최소 단어 이상 선택하여야 합니다.
최대 10 단어까지만 선택 가능합니다.
다음과 같은 기능을 한번의 로그인으로 사용 할 수 있습니다.
NTIS 바로가기한국산학기술학회논문지 = Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, v.21 no.4, 2020년, pp.145 - 155
유영삼 (호서대학교 산업심리학과) , 김명소 (호서대학교 산업심리학과) , 노소연 (호서대학교 산업심리학과)
Since Campbell (1990) proposed multidimensionality of job performance, unlike the single structure of traditional job performance, it has been largely classified as task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive work behavior. The objective of this study is to validate the threecrit...
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
핵심어 | 질문 | 논문에서 추출한 답변 |
---|---|---|
수행의 다차원성을 처음 체계화한 Campbell의 8요인에는 무엇이 있나? | 수행의 대표적 차원들을 기술하기 전에 수행의 다차원성을 처음으로 체계화한 Campbell 등(1993)의 8요인을 살펴볼 필요가 있겠다. 첫째 ‘직무-고유 숙련성’은 다른 직업 및 업무와는 구분되는 고유의 기술을 활용한 업무숙련도를 의미한다. 둘째 ‘직무-비고유 숙련성’은 모든 직업 및 조직에 보편적으로 요구하는 업무 숙련도를 나타낸다. 셋째 ‘문서/구두 의사소통’은 개인의 쓰고 말하는 능력을 의미한다. 넷째 ‘노력과 주도성’ 요인은 업무에 전념하며, 끈덕지고 열정적으로 업무에 임하는 정도를 의미한다. 다섯째 ‘개인적 규율’은 음주, 규칙 위반, 결근과 같은 부정적 행동을 삼가는 정도를 나타낸다. 여섯째 ‘동료 및 팀 수행 촉진’은 동료를 도우며, 동료의 자기계발을 지원하고 협력하는 것을 의미한다. 일곱째 ‘감독’은 상호작용을 통해 부하직원에게 영향을 미치는 능력을 나타낸다. 마지막 ‘관리/경영’은 조직목표 설정, 인력과 자원 배치, 모니터링, 비용관리 등과 같은 관리 기능 중 감독에 해당하지 않는 기능을 의미한다. 이러한 8요인 모델은 모든 직업의 잠재적 직무모형을 대략적으로 묘사한다는 강점으로 인해[5] 많은 수행 모형 연구의 이론적 근간이 되어 왔지만[14], 타당성에 대한 경험적 검증에는 한계가 드러나 정교화 과정의 필요성이 대두되었다[5]. | |
직무수행에 대한 전통적인 개념은 무엇인가? | 직무수행에 대한 전통적인 개념은 숙련성의 단일 측면을 강조하였고, 직무기술서에 기술된 조직의 목표 달성에 기여하는 모든 행동을 포함하였다[1]. 그러한 관점으로 인해 효과성 또한 명시된 직무 행동을 수행함으로써 얻게 되는 성과들을 통해 평가하였다[2]. | |
전통적인 수행 개념의 한계는? | 이후 상호 의존성이 증가하는 급변하는 산업 및 조직 환경 속에서 전통적인 수행 개념은 업무 체계가 상호의존적 환경에서의 효과성에 영향을 미치는 행동들을 다루지 않는다는 한계점[1][2]을 극복하기 위해 Campbell 등(1993)은 수행의 다차원성을 주장했고, 모든 직무에 공통적으로 해당하는 8요인 수행모델을 제안하였다[2]. |
Murphy, P. R & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing Work-Role Performance: Challenges for 21st Century Organizations and Employees. In D. R. Ilgen and E. D. Pulakos(eds.). The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. c1999. pp.325-365 ISBN: 978-0-787-94625-8
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. 35-69, ISBN-10: 1555424759
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P.(1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68:653-663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J.(1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. 71-98, ISBN-10: 1555424759
Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The Modeling and Assessment of Work Performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), pp. 47-74. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111427
Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Counterproductive work behaviors: Concepts, measurement, and nomological network. APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology, Vol. 1: Test Theory and Testing and Assessment in Industrial and Organizational Psychology., pp. 643-659. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/14047-035
Brogden, H. E., & Taylor, E. K. (1950). The Dollar Criterion? Applying the Cost Accounting Concept to Criterion Construction. Personnel Psychology, 3(2), pp. 133-154. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1950.tb01691.x
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2011). Applied psychology in human resource management (7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 67-69. ISBN-10: 0136090958
Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2011). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Career Outcomes. Journal of Management, 39(4), 958- 984. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407508
Bergman, M. E., Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., Overton, R. C., & Henning, J. B. (2008). Test of Motowidlo et al.'s (1997) theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 21(3), 227-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280802137606
Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, A. H. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 823-854. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01484.x
Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E. (2017). Variable-Centered, Person-Centered, and Person-Specific Approaches. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 846-876. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117744021
Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015). Emotional labor actors: A latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 863-879. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0037408
Cortina, J. M., & Luchman, J. N. (2012). Personnel Selection and Employee Performance. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212007
