상사의 행동이 구성원의 주도적 행동에 미치는 영향

학위논문 (박사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 경영학과, 2015. 8. 윤석화.As the work environments become increasingly dynamic and competitive, it is necessary for employees to perform more proactively in order to meet the challenging goals of organizations. Since the core elements of proactivity are self-initiated, change oriented, and future focused, a growing body of research found that proactive behaviors bring positive individual and organizational outcomes. Recognizing the importance of proactivity, the purpose of this study is to examine a comprehensive model of employees proactive behaviors in organizations. First, the study investigates how leaders empowering or directive behavior may impact followers proactive behaviors. Second, this study examines the mediating mechanisms of followers regulatory focus motivations between leaders empowering or directive behavior and followers proactive behaviors. Third, understanding the important situational conditions, this study selects situational contexts that may increase or decrease risks in engaging proactive behaviors. Organizational politics is examined as a critical boundary factorwhile, psychological safety is investigated as an enhancing factor in the relationship between regulatory focus motivation and proactive behaviors. Lastly, this study applies a higher-order structure concept of proactive behaviors. Among various proactive concepts, this study takes a behavior approach and examines a high-order concept of proactive behaviors rather than a single action which were categorized as proactive work behavior. Hypotheses for this dissertation were tested using data from 215 employee-supervisor dyads. Data were collected primarily through surveys distributed to employees and their direct supervisors located in South Korea. The results supported that empowering behavior shows a significant positive result on proactive behaviors after controlling for directive behavior. Similarly, directive behavior demonstrates a significant negative impact on proactive behaviors after controlling for empowering behavior. Also, the result demonstrated the positive relationship between empowering behavior and promotion focus motivation. Contrary to the prediction, the results did not support the mediating effects of regulatory focus motivations in the relationship between leader behaviors and proactive behaviors. Also the moderating effects of organizational politics and psychological safety in the relationship between regulatory focus motivations and proactive behaviors were not significant. The current findings have some important contributions to the existing literatures. First, the study contributes to proactivity literature by examining antecedents of proactive behaviors in a comprehensive way. Second, this study understands the importance of leader behaviors on followers proactive behaviors. Taking an integrative approach, this study adds insights to leadership literature by producing results on how two types of leader behaviors may affect employees proactive behaviors in one framework. Lastly, the study has adopted regulatory focus theory to deepen the understanding why individuals may perform challenging natures of proactive behaviors. The non-significant results of mediating effect have implied that regulatory focus may not be a linking mechanism between two types of leader behaviors and proactive behaviors. Despite its limitations of a cross-sectional design and limited variables, this study enriches the understanding of proactive behaviors by taking a comprehensive approach, examining two different types of leader behaviors, motivational factors, and situational factors in one framework. This study has revealed that it is not simply leader behavior but empowering behavior, per se, that promotes proactive behaviors in followerswhereas, directive behavior may discourage such challenging behaviors.CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1 I. Research Question ................................................................................................................. 1 II. Purposes of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7 III. Overview of Chapters ......................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................... 9 I. Proactivity .............................................................................................................................. 9 1. Overview of Proactivity .................................................................................................... 12 2. What is Proactive Behavior? ............................................................................................. 15 3. Literature Review ..............................................................................................................15 3.1 Antecedents of Proactive Behavior ...........................................................................16 3.1.1 Individual Characteristics ...................................................................................17 3.1.2 Task Characteristics ............................................................................................17 3.1.3 Leader Characteristics .........................................................................................17 3.1.4 Group and Organizational Characteristics ..........................................................18 3.2 Consequences of Proactive Behavior........................................................................ 31 3.3 Proactive Behavior in South Korea...........................................................................34 4. Summary ...........................................................................................................................35 II. Leader Behavior .................................................................................................................36 1. Overview of Leader Behavior ...........................................................................................36 2. Why Empowering Behavior versus Directive Behavior? .................................................. 40 3. Literature Review ..............................................................................................................43 3.1 Empowerment ...........................................................................................................43 3.2 Empowering Behavior ..............................................................................................45 3.3 Directive Behavior ....................................................................................................53 3.4 Empowering versus Directive Behavior ................................................................... 