본 연구의 목적은 관료제 조직에서 전문가들이 과연 조직의 규칙이나 규율에 의존하지 않고 자신들이 스스로 업무를 통제하고 있는지의 여부와 관료제 조직에서 전문가들로 하여금 자신들의 업무를 수행토록 했을 때 구조적 배열이론, 직무할당 이론, 집단 배속 이론 중 ...

본 연구의 목적은 관료제 조직에서 전문가들이 과연 조직의 규칙이나 규율에 의존하지 않고 자신들이 스스로 업무를 통제하고 있는지의 여부와 관료제 조직에서 전문가들로 하여금 자신들의 업무를 수행토록 했을 때 구조적 배열이론, 직무할당 이론, 집단 배속 이론 중 어떤 이론에 근거하여 전문가들을 사용하는 것이 가장 바람직한가를 밝히고자 하였다. 이러한 목적을 달성하기 위하여 다음과 같은 가설들이 설정되었다. 첫째, 변수들간 관계 관점에서 전문가는 조직의 규칙이나 규율에 의존하지 않고 자신들 스스로 업무를 통제하며 일상적인 업무보다는 비일상적인 업무를 수행하므로 전문가로서의 특징을 많이 가진 구성원일수록 (예, 고학력자) 조직의 규칙이나 규율을 사용하는 정도가 낮을 것이고 자신들이 가지는 지식이나 기술에 의존하는 정도가 클 것이며, 자신들이 하고 있는 업무를 비일상적인 업무로 지각할 것이란 가설이 설정되었다. 둘째, 조직은 부서들로 이루어져 있으며, 부서는 집단들로 구성되고 집단은 개인구성원을 포함하고 있다. 만일 그렇다면 조직에서 전문가들은 조직의 위계구조와는 분리된 특정한 부서로 배치를 한 후 전문가들이 가지는 전문적인 지식과 기술을 사용하여 부서의 기능을 수행케 함과 동시에 이러한 부서에 속해있는 집단들의 관리자로 하여금 조직의 규칙이나 규율을 강요하게 하는 것이 아니라 전문가들에게 업무수행에 대한 권한을 위임케하고 동시에 이 부서에 속한 전문가들에게 비일상적이고 창의적인 업무를 할당함으로써 조직은 원하는 목표를 달성하게 된다. 그러므로 앞에서 언급한 세 가지 이론을 모두 통합해야만 전문가가 가지는 전문적인 지식과 기술을 사용할 수 있을 것이란 가설이 설정되었다.

이러한 가설을 검증하기 위하여 한 조직에서 138명의 관리자들과 43명의 부서장들을 샘플로 선정하였는바 이들의 평균나이는 34.25세(표준편차=5.68)이었고 평균재직기간은 12년(표준편차=7.45년) 인 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구에서 사용한 변수들 중 전문가로서의 특징은 응답자들이 전문가 협회에 등록되어 있는 수와 교육의 정도로 측정하였으며, 조직의 규칙과 규율의 의존정도는 업무를 수행하는데 있어서 조직이 정한 규칙과 규율에 의존하는 정도와 관리자가 구성원들의 업무수행정도를 주기적으로 체크하는 정도로 정의될 수 있는바 구성원들이 업무를 수행함에 있어서 조직이 정한 규칙과 규율에 어느 정도 의존하는가, 조직의 방침에 따라 업무를 수행하는 정도, 상사가 조직의 규칙과 규율, 방침을 강요하는 정도, 상사가 주기적으로 구성원의 업무수행성과를 체크하는 정도, 그리고 상사가 구성원의 업무수행을 어느 정도 결정하는가의 설문을 통하여 5점척도로 측정하였다. 또한 일상적인 업무수행정도는 구성원들이 수행하는 업무의 예외가능성, 반복성의 정도, 그리고 기계적으로 수행하는 정도로 측정하였다.

본 연구결과 본 연구에서 설정한 가설들이 뒷받침되었다. 첫째, 개인응답자들의 분석결과에 따르면 전문가로서의 특징은 조직의 규칙과 규율에 의존하는 정도와 일상적인 업무수행정도와 부(-)의 상관관계를 가지는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 같은 집단에 속한 구성원들의 응답을 집단평균한 값에 근거한 집단수준에서는 결과 역시 전문가로서의 특징이 조직의 규칙과 규율에 의존하는 정도와 일상적인 업무수행정도와 부(-)의 상관관계를 가지는 것으로 나타났으며, 같은 부서에 속한 집단들의 응답을 부서평균한 값에 근거한 부서수준에서의 결과 역시 전문가로서의 특징이 조직의 규칙과 규율에 의존하는 정도와 일상적인 업무수행정도와 부(-)의 상관관계를 가지는 것으로 나타났다.

이러한 연구결과는 개인수준에서의 변수들간의 관계가 집단수준에서의 변수들간의 관계를 반영하여 나타났으며, 집단수준의 결과 역시 부서수준에서의 결과를 반영하여 나타났다는 것을 보여준다. 다시 말하면 전문가들이 조직의 규칙이나 규율에 의존하지 않고 독자적으로 업무를 수행하는 것은 전문가들이 가지는 학력의 정도나 전문가협회에 등록된 수에만 달려 있는 것이 아니라 전문가들이 속해 있는 집단의 관리자들이 전문가들에게 권한을 위임했기 때문이며, 이러한 결과는 전문가들이 특정한 부서에 배치되었기 때문에 가능했다는 것을 보여준다.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate one way that organizations may maintain the relationships among professionalism, rule usage and mechanization at multiple levels of analysis. In this regard, the work of several authors, such as March and Sim ...