Campbell, J. P. (2012). Behavior, performance, and effectiveness in the twenty-first century. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. pp. 159-194. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0006
Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 570-581. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.570
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research. Human Performance, 10(2), pp. 99-109. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
Carpenter, N. C., & Arthur, W. Jr. (2013). The conceptual versus empirical distinctiveness of work performance constructs: The impact of work performance items. In D. Svyantek & K. Mahoney (Eds.), Received Wisdom, Kernels of Truth, and Boundary Conditions in Organizational Studies. Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC. pp. 201-238 ISBN-13: 9781623961893
Sonnentag, S., Volmer, J. & Spychala, A. (2008). Job performance. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior: Volume I - micro approaches. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. 427-448. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200448.n24
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Affect and Employee "Citizenship". Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2307/255908
Currall, S. C., & Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(2), 331. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2307/2393071
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theroetical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the Underlying Structure of the Citizenship Performance Domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 25-44. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-4822(99)00037-6
Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 965-973. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.96
Motowidlo, S. J., & Kell, H. J. (2012). Job Performance. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition. pp. 82-130. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212005
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., de Vet, H., & van der Beek, A. J. (2013). Construct validity of the individual work performance questionnaire. PsycEXTRA Dataset. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000113
Murphy, K. R. (1989). Dimensions of job performance. In R. F. Dillon & J. W. Pellegrino (Eds.), Testing: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Praeger Publishers. pp. 218-247. ISBN-10: 0275927598
Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic Work Behavior: An Investigation Into The Dimensions Of Entry-Level, Hourly Job Performance. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 51-83. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01791.x
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 581-595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.581
Lee, Michael C. Ashton, The H Factor of Personality Why Some People are Manipulative, Self-Entitled, Materialistic, and Exploitive-And Why It Matters for Everyone, Munyea, 2013, pp. 50-52, ISBN: 9788931007442
Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 945-959. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0013329
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the Dimensionality of Counterproductive Work Behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30-42. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00224
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2013). Structural equation modeling: Applications using mplus. Higher Education Press, N.J: Wiley. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118356258
Kim D Y, Yoo T Y. (2002). The relationships between the Big Five personality factors and contextual performance in work organizations, The Korean Psychological Association: Industrial & organizational, 15(2), 1-24, pp. 1-24, 2002, UCI: http://uci.or.kr/G704-000280.2002.15.2.005
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
Yoo T Y, Lee K B, Michael C. A. (2004). Psychometric Properties of the Korean Version of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. The Korean Psychological Association: Social & personality, 18(3), 61-75. UCI: http://uci.or.kr/G704-000424.2004.18.3.003
Hong S H, Binary and multinomial logistic regression, p.141, Education & Science, 2005, pp.117-139, ISBN: 8982874186
Geiser, C. (2013). Data analysis with Mplus. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.882697
Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 259-295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01138.x
*원문 PDF 파일 및 링크정보가 존재하지 않을 경우 KISTI DDS 시스템에서 제공하는 원문복사서비스를 사용할 수 있습니다.
출판사/학술단체 등이 한시적으로 특별한 프로모션 또는 일정기간 경과 후 접근을 허용하여, 출판사/학술단체 등의 사이트에서 이용 가능한 논문
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.