58 4. Summary ...........................................................................................................................61 III. Regulatory Focus Motivation ............................................................................................61 1. Overview of Regulatory Focus .........................................................................................62 2. Regulatory Focus and Other Similar Constructs ...............................................................63 3. Literature Review ..............................................................................................................66 3.1 Antecedents of Regulatory Focus ............................................................................. 66 3.2 Consequences of Regulatory Focus .......................................................................... 71 4. Summary ........................................................................................................................... 76 CHAPTER 3. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 78 I. Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................ 78 II. Hypothesis Development .................................................................................................... 80 1. Leader Behaviors and Followers Proactive Behaviors .................................................... 80 1.1 Empowering Behavior and Followers Proactive Behaviors .................................... 80 1.2 Directive Behavior and Followers Proactive Behaviors .......................................... 82 2. Regulatory Focus Motivation ........................................................................................... 83 2.1 Empowering Behavior and Promotion Focus Motivation ........................................ 83 2.2 Directive Behavior and Prevention Focus Motivation .............................................. 86 3. Situational Conditions ...................................................................................................... 88 3.1 Organizational Politics .............................................................................................. 88 3.2 Psychological Safety ................................................................................................. 93 CHAPTER 4. METHODS ......................................................................................................... 97 I. Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................. 97 II. Sample ................................................................................................................................ 99 III. Measures ......................................................................................................................... 100 1. Empowering Behavior .................................................................................................... 101 2. Directive Behavior ......................................................................................................... 101 3. Regulatory Focus Motivation ......................................................................................... 101 4. Proactive Behaviors........................................................................................................ 102 5. Situational Conditions .................................................................................................... 102 6. Control Variables ............................................................................................................ 103 IV. Analytical Procedures ...................................................................................................... 103 1. Preliminary Analyses Procedures ................................................................................... 103 2. Testing Hypotheses Procedures ...................................................................................... 104 CHAPTER 5. RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 105 I. Preliminary Analyses ......................................................................................................... 105 1. Discriminant Validity ..................................................................................................... 105 1.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis ................................................................................... 105 1.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ................................................................................. 109 2. Intercorrelations Among Study Variables ....................................................................... 110 II. Hypothesis Testing ........................................................................................................... 113 1. Leader Behaviors and Followers Proactive Behaviors .................................................. 113 2. Mediating Effects of Regulatory Focus Motivations ...................................................... 113 3. Moderating Effects of Organizational Politics and Psychological Safety ...................... 114 CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 120 I. Leader Behaviors and Followers Proactive Behavior ....................................................... 121 II. Mediating Effect of Regulatory Focus Motivations ......................................................... 122 III. Moderating Effect of Situational Conditions .................................................................. 126 IV. Post Hoc Analyses ........................................................................................................... 127 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 134 I. Summary of Major Findings .............................................................................................. 134 II. Implications ...................................................................................................................... 135 III. Limitations and Future Research ..................................................................................... 140 ....................................................................................................................... 142 ................................................................................................................... 164 .......................................................................................................... 172Docto

