본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

독재적 리더십과 구성원의 주도적 행동 : LMX의 매개역할 및 성장욕구 강도의 조절효과

Autocratic Leadership and Employee's Proactive Behavior - Mediating Role of LMX and Moderating Role of Growth Need Strength -

오동진|손승연|김헌
한국인적자원관리학회 (Korean Academy Of Human Resource Management)|2021.12|인적자원관리연구 (Journal of Human Resource Management Research)|제28권 제5호|pp. 69-88

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

LMXleader-member exchangeproactive behavior주도적 행동growth need strength독재적 리더십성장욕구 강도autocratic leadership
주제분류경영학

초록

리더의 행동은 부하, 즉 구성원들에게 긍정 또는 부정적 영향을 미칠 수밖에 없다. 그것은 리더가 가진 권력의 영향 때문일 것이다. 리더십 연구는 대부분 긍정적 측면에서의 리더십 효과를 탐구해왔다. 이는 리더십이라는 용어가 내포하는 긍정적인 뉘앙스 때문일 것이다. 그에 따라 각각 그 개념과 정의는 다르더라도 리더십의 여러 유형들은 구성원들의 직무태도, 직무성과 등 다수의 변수에 긍정적 영향을 준다는 많은 연구 증거들이 제시되었다. 그러나 최근 리더의 행동으로 인해 발생하는 부정적 영향, 즉 부정적 리더십에 대한 연구가 점차 증가하고 있는 추세다. Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad(2007)은 구성원 뿐 아니라 조직에도 손상을 가하는 리더의 부정적 행동을 파괴적 리더십 행동으로 정의하였다. 이후 다양한 형태의 부정적 리더십 유형이 제시되었는데, 독재적 리더십은 대표적인 부정적 리더십 유형 중 하나이다. 국외 연구들에 의하면, 독재적 리더십은 구성원의 의견을 무시하거나 의사결정과정에서 배제함으로써 구성원들에게 리더의 행위에 대한 부정적 감정을 유발시키고, 궁극적으로는 직무태도, 조직목표 달성에 대한 열정 등에 악영향을 초래하는 것으로 나타났다. 독재적 리더십의 부정적 영향을 밝히는 국외연구는 점차 증가하고 있으나, 국내의 연구 사례는 찾아보기 힘들다. 본 연구는 독재적 리더십이 LMX에 부정적 영향을 미치고, 이는 다시 부하의 주도적 행동을 떨어뜨린다는 것을 밝히고자 국내에서 수행된 실증연구다. 아울러 이 과정에서 구성원의 성장욕구 강도가 어떤 조절역할을 하는지를 살펴보았다. 공군 간부 272쌍을 대상으로 분석한 결과, 독재적 리더십은 LMX에 부적(-) 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났고, 이로 인해 주도적 행동이 저하되는 것으로 확인되었다. 또한 구성원의 성장욕구 강도가 높은 구성원일수록 독재적 리더십이 LMX에 미치는 부정적 효과가 더 강하게 나타났다. 본 연구는 주로 서구에서 행해진 독재적 리더십의 부정적 효과가 동양 문화권에서도 유효하게 나타난다는 것을 밝혔다. 구체적으로, 리더의 부정적 행동이 상사와 부하 간 관계의 질을 떨어뜨리며, 이는 다시 조직을 위한 구성원의 주도적 행동에 부정적 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 사실을 알아냄으로써, 조직 내에서 리더의 역할, 행동이 얼마나 중요한 영향을 미칠 수 있는가를 잘 보여주고 있다. 아울러 무한 경쟁 속에서 갈수록 중요해지고 있는 구성원의 주도적 행동을 장려하려면 조직의 경영진은 현장에서 어떠한 리더십을 강조하고 예방해야 하는지에 대한 시사점을 제공해주고 있다.

