전략적 인적자원관리 분야의 대부분의 연구들은 고성과작업시스템이 기업내 독특한 인적자본과 사회적 자본을 개발하게 함으로써 경쟁우위의 원천이 될 수 있다고 주장한다. 그러나 이러한 보편론적 관점과 달리, 전략적 인적자원관리의 상황론적 관점은 조직상황에 따라 요구되는 인적자본과 사회적 자본의 특성이 달라질 수 있다고 파악하고 있다. 이러한 견해 차이는 고성과작업시스템의 상황적합성을 평가할 필요성을 제기한다. 이에 본 연구는 어떠한 조직 상황에서 기업들이 고성과작업시스템을 더욱 활용할 유인을 가지며, 어떠한 조직 상황에서 고성과작업시스템이 조직성과에 미치는 긍정적 효과가 더욱 증대될 수 있는 지를 실증 분석하였다. 구체적으로, 본 연구는 시장환경의 동태성, 경영전략, 경영자 철학, 기술 및 조직구조의 변화, 인력분포의 다양성이라는 다섯 가지 조직 상황요인들을 중심으로, 고성과작업시스템의 활용과 조직성과에 미치는 효과를 분석하고자 하였다. 국내 제조기업을 대상으로 한국 직업능력개발원에서 조사한 인적자본 기업패널 1차년도 조사 자료와 2차년도 조사 자료를 이용하여 일반 회귀분석을 실시한 결과, 다섯 가지 조직 상황요인들을 동시에 고려한 경우 경영자 철학, 기술 및 조직구조의 변화, 직군별 인력분포의 다양성만이 고성과작업시스템의 활용에 통계적으로 유의미한 관련성을 가지는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 조직 상황요인의 조절효과와 관련하여 시장환경의 동태성과 직군별 인력분포의 다양성의 조절효과가 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로 시장환경의 동태성과 직군별 인력분포의 다양성이 높은 집단에서는 고성과작업시스템의 정의 효과가 더욱 확대되는데 반해, 시장환경의 동태성과 직군별 인력분포의 다양성이 낮은 집단에서는 부의 효과를 가지는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 분석결과는 고성과작업시스템에 대한 상황론적 관점을 지지하는 경험적 증거를 제공한다. 이러한 분석결과에 근거하여 본 연구의 이론적 함의와 미래의 연구 방향에 대해 논의하였다.
Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) emphasizes the role of human recourses as a source of competitive advantage for the firm. SHRM scholars have noted that High Performance Work System (HPWS) can positively influence firm performance by helping the firm to develop distinctive human and social capital and reinforcing desirable employee behaviors within the firm (Huselid, 1995; Pfeffer, 1998). In this line, much SHRM research has been conducted to explore the antecedents and effects of HPWS on firm performance (Comb, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006).
While several scholars have taken the universalitistic approach to HPWS–which suggests that HPWS is always effective for every organization and every situation–, the proponents of contingency approach have argued that the use and effects of HPWS are influenced by a firm’s contextual factors, such as environmental dynamism, competitive strategy, management philosophy, technical/structural change, and workforce diversity. In order to reconcile this seemingly conflicting view, we examine the effects of the five contingent factors on the use of HPWS, and their moderating effects on the relationship between HPWS and firm performance. Specifically, we hypothesized that the use of HPWS would be positively related to dynamic environments, competitive strategies of prospectors and analyzers (vis-à-vis defenders), HR-valued management philosophy, continuous change of technologies and structures, and workforce diversity. We also hypothesized that the effects of HPWS on firm performance would be moderated by those organizational contexts.
To test these hypotheses, we analyzed the panel data collected by the Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training in 2005(t1), and 2007(t2). We measured HPWS as an index of 17 practices, following Huselid (1995). The HPWS index achieved high internal consistency (α =.84). Firm performance herein was defined as labor productivity measured as sales per an employee. Environmental dynamism was measured as a variance of sales for the previous three years (2005~2007). All of other independent variables indicating contextual factors were measured from survey items. Specifically, we created two dummy variables for prospector and analyzer strategies with a base category of defender strategy. The five-item scale of HR- valued management philosophies was developed and achieved high internal consistency (α =.85). Continuous change of technologies and structures of a firm was measured with five items, which achieved high internal consistency (α =.75). Finally, workforce diversity was defined as the heterogeneity of workforce composition in terms of jobs, education level, and ranks. Three variables indicating workforce diversity were computed with a Blau’s index.
Results from 253 large Korean manufacturing firms supported our hypotheses regarding the positive effects of managerial philosophy, continuous change of technologies and structures, and workforce diversity on the use of HPWS. With respect to moderating effects of contextual factors, our analyses of 192 firms supported the moderating effects of environmental dynamism and workforce diversity on the relationship between HPWS and firm performance.
These results provide several valuable implications. First, this study provides an evidence to support both universalistic and contingency approaches in that while HPWS has positive main effects on firm performance, its effects are also moderated by some contingent factors. However, more in-depth analysis of the moderating effects reveals that the relationship between HPWS and firm performance is greater in a strong situation, suggesting that contingency approach is more valid than universalistic approach. Second, our empirical study shows that when contextual fit of HPWS is evaluated on two alternative models (antecedents and moderators), the results are not consistent. It suggests that the concept of fit in SHRM research bears theoretical and methodological limitation (Delery, 1998) and thereby further research is required to theoretical development and empirical validation of contextual fit of HPWS. Finally, scholars have recently raised the issue of national or cultural difference in the use and effects of HPWS. However, the results of this study demonstrate that the main effects of HPWS do not vary with national difference in Korea.
We recognize that there are several limitations to this study. First, three contextual factors such as competitive strategies, HR-valued management philosophy and continuous change of technologies/structures were significant in partial models, but in a full model those effects proved to be insignificant. These inconsistent results may be due to the limitation of the panel data used for this study. Specifically, each competitive strategy was measured with one survey item, which might have different meanings across organizations and industries. Also as with technologies and structures, we used survey data gathered in different time period of t1 and t2. However, the survey items were not identical. It might cause inconsistent results. With regard to management philosophy, we have assumed that it cannot be easily changed and thus use the data measured in t1. Our empirical study also bears measurement errors. All survey items were collected from the key informants of the firm (one line manager or strategic partner) so that we could not evaluate interrater reliabilities. Finally, when we analyzed the effect of HPWS on firm performance, we used t1 data to measured HPWS and captured the increase of firm performance from t1 to t2. While this approach is one of the strength of this study, that also makes it difficult to infer the robust relationship. Because there is the possibility that HPWS measured in t1 might influence on the competitive strategies, HR-valued management philosophy, workforce heterogeneity, and change of technologies/structures, and that those contingent factors might also influence on HPWS measured in t2. Although we checked the endogeneity bias, the possibility of those factors’ influence on HPWS still exists.
A few of researchers have pointed out that cost is considered one of the main obstacles to adopt and utilize HPWS (Baron & Kreps, 1998). Following previous studies, however, the current research simply assumed that the benefit of HPWS conducive to longitudinal firm performance would outweigh the costs of designing and managing HPWS. To verify more robust effects of HPWS, future research should take into account of the costs and benefits of HPWS. In addition, the relationship between HPWS and firm performance could be better analyzed with potential latent variables (Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007). It would be necessary to scrutinize the unidentified moderating effects with mediators. Finally, while we have assumed the adoption and utilization of HPWS as a strategic choice of the firm, future research needs to explore the potential influence of institutional factors on HPWS.
