완충조직의 경계관리와 성공요인에 관한 연구

Abstract

근래 대다수 기업에서 공통적으로 신설되고 있는 ‘변화관리팀’, ‘조직문화팀’ 등으로 명명된 부서는 외부환경에 기민하게 적응하기 위한 전담부서라고 할 수 있다. 역동적인 기업환경의 충격을 완화·극복하는 역할이 부여된, 이러한 부서의 정체성 확립과 안착이 기업의 존속에 미치는 지대한 영향에도 불구하고 학문적 연구는 미진한 실정이다. 이에 본 연구는 완충조직이 효과적으로 자리매김하는 실제적 메커니즘을 설명하고 성공요인을 밝히는 목적으로 수행되었다. Q방법론과 CIT인터뷰를 접목한 탐색적 연구를 설계하여, 21개 기업을 대상으로 완충조직이 실제로 운영된 양식을 유형화하였다. 또한 완충조직이 다른 팀들의 경계를 다룬다는 임무의 특수성을 고려하여, 분석의 개념적 틀로서 경계관리이론을 적용하였다. 연구 결과, 완충조직의 운영양식은 세 가지 유형으로 분류되었다. 통·번역형은 기존의 조직 내 경계를 유지하면서 조직에 산재된 문제의 소재를 파악하고 해결하는 과정에서 통제와 모니터링을 주로 구사하는 경찰 및 감사 역할을 수행하였다. 앙트러프러너십형과 협상형은 기업 내 하부조직의 경계를 완화하여 고질적인 난제 또는 새로운 가치창출에 집중하는 유형이다. 기업 내 경계를 가장 느슨하게 관리하는 앙트러프러너십형은 공유할 가치와 비전이 성공적으로 구축되어야 효과적이고, 협상형은 부서 간 경계에 위치한 문제를 해결하는 데 몰입할 수 있도록 협력적인 신뢰가 조성되어야 성공확률이 높았다. 본 연구에서 도출된 유형을 토대로 완충조직을 차별적으로 이해한다면, 기업에서 신설된 이들 조직의 정상화 과정을 성공적으로 앞당길 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 완충조직의 효과적 운용에 발전적 시사점을 제시할 것으로 기대한다. In response to increased turbulence of work environment, many firms have generated the new team like change management team, organizational culture team, organizational change team, and etc. These marginal teams have the common mission to buffer against environmental impacts. So these marginal teams have such different characteristics from general team-based restructuring for promoting team and organizational effectiveness. They deserve the academic and practical attention from the perspective of their activities focused more on inter-team than intra-team and the importance of organizational change in the firms. The purpose of this study is to seek operating mechanism and success factors of the marginal teams drawing on team boundary activities. This study was progressed by combining Q methodology with Critical Incident Technique. Q methodology is a research technique applying statistical analysis to the qualitative study of respondents`` subjective opinions, perceptions, feelings and beliefs. Critical Incident Technique is an effective tool to grasp the critical requirements for job success from individual cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements. This combined methodology could contribute to investigate how the marginal team operates with a more holistic view of boundary spanning activities. A total 35 statements were selected as Q sample through reviewing the existing team boundary spanning literature and interviewing for the purpose of deriving the activities executed in marginal team from interviews. P sample consisted of 21 senior employees in the marginal team from Korean firms, which refers to the participants in the Q study. After administering the Q sort (rank ordering of 35 statements), we conducted factor analysis and interpreted why and how the behaviors related the statements are carried out by the focal teams. This research discovered three factors in boundary activities. Factor 1 is the Translator style that emphasized the function as audit or police which detects and improves the problems in the firm. Translator style was intended to understand the opinions of top management and simply execute following those. They believed that the problem solving activities could forge organizational performance in short term. However, the activities limited to intrateam without interteam approach would cultivate commitment to not novel task but common task. Factor 2 is the Entrepreneur Style that has concerns about interteam renewal. They managed to develop new values or new opportunities rather than negative problems in interteam boundaries. Beyond resolving the problems in boundaries, this style encouraged employees to create new identities by transforming the boundaries. The significant antecedent for success in this style was creating shared vision that could loosen rigid borders between teams. Factor 3 is the Negotiator Style that regards connection and coordination between teams. Both Entrepreneur style and Negotiator style tried commonly to search information and build cooperative relationship on interteam boundaries. By the way, Entrepreneur style concentrated to create new opportunity but Negotiator style focused on solving the existing problem collectively. The former could transform interteam boundaries but the latter was inclinable to maintain them. When Negotiator style was successful, the existing intractable problems may be resolved between teams. It was most important for success in this style that an amicable settlement must be reached. Regarding boundary spanning activities in the marginal team context, our findings suggested herein three distinctive style and each success elements. They could contribute not only to broaden our understanding the role and success of the marginal team but also to help organizations to achieve organizational adaptability in changing business environment. Furthermore limitations and propositions for further research on boundary spanning activities of the marginal team are discussed.