Abstract

This study began with the question of whether there is an indicator that can accurately measure the importance of the role of a leader in organizational life. Strictly speaking, the behavior of a leader is bound to have a positive or negative effect on his or her subordinates, that is, subordinates of the organization. It may be due to the influence of the power of the leader. Leadership research mostly studies the leadership effect in a positive aspect. It can be said that the term Leadership has a positive meaning. Although the concepts and definitions of leadership revealed through positive leadership behavior are different, many studies have suggested that they have a positive effect on a number of variables such as job attitude, job performance, and organizational performance of members. However, research on the negative effects of leaders' actions, that is, negative leadership, is increasing recently. It was revealed that the negative leadership type, named Destructive Leadership, negatively affects the job satisfaction of subordinates. Einarsen et al. (2007) defined leaders' destructive behavior as behavior that negatively affects not only members but also organizations, negatively affecting organizational goals, tasks, resources, effectiveness, motivation, and well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates. Several types of negative leadership behavior have been suggested, but this study intensively studied autocratic leadership. A number of previous studies have shown that autocratic leadership induces negative feelings for leaders' behaviors by ignoring subordinates' opinions or excluding them from the decision-making process, ultimately adversely affecting job attitudes and commitment for achieving organizational goals. This study is an empirical study conducted to clarify the mediating effect of the leader-member exchange(LMX) in the relationship between autocratic leadership and subordinate proactive behavior. As a result of analyzing 272 ROK Air Force officers and NCOs, it was found that autocratic leadership had a negative (-) relationship that negatively affected the leader-member exchange, and that the leader-member exchange mediated the negative effect of autocratic leadership on proactive behavior. In addition, the effect of controlling the relationship between autocratic leadership and leader-member exchange was also confirmed by the strength of the subordinates' growth needs. The higher growth need strength, the stronger the negative effect of autocratic leadership on the leader-member exchange. Through this study, it was confirmed that autocratic leadership undermines the leader-member exchange, and through this, subordinates engage in less proactive and non-participating behaviors. Research revealing the negative effects of autocratic leadership is increasing abroad, but there are few cases of empirical research on domestic cases. The results of this study show that leader's negative behavior can negatively affect the proactive behavior of subordinates for the organization are examples of how important leaders' roles and behaviors can have, and provide implications in many aspects.

참고문헌 (61)