Supervisor Knowledge Sharing and Employee Knowledge Sharing: The Moderating Roles of Learning Goal Orientation and Affective Organizational Commitment

Recognizing the importance of knowledge sharing, this study adopted social learning and social exchange perspectives to understand when employees may engage in knowledge sharing. Using data collected from 192 employees in various South Korean organizations, the findings demonstrate that there is a positive relationship between supervisor knowledge sharing and employee knowledge sharing. As employees perceive a high level of supervisor knowledge sharing, they are likely to engage in knowledge sharing based on social learning and social exchange theories. Furthermore, the study explores the moderating effects of learning goal orientation and affective organizational commitment in the relationship between supervisor knowledge sharing and employee knowledge sharing. The result supports the hypothesis that the relationship between supervisor knowledge sharing and employee knowledge sharing is strengthened when there is a high level of affective organizational commitment. Employees who obtain valuable knowledge from their supervisors are likely to engage in knowledge sharing when they are emotionally attached to their organization. However, in contrast to the hypothesis, the positive relationship between supervisor knowledge sharing and employee knowledge sharing was stronger at the lower levels of learning goal orientation (LGO) than at the higher levels of LGO

What do we need for creativity? The interaction of perfectionism and overall justice on creativity

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold, applying an interactive perspective. First, the authors examine the effects of perfectionism, specifically self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism on creativity. Understanding the distinctive effects of two dimensions of perfectionism (Leonard and Harvey, 2008), the authors propose the positive effect of self-oriented perfectionism on creativity while the negative effect of socially prescribed perfectionism on creativity. Second, the authors explore the role of overall justice by examining the direct and interacting effects of the two dimensions of perfectionism on creativity. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using questionnaires distributed to employees and their direct supervisors located in South Korea. Hierarchal regression analyses were used to examine the main and moderating effects. Findings The authors’ results demonstrated that self-oriented perfectionism was positively related to employee’s creativity; while, socially prescribed perfectionism was not significantly related to employee’s creativity. Furthermore, the study examined the critical context factor of overall justice in determining individual creativity. The result demonstrated that the positive relationship between self-oriented perfectionism and creativity was stronger when overall justice is low rather than high in line with trait activation theory. Research limitations/implications A cross-sectional design may be a concern. Future research needs to take a more careful approach to avoid this potential problem. Originality/value This study enriches our understanding of the two domains of perfectionism (self-oriented and social prescribed perfectionism) and overall justice as critical factors for creativity. Applying an interactive perspective, this study demonstrated how perfectionism and overall justice play important roles in influencing employees’ creativity independently and jointly

Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support : A social exchange perspective

Knowledge sharing is essential for achieving sustainable competitive advantages for organizations. Yet, there is a paucity of studies examining how a supervisor’s behavior, particularly, abusive supervision may become a barrier of individuals’ knowledge sharing. Drawing on insights from social exchange theory, this study investigates the influence of abusive supervision on knowledge sharing, moderated by support from organization and coworker. Consistent with our hypotheses, abused employees do not share their knowledge, but the negative effect could be buffered when they perceive high organizational support. Implications and future research directions are discussed

Leader boundary-spanning behavior and creative behavior: the role of need for status and creative self-efficacy

© 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited.Purpose: The purpose of this research is to examine the positive relationship between leader's boundary-spanning behavior and employee creative behavior. Moreover, the research investigates a three-way effect by exploring leader's boundary-spanning behavior, need for status and creative self-efficacy on employee creative behavior. Design/methodology/approach: The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey involving 260 supervisor-subordinate dyads from various companies in South Korea. The research tests the hypotheses through a hierarchical regression analysis. Findings: The authors provided empirical evidence that leader's boundary-spanning behavior positively related to employee creative behavior. Moreover, the result demonstrated that the effect of leader's boundary-spanning behavior on creative behavior was the strongest in the context of high need for status and high creative self-efficacy. Research limitations/implications: The research contributes to the three streams of literature on boundary spanning, creativity, and leadership by exploring leaders' boundary-spanning behavior, employees' need for status, and employees' creative self-efficacy. Practical implications: The findings suggest that organizations should promote leaders' boundary-spanning behavior, thereby enhancing employees' creative behavior. Also, the study highlights the critical role of individual factors, such as the need for status and creative self-efficacy, and situational factors that determine the level of creative behavior. Originality/value: Integrating the componential model of creativity and the interactionist perspective of creativity, this research examines the positive influence of leaders' boundary-spanning behavior on creative behavior. Furthermore, the research exhibits how leader's boundary-spanning behavior, need for status and creative self-efficacy could develop creative conditions to promote employee creative behavior.N

Perfectionism, Interactional Justice and Job Performance: A Trait Activation Perspective

Drawing on trait activation theory, this research explores the intrapersonal consequences of perfectionism in the workplace by examining the relationships between self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and two distinct job performance dimensions, i.e., task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and the moderating role of interactional justice on these relationships. Using field data collected from 121 employee–supervisor dyads in South Korea, we found a unique and incremental predictive power of employee SOP on job performance, specifically task performance. Moreover, the results showed that the interaction effect of employee SOP and interactional justice on OCB was significant, such that the trait of SOP was activated to enhance OCB when interactional justice was low. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed

Perfectionism, Interactional Justice and Job Performance: A Trait Activation Perspective

Drawing on trait activation theory, this research explores the intrapersonal consequences of perfectionism in the workplace by examining the relationships between self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and two distinct job performance dimensions, i.e., task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and the moderating role of interactional justice on these relationships. Using field data collected from 121 employee–supervisor dyads in South Korea, we found a unique and incremental predictive power of employee SOP on job performance, specifically task performance. Moreover, the results showed that the interaction effect of employee SOP and interactional justice on OCB was significant, such that the trait of SOP was activated to enhance OCB when interactional justice was low. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed