연구성과물 검색 타이틀 이미지

HOME ICON HOME > Search by Achievements Type > Reports View

Reports Detailed Information
조직 변화 실행 과정에서 경영진의 설명 및 공정성 효과
Reports NRF is supported by Research Projects( 조직 변화 실행 과정에서 경영진의 설명 및 공정성 효과 | 2005 Year 신청요강 다운로드 PDF다운로드 | 최대정(고려대학교) ) data is submitted to the NRF Project Results
Researcher who has been awarded a research grant by Humanities and Social Studies Support Program of NRF has to submit an end product within 6 months(* depend on the form of business)
사업별 신청요강보기
  • Researchers have entered the information directly to the NRF of Korea research support system
Project Number H00011
Year(selected) 2005 Year
the present condition of Project 종료
State of proposition 재단승인
Completion Date 2007년 02월 27일
Year type 결과보고
Year(final report) 2007년
Research result report
  • Abstract
  • The present research aimed to investigate the effects of managerial explanation and fairness on organizational change implementation, and a total of four studies were performed. The present dissertation assumed that fairness plays a critical role in organizational change implementation, and that the effectiveness of the process is investigated by two effects: explanation effect and fairness effect. The author defined explanation effect as the influences of managerial explanations on fairness perception, and fairness effect as the influences of change fairness on innovative work behaviors of employees. For these two effects, I examined (a) the direct effect and boundary conditions of providing explanations, such as subjective uncertainty, social standing, and sensitivity to fairness, and (b) the mechanism of fairness effect, such that proposed and validated the mediation model of commitment to change in the relationship between fairness and innovative work behavior. The former was the main objectives of two experimental studies using a scenario method (total N=490), and the latter was of two surveys by online and offline methods (total N=630). The author investigated the direct effect of explanation provision and its two-way interactions, as well as three-way interactions in Study 1 (N=254), and replicated the previous findings in Study 2 (N=236). The hypothesized model of fairness ef-fect was tested in Study 3 (N=312), and cross-validated in Study 4 (N=318). The results are summarized as follows. First, the explanation effect was significant in all studies, and the effect tends to be more prominent in more uncertain contexts, for people with higher social standing, and for those who with lower sensitivity to fairness. Second, there were some significant two- and three-way interactions, such that uncertainty makes people more concerned about accountability, and such that people use cognitive strategies to reduce uncertainty by identifying with their groups and by anticipating the fairness of change based on the trustworthiness of authorities. Third, fairness, as expected, plays an important role in enhancing innovative work behaviors in organizations, and further it is mediated by normative commitment to change. These empirical results provide supportive evidences to the validity of normative model of fairness. Further, the author integrated the present findings, discussed the theoretical implications and limitations, and suggested for future research.
  • Research result and Utilization method
  • The present research was performed to apply the previous theoretical evidences to the contexts of organizational change, and its results can be summarized as follows.
    First of all, providing explanations enhanced recipients' fairness perceptions.
    Second, social standing information also affected the effectiveness of explanations (Hypothesis 2) only when standing was manipulated or measured by status. Briefly, the effects of standing-as-status on the explanation effects may not be the same as those of standing-as-inclusion. With related to this, future research should investigate whether individuals' concerns about self-enhancement such as self-interested motivations associated information conveyed by various types of explanations and contexts. Third, uncertainty enhanced the efficacy of explanations. This prediction was well supported in two studies. As suggested by Study 2 and 3, uncertainty increases accountability, and thereby makes people more susceptible to explanations.
    Fourth, it is more plausible that there is little evidence for two-way interaction of sensitivity to fairness and explanations is significant. Exceptionally, only in Study 2 was this hypothesized prediction supported, such that the form of interaction was the opposite of Hypothesis 4, such that higher sensitivity weakened the beneficiary effect of providing explanations.
    Fifth, taken all three-way interactions together, the results provided some supportive evidences on my hypotheses. Most robust finding of three-way interactions was that uncertainty weakened the impact of sensitivity on explanation effects. This indicates that willing to reduce uncertainty is so fundamental that when uncertain, impacts of individual differences such as sensitivity to fairness decrease.
    Sixth, uncertainty and social standing may jointly influence the explanation effects. Results of Study 4 suggest that standing-as-inclusion plays an important role to reduce uncertainty effects. From relational approach, included employees have been respected by one's manager or supervisor, and they consider an authority as trustworthy. This trustworthiness belief functions as substitutes for reducing uncertainty.
    Seventh, the results of Study 1 and 2 showed significant interactions among explanations, social standing-as-status and sensitivity to fairness. Interestingly, for low-status people, higher sensitivity weakened the beneficiary effect of reframe, even reframe decreased fairness perception.
    Eighth, the results of LISREL analyses in Study 3 and 4 indicated that change fairness and normative commitment to change may be important antecedents to innovative work behaviors (IWBs). Particularly, fairness directly influenced IWB, and did though normative commitment to change (CTC). Both affective and calculative CTCs, despite significantly increased by fairness, were not a significant mediator in two samples. This indicates that the process of perceiving fairness and thereby participating in the organizational changes may be a kind of normative processes.
    In conclusion, this study has presented fairness-oriented model for justice judgments associated with organizational change implementation. It integrates and extends previous research evidences by examining judgment processes and use processes. Future research may benefit from examining the other contextual and individual variables, and from investigating accountability and trustworthiness more explicitly. Furthermore, the present findings are necessary to integrated by such related variables and theories as leadership and individual creativity or organizational innovation.
    Despite of the present effort to develop heuristic frameworks for the organizational change and contribute to the success of change implementation, it is still needed to explore the underlying mechanisms of these hypothetical frameworks.
  • Index terms
  • Fairness, Justice, Organizational change, commitment, Managerial explanation,
  • List of digital content of this reports
데이터를 로딩중 입니다.
  • This document, it is necessary to display the original author and you do not have permission
    to use copyrighted material for-profit
  • In addition , it does not allow the change or secondary writings of work
데이터 이용 만족도
자료이용후 의견
트위터 페이스북
NRF Daejeon
(34113) 201, Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Korea
Tel: 82-42-869-6114 / Fax: 82-42-869-6777
NRF Seoul
(06792) 25, Heonreung-ro, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea
Tel: 82-2-3460-5500 / Fax: 82-2-3460-5759
KRM Help Center
Tel : 042-710-4360
E-mail : / Fax : 042-861-4380