  1. 김정식, "리더-구성원간 교환관계(LMX)의 질이 구성원들의 주도적 행동과 발언행동에 미치는 영향: 심리적 안정감의 매개역할을 중심으로", 경영학연구, 42(3), pp.613~643 (2013), 한국경영학회
  2. 이경근, "상사의 비인격적 감독이 부하의 교환관계지각 및 이직의도에 미치는 영향과 성격특성의 조절효과", 산업경제연구, 25(4), pp.2437~2461 (2012), 한국산업경제학회[DOI]
  3. 정유제, "리더의 감독행위가 리더-부하 교환관계(LMX)와 조직시민행동에 미치는 영향", 인적자원관리연구, 21(3), pp.357~379 (2014), 한국인적자원관리학회[DOI]
  4. 탁제운, "참여적 리더십이 목표몰입에 미치는 영향: 리더신뢰의 매개효과와 성장욕구강도의 조절효과를 중심으로", 경영교육연구, 32(6), pp.143~168 (2017), 한국경영교육학회[DOI]
  5. Aiken, L. S., "Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions" (1991), Sage
  6. Anand, S., "Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior : Contextual effects of leader power distance and group task interdependence", The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), pp.489~500 (2018)
  7. Arnold, H. J., "Methodological and substantive extensions to the job characteristics model of motivation", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25(2), pp.161~183 (1980)
  8. Aryee, S., "Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision : Test of a trickle-down model", Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), pp.191~201 (2007)
  9. Bateman, T. S., "The proactive component of organizational behavior", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), pp.103~118 (1993)
  10. Blau, P., "Power and exchange in social life" (1964), Wiley
  11. Caillier, J. G., "Testing the influence of autocratic leadership, and public service motivation on citizen ratings of an agency head's performance", Public Performance & Management Review, 43(4), pp.918~941 (2020)
  12. Chan, S. C., "The Janus face of paternalistic leaders : Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization-based self-esteem, and performance", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), pp.108~128 (2013)
  13. Chen, C. C., "The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology", pp.599~622 (2010), Oxford University Press
  14. Chukwusa, J., "Autocratic Leadership Style: Obstacle to Success in Academic Libraries", Library Philosophy and Practice, pp.1~ (2018)
  15. Decoster, S., "The mediating role of LMX between abusive supervision and work behaviors : A replication and extension", American Journal of Business, 29(1), pp.61~75 (2014)
  16. Crant, J. M., "Proactive Behavior in Organizations", Journal of Management, 26(3), pp.435~462 (2000)
  17. De Cremer, D., "Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice : The moderating effect of autocratic leadership", The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), pp.79~93 (2006)
  18. De Hoogh, A. H., "Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout", Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), pp.1058~1067 (2009)
  19. De Hoogh, A. H., "Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance", The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), pp.687~701 (2015)
  20. De Luque, M. S., "Unrequited profit : How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates perceptions of leadership and firm performance", Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), pp.626~654 (2008)
  21. Dépret, E., "Control Motivation and Social Cognition", pp.176~202 (1993), Springer
  22. Dunegan, K. J., "Examining the link between leader-member exchange and the subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators", Journal of Management, 18(1), pp.59~76 (1992)
  23. Edmondson, A. C., "Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches", pp.239~275 (2004), Russel Sage Foundation
  24. Einarsen, S., "Destructive leadership behaviour : A definition and conceptual model", The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), pp.207~216 (2007)
  25. Ferris, D. L., "Self-esteem and job performance : The moderating role of self-esteem contingencies", Personnel Psychology, 63(3), pp.561~593 (2010)
  26. Foels, R., "The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction : An integration", Small Group Research, 31(6), pp.676~701 (2000)
  27. Fried, Y., "The validity of the job characteristics model : A review and meta-analysis", Personnel Psychology, 40(2), pp.287~322 (1987)
  28. Gastil, J., "A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and autocratic leadership", Small Group Research, 25(3), pp.384~410 (1994)
  29. Gouldner, A. W., "The norm of reciprocity : A preliminary statement", American Sociological Review, 25, pp.161~178 (1960)
  30. Graen, G. B., "A field experimental test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity", Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), pp.484~491 (1986)
  31. Graen, G. B., "Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing", Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, pp.175~208 (1987)
  32. Graen, G. B., "Relationship-based approach to leadership : Development of leader-member exchange(LMX)theory of leadership over 25 years : Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective", The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp.219~247 (1995)
  33. Griffin, M. A., "A new model of work role performance : Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts", Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), pp.327~347 (2007)
  34. Hackman, J. R., "Development of the job diagnostic survey", Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), pp.159~170 (1975)
  35. Hackman, J. R., "Motivation through the design of work : Test of a theory", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), pp.250~279 (1976)
  36. Hackman, J. R., "Work Redesign" (1980), Addision-Wesley
  37. Hackman, J. R., "Effects of Changes in Job Characteristics on Work Attitudes and Behaviors : A Naturally Occurring Quasi-Experiment", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21(3), pp.289~304 (1978)
  38. Hair, J. R., Jr, "Multivariate data analysis" (2006), Prentice Hall
  39. Harms, P. D., "Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited : A review and agenda for future", The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), pp.105~122 (2018)
  40. Hu, L. T., "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives", Structural Equation Modeling : A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), pp.1~55 (1999)
  41. Johnson, R. E., "Getting to the core of core self evaluation : A review and recommendations", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), pp.391~413 (2008)
  42. Joo, B. K., "Employee creativity : The effects of perceived learning culture, leader–member exchange quality, job autonomy, and proactivity", Human Resource Development International, 17(3), pp.297~317 (2014)
  43. Lian, H., "Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), pp.41~52 (2012)
  44. Luthar, H. K., "Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership ability: Autocratic vs. democratic managers", Sex Roles, 35(5), pp.337~361 (1996)
  45. Nunnally, J. C., "Psychometric theory" (1994), McGraw-Hill
  46. Pellegrini, E. K., "Paternalistic leadership : A review and agenda for future research", Journal of Management, 34(3), pp.566~593 (2008)
  47. Podsakoff, P. M., "Common method biases in behavioral research : A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies", Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), pp.879~903 (2003)
  48. Preacher, K. J., "Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses : Theory, Method, and Prescriptions", Multivariates Behavioral Research, 42(1), pp.185~227 (2007)
  49. Rast III, D. E., "Self-uncertainty and support for autocratic leadership", Self and Identity, 12(6), pp.635~649 (2013)
  50. Scandura, T. A., "Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention", Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), pp.428~436 (1984)
  51. Scandura, T. A., "When managers decide not to decide autocratically : An investigation of leader–member exchange and decision influence", Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), pp.579~584 (1986)
  52. Schoel, C., "When autocratic leaders become an option-uncertainty and self-esteem predict implicit leadership preferences", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), pp.521~540 (2011)
  53. Shalley, G. E., "Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance", Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), pp.489~505 (2009)
  54. Smith, A. M., "An Examination of LMX : Accounting for leadership style, performance, and subordinate gratitude", Culminating Projects in Psychology, 2, pp.1~49 (2016)
  55. Thau, S., "How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance : An uncertainty management theory perspective", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), pp.79~92 (2009)
  56. Tyler, T. R., "A relational model of authority in groups", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, pp.115~191 (1992)
  57. Unsworth, K. L., "The New Workplace: A Guide to The Human Impact of Modern Working Practices", pp.175~196 (2003), John Wiley & Sons
  58. White, R., "Autocracy and democracy: An experimental inquiry" (1960), Harper Brothers
  59. Wulandari, G., "The effect of self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior toward knowledge sharing : The mediation role of abusive supervision", International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science(2147-4478), 10(4), pp.128~138 (2021)
  60. Xu, E., "Abusive supervision and work behaviors : The mediating role of LMX", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), pp.531~543 (2012)
  61. Zhang, Y., "Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China : A dual process model", The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), pp.25~36 (2015)