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate one way that organizations may maintain the relationships among professionalism, rule usage and mechanization at multiple levels of analysis. In this regard, the work of several authors, such as March and Simon (1958), Rusaw (1995), and Benveniste (1987) is helpful. They suggest that less routinized jobs involve discretion and that one would expect individuals in such jobs to rely on their professional training. In contrast, individuals in more routinized jobs should be more likely to rely on rule usage, because rules work well when tasks are predictable, unvaried, and well understood.
This suggests one way that organizations may deal with more or less professional individuals is to assign them to different jobs. For example, organizations may assign members with a doctoral degree to the more professional work and allow them to maintain the authority over their professional work; whereas organizations may assign nonprofessionals to the more routinized work and not allow them to control this work directly. This is largely an individual-level view.
In small organizations, it may be possible to assign special tasks to different and specialized professionals. However, as an organization？s size increases, it may become difficult to assign different jobs to different professionals. Therefore, a mainly individual difference approach fails to take into account the ways in which jobs and individuals are organized into supervisory work groups, which in turn are organized into departments or collectives. As Gouldner (1954) long ago pointed out, rules enable a supervisor to show that he or she is not using supervision on his or her behalf, but is merely translating demands that apply equally to all. One way to enhance a supervisor？s ability to treat all subordinates equally is to assign professionals to a different set of supervisors than those to whom nonprofessionals are assigned (e.g., Benveniste, 1987; Montagna, 1968; Scott, 1992).
Gouldner's (1954) view, however, implies that supervisors go beyond the group level and interpersonal relationships and rely on larger units of analysis (e.g., organizational or institutional level, see Bozeman & Rainey, 1998). Katz and Kahn (1978) suggest that organizations may create subsystems (departmentalization) in terms of their functions to the organization itself and society. Here the focus is on production, maintenance, support, and adaptive systems. One advantage of organizing collectives in this way is that supervisors can justify the demands they make of subordinates in terms of their function to society (see e.g., Courpasson, 2000). In this way both sets of individuals provide a function to society but differentially depending on the subsystem within which they embed. This functional perspective is similar to Wallace's (1995) adaptation thesis - i.e., most professionals in nonprofessional organizations work in departments that are clearly separate from the employing firm's hierarchical structure (P. 230); and these professionals have discretion and control over their professional works (see also Ibarra, 1999). From these perspectives, we hypothesized that the relationships among professionalism, rule usage and mechanization are expected to hold at the collective, work group, and individual levels of analysis, i.e., a three-level or multi-level effect.
The results showed negative relationships among the two measures of professionalism and the measures of rule usage and machine determination, as predicted in this study. The correlations at the individual level reduce to non-significant ones when the differences between groups are held constant. . Likewise, the significant group-level correlations reduce to non-significant ones when the differences between collectives are held constant.

Departmentalization in organizations is hypothesized to allow educated professionals to function freely of mechanized organizational rules, while at the same time allowing nonprofessionals to use mechanized organizational rules. We show how this colle ...

Departmentalization in organizations is hypothesized to allow educated professionals to function freely of mechanized organizational rules, while at the same time allowing nonprofessionals to use mechanized organizational rules. We show how this collective- (departmental)-level approach maintains the traditional inverse relationship between professionalism and the use of mechanized rules and how this relationship also applies at the group and person levels of analysis. The study presents results that replicate a set of previous findings for these ideas and extends this approach to multiple levels of analysis.

The results showed negative relationships among the two measures of professionalism and the measures of rule usage and machine determination, as predicted in this study. The correlations at the individual level reduce to non-significant ones when the ...

The results showed negative relationships among the two measures of professionalism and the measures of rule usage and machine determination, as predicted in this study. The correlations at the individual level reduce to non-significant ones when the differences between groups are held constant. . Likewise, the significant group-level correlations reduce to non-significant ones when the differences between collectives are held constant. In addition, the resdult suggests the appropriateness of aggregating the individual-level scores to the group level and finally to the collective level.
One particularly important aspect of these results is that the obtained correlations are based on differences between collectives. It is neither the sampling of individuals nor the sampling of groups that accounts for or explains the correlations. Rather, it is the sampling of different collectives. Although it is empirically an important issue, this finding raises significant theoretical issues about one way organizations may handle the conflict between professionalism and mechanization and rule usage.
The relationships among professionalism, rule usage and mechanization found in this study suggest that as mechanized organizational rules become less useful, professionals with their external referents become more useful. This suggests the general notion that as mechanized organizationally rule based jobs decrease, professionalized jobs become more prevalent. In other words, as jobs become less mechanized, organizations tend to rely on professionally trained individuals to accomplish tasks. The ross-level relationships showed that the same effects held at different levels of analysis. For two organizations, this cross-level effect suggests that individual self-reports should be viewed in terms of groups and collective processes simultaneously. Professionals gravitate to certain work groups that are themselves part of a larger collective. Supervisors manage other individuals depending on the collective within which they reside. These "individual difference" and "group-level" interpersonal processes, although of interest, are guided by the collective within which they embed.
Given the ubiquity in organizations of collectives within which groups and individuals embed, one can always ask whether individuals and group-level processes and collective-level processes underlie any set of obtained results. Undoubtedly, there are some variables that refer to solely the individual or the group. In the current study, however, for the variables of interest, the effects seem to refer to the collective level as expected based on theory. These results illustrate a way that organizations obtain an inverse relationship between professionalism and mechanized organizational rule while at the same time allowing more professionals and less professional individuals to perform according to their professional orientation (Abbott, 1988; Abernethy & Stoelwinder, 1995). It remains for future research not only to identify other ways that allow for the professional versus bureaucracy conflict but also to identify variables and relationships that apply multiple levels of analysis or only one level of analysis.