increase in the use of HPWPs translates, on average, to a 4.6 percentage-point increase in gross ROA. However, in many previous studies focusing on the level of system or bundle of HR practices, it has been implicitly assumed that the relationship between each high performance work practice (HPWP) and firm performance was positively linear, which means that the more intensively does each HPWP within the bundle get implemented, the better firm performance is expected. The assumption has been reflected in the way of researchers` calculating a high performance HR system index, in which the extents to which individual HPWPs are implemented in the workplace are additively summed up. However, this method is challenged by research findings that some motivation-enhancing HPWPs could have non-linear relationships with firm performance. Psychological research suggests that excessive rewards can result in a decline in individual performance. One mechanism that can produce a perverse relationship between motivation and performance is related to increased self-consciousness (Baumeister, 1984; Langer & Imber, 1979; requoted from Ariely et al., 2005). Increasing self-consciousness due to a strong cash incentive can cause people to consciously think about the task, shifting control from ``automatic`` to ``controlled`` processes that are less effective. Another mechanism by which increased motivation is also likely to have a negative effect on performance relates to a general focus of attention (Easterbrook, 1959; requoted from Ariely et al., 2005). Attentional focus can be detrimental for tasks that involve insight or creativity, since increased motivation tends to narrow individuals` focus of attention to the way they are accustomed to, although creativity and insight require drawing unusual connections between elements. McGraw & McCullers (1978) provided support for this mechanism by showing that the introduction of monetary rewards for tasks that involved problem-solving had detrimental effects on performance. In addition, large incentives intented to increase extrinsic motivation can do harm to intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Research examining pay dispersion also suggests that pay differences among employees in the same rank can generate both positive and negative effects within the workplace. With higher levels of pay dispersion, greater potential exists for employers to motivate employees through the use of financial rewards (Cadsby, Song & Tapon, 2007). However, pay dispersion also creates a potential for competition among employees to interfere with cooperation (Yang & Klaas, in press). Further, to the extent that the legitimacy of managerial judgments regarding individual performance remains questionable, greater pay dispersion has the potential to lead to higher levels of perceived inequity. Similarly, Shaw, Gupta & Delery (2002) found that pay dispersion among employees negatively affected organizational outcomes when there were high levels of interdependence and also when the firm lacked systematic means by which to measure employee contributions. Yang & Klaas (in press) also found that a horizontal pay dispersion practice has an inverted U-shaped relationship with firm performance among Korean firms. The above research findings tell that the additive way of creating a HPWP system index based on the assumption that the relationship between each HPWP

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 양혁승, "전략적 인적자원관리: 기존 연구결과 및 향후 연구과제 개관" 한국인사관리학회 26 (26): 2002

2 배종석, "인적자원관리와 조직성과에 대한 실증연구" 한국인사·조직학회 11 (11): 133-169, 2003

3 김기태, "인적자원관리와 조직 성과간의 관계에 관한 연구： 인적자원관리 성과로서 종업원 태도의 매개효과를 중심으로" 한국인사조직학회 16 (16): 115-157, 2008

4 송보화, "인적자원관리시스템과 조직성과의 연계에 대한실증적고찰-제조업을 중심으로" 한국경영학회 35 (35): 331-363, 2006

5 김재구, "인사관리시스템과 경영성과가 상호간에 미치는영향에 대한 연구-제조업 생산직을 중심으로" 한국인사관리학회 27 (27): 2003

6 정권택, "성과주의 인사시스템이 기업성과에 미치는 영향" 11 (11): 79-106, 2008

7 이정현, "고성과조직시스템의 효과와 영향요인" 17 (17): 1-38, 2007

8 신은종, "고성과작업시스템의 ‘고성과’는 무엇에 의해 결정되는가?:번들효과와 핵심 관행 탐색을 중심으로" 한국노사관계학회 19 (19): 43-69, 2009

9 이민우, "고성과 인적자원관리 시스템이 기업성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구: 다층분석 및 매개효과 검증을 중심으로" 한국직업능력개발원 11 (11): 215-236, 2008

10 Wright, P. M., "The relationship between HR practices and firm performance: Examining causal order" 58 (58): 409-446, 2005