관련 논문AI추천

전제적 리더십이 과업성과와 창의성에 미치는 영향 - 심리적 주인의식의 매개역할 -박희태, 손승연, 양종호한국인적자원관리학회 · 인적자원관리연구2020 · 제27권 제5호리더의 감독행위가 리더-부하 교환관계(LMX)와 조직시민행동에 미치는 영향신석호, 이지영, 정유제한국인적자원관리학회 · 인적자원관리연구2014 · 제21권 제3호권위주의적 리더십이 과업성과에 미치는 영향 - 전반적 조직공정성의 조절효과와 내재적 동기부여의 매개효과 -강승민한국인적자원관리학회 · 인적자원관리연구2024 · 제31권 제1호상사의 역기능 리더십 행동, 선행요인 그리고 결과에 대한 질적 분석이희수, 임창현한국직업교육학회 · 직업교육연구2011 · 제30권 제4호전제적 리더십과 구성원의 일탈행동: 구성원 분노감의 매개효과와 인지적 재평가의 조절효과김동삼, 손승연, 편관서한국윤리경영학회 · 윤리경영연구2023 · 제23권 제2호LMX 질과 결과변수간의 구조적 관계와 권력유형의 조절효과강영순, 김희철한국상업경영학회 · 상업경영연구2008 · 제20권

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)

대인관계기술과 경력만족 관계에서 자기관리의 매개효과와 성별의 조절된 매개효과김경연, 지성호, 강영순pp. 1-22동료의 직무탐색행동이 구성원들의 이직의도에 미치는 영향 :외적 네트워크 행동과 동료성과의 조절효과를 중심으로전혜지, 조봉순, 최장호pp. 23-42기술기반 중소기업의 지각된 조직문화와 CEO의 변혁적 리더십이 혁신행동에 미치는 영향 : 개인-조직 적합성의 조절효과이주용, 권석균pp. 43-68팀 공유감이 팀 성과에 미치는 영향 :팀 응집성의 매개효과와 조직 지원 인식의 조절 효과이희옥, 정동섭pp. 89-106특수고용형태근로종사자와 프리랜서 노동의 취약성 분석과 정책적 개선 방향권순식pp. 107-132
원문 보기