본 연구는 인적자원관리가 조직의 성과와 어떻게 관련되어 있는지를 확인하기 위하여, 인적자원관리의 결과로 나타나는 산출물을 인적자원관리의 대상인 조직 구성원과 관련된 성과지표인 ‘인적자원관리 성과(HRM Outcome)’와 기업의 최종적인 성과지표인 ‘조직 성과(Organizational Outcome)’로 구분하고, 인적자원관리는 일차적으로 인적자원관리 성과에 직접 영향을 미치고, 인적자원관리 성과는 최종적으로 조직 성과에 영향을 미친다는 연구모형을 제시하였다. 이러한 이론적인 모형을 검정하기 위하여 한국직업능력개발원이 2005년 실시한 인적자본 기업패널 조사결과와 한국신용평가의 재무자료를 활용하였으며, 299개 제조업의 9,783명의 응답이 분석에 포함되었다. 연구결과 인적자원관리 제도 중 선발관리의 엄격성, 평가방법의 다양성, 교육훈련에 대한 투자, 그리고 보상수준 및 인센티브는 인적자원관리 성과에 영향을 미치며, 인적자원관리 성과는 조직의 성과에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 연구 결과를 바탕으로 이론적 및 실무적 시사점과 향후 연구 과제를 제시하였다.
Just as studies on the relationship between Human Resource Management (HRM) practices and firm performance by HR scholars have been expanding for the past twenty years, major criticisms have been addressed on the following issues. First, the outcome of HRM practice was mostly evaluated by financial measures. Second, the relationship between HRM practice and firm performance was investigated without providing sufficient explanation on the process how or why both are related. This paper aims to answer the two criticisms. Its main purpose is thus two-fold. First, the study measures firm performance from the employees’ perspective along with the financial aspect. As HRM is a system or practice that directly affects the attitudes, behaviors, and performance of employees, it is logical to see how HRM has an impact on employee attitudes and behaviors that we call ‘HRM outcome’ in contrast to the ‘organizational outcome’ that captures the financial performance at the firm level. Second, the study provides and tests a model that delves into the black box of HR, i.e., the way HRM contributes to the firm performance. We suggest that HRM influences firm performance mediated by HRM outcome that is measured by employees’ positive work attitudes. In other words, this model explains that HRM directly affects attitudes and behaviors of employees that, in turn, have a subsequent impact on firm performance. Based on the previous studies in strategic human resource management, we draw several hypotheses on the relationship between HRM practice and HRM outcome as follows; H 1-1. HRM practice that provides job security is positively related with employees’ positive attitudes. H 1-2. Selectivity in recruiting and employee selection is positively related with employees’ positive attitudes. H 1-3. HRM practice that adopts diverse evaluation methods is positively related with employees’ positive attitudes. H 1-4. Investment in employee training and development is positively related with employees’ positive attitudes. H 1-5. Amount of compensation and incentive are positively related with employees’ positive attitudes. From the theories and ample evidence in the field of organizational behavior and I/O Psychology, we draw several hypotheses on the relationships between HRM outcome and organizational outcome as follows; H 2-1. Employees’ positive attitudes are negatively related with employee turnover. H 2-2. Employees’ positive attitudes are positively related with firm performance. H 3. Employee turnover is negatively related with firm performance. To test the above mentioned hypotheses, we used Human Capital Corporate Panel Survey (HCCP) data collected by the Korean Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training (KRIVET) at 2005 and KISLINE data from the Korea Information Services(KIS). Company HRM practices and employee attitude data were selected from HCCP and firm performance data were from KISLINE. HCCP dataset consists of a corporate survey on corporation and business place and an employee survey on employees. Corporate survey includes external factors such as market and change of technology, management strategy, HRM, structure of manpower, and HRD. Employee survey includes participation in HRD of the management/production/service/core professional job, level of skillfulness, and the process of skill formation. HCCP 2005 data were collected from 14,000 employees of 454 Korean corporations. Data on HRM practice were collected in 2004, and data on HRM Outcome and firm performance were collected in 2005. To reduce any possible industry effect, we excluded companies of financial services and other services industry from the original dataset. Final sample is composed of 9,783 employees of 299 companies in manufacturing industries. Average number of employee responses in each company was 32.7. Among variables used, HRM outcome was measured by aggregating employees’ organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention. Firm performance was measured by sales volume per employees. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling technique. Result showed that selectivity in recruiting and selection (H 1-2), using multiple methods of performance appraisal (H1-3), investment in employee training and development (H 1-4), and amount of compensation and incentive (H 1-5), have significant effects on HRM outcome. In addition, HRM outcome showed significant relationships with organization-level turnover ratio (H 2-1), and sales volume per employee (H 2-2). We found that job security did not have an impact on HRM Outcome nor on firm performance. We also found that selectivity in recruiting practice has both direct and indirect effects on firm performance, whereas using multiple methods of performance appraisal, investment in employee training and development, and amount of compensation and incentive showed only indirect effect through HRM Outcome on firm performance. 2)3 Finally, we discussed theoretical and practical implications of this study and limitations. Future research directions were suggested including testing reverse causality between HRM practice and firm performance by using longitudinal data, and considering employee competency as HRM Outcome that mediate the relationship between HRM practice and firm performance.