11 Bloom, M., "The relation; ships among organizational context, pay dispersion, and managerial turnover" 45 (45): 33-42, 2002

12 Bloom,M, "The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations" 42 : 25-40, 1999

13 Birdi, K., "The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: A Longitudinal study" 61 (61): 467-501, 2008

14 Pfeffer,J, "The human equation: building profits by putting people first" Harvard Business School Press 1998

15 Ichniowski, C., "The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines" 87 (87): 291-313, 1997

16 Venkatraman,N, "The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward a verbal and statistical correspondence" 14 : 423-444, 1989

17 Kochan, T. A., "The Mutual Gains Enterprise: Forging a Winning Partnership among Labor, Management, and Government" Harvard Business School Press 1994

18 Huselid,M.A, "The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance" 38 (38): 635-672, 1995

19 Becker, B. E., "Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here" 32 (32): 898-925, 2006

20 Cadsby, C. B., "Sorting and incentive effects of pay for performance: An experimental investigation" 50 : 387-405, 2007

21 Lazear,E.P, "Performance pay and productivity In American Economic Review" American Economic Review 1346-1361, 2000

22 Shaw, J. D., "Pay dispersion and workforce performance: Moderating effects of incentives and interdependence" 23 : 491-512, 2002

23 Yang, H., "Pay dispersion and financial performance of the firm: Evidence from Korea"

24 Bae, J., "Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea:Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy" 43 : 502-517, 2000

25 Delery, J. E., "Modes of theorizing in strategic human resources management: Test of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions" 39 (39): 802-836, 1996

26 Huselid, M. A., "Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel estimates of the human resource-firm performance link" 35 (35): 400-422, 1996

27 Gerhart, B., "Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: how much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates" 53 : 803-834, 2000

28 Wright, P. M., "Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research" 54 : 875-901, 2001

29 Ariely, D., "Large Stakes and Big Mistakes. Working Paper" Federal Reserve Bank of Boston 2005

30 Collins, C. J., "Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms" 49 (49): 544-560, 2006

31 Becker, B. E., "Human resources and organizational performance: Progress and prospects" 39 (39): 779-801, 1996

32 Datta, D. K., "Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter" 48 : 135-145, 2005

33 Guest, D. E., "Human resource management and corporate performance in the UK" 41 (41): 291-314, 2003

34 Youndt, M. A, "Human resource configurations, intellectual capital, and organizational performance" 16 (16): 337-360, 2004

35 Becker,G.S, "Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education, 2nd Ed" University of Chicago Press 1975

36 Osterman,P, "How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it" 47 (47): 173-188, 1994

37 Combs, J., "How Much Do High-performance Work Practices Matter? A Meta-analysis of Their Effects on Organizational Performance" 59 (59): 501-528, 2006

38 Gratton,L, "Hot Spots" Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc 2007

39 Zatzick, C. D., "Highinvolvement management and workforce reduction: competitive advantage or disadvantage" 49 (49): 999-1015, 2006

40 Becker, B. E., "High performance work systems and firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications" 16 : 53-101, 1998

41 Guthrie,J.P, "High Involvement Work Practices, Turnover and Productivity: Evidence from New Zealand" 44 (44): 180-190, 2001

42 Doty, D. H., "Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories" 36 (36): 1196-1250, 1993

43 McGraw, K. O., "Evidence of a Detrimental Effect of Extrinsic Incentives on Breaking a Mental Set" XV : 285-294, 1979

44 Akerlof, G. A., "Efficiency Wage Model of the Labor Market" Cambridge University Press 1986

45 Campbell,C.M, "Do firms pay efficiency wages? Evidence with data at the firm level" 11 : 442-470, 1993

46 Williams, M. L., "Compensation system attributes and applicant pool characteristics" 35 : 571-595, 1992

47 Brown, M. P., "Compensation policy and organizational performance: The efficiency, operational, and financial implications of pay levels and pay structure" 46 (46): 752-762, 2003

48 Huselid, M. A., "Comment on measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates" 53 : 835-854, 2000

49 Deci, E. L., "A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation" 125 (125): 627-668, 1999