국방개혁 2.0 시대 군 조직의 혁신성에 대한 고찰: 조직양면성(Organizational Ambidexterity)을 중심으로 = Research on Innovativeness of Military Organizations in the Period of Defense Reform 2.0: Focusing on Organizational Ambidexterity

국문 초록 (Abstract)

최근의 국방환경은 우리 군이 효율성을 강화함과 동시에 창의적이고 혁신적인 조직이 되도록 요구하고 있다. 본 연구는 효율성을 추구하는 활동(활용)과 창의적 혁신을 추구하는 활동(탐험) 기저에 내포된 모순에 대해 알아보고, 국방력을 지속적으로 강화, 발전시키기 위해 군 조직의 조직양면성(organizational ambidexterity)을 강화해야 함을 강조하고자 하였다. 나아가 본 연구는 임무특성이 다른 공군 3개 부대를 표본으로 선정하고 문화적 맥락을 나타내는 경쟁가치모형과 활용 및 탐험 활동을 바탕으로 조직양면성 현황을 탐색적으로 점검해 보았다. 분석결과, 표본 부대들의 전반적 조직문화는 ‘협력적 위계문화’로 나타났으며, 맥락적 양면성과 부대별 임무특성에 따른 구조적 양면성(수평적 분리)은 확인되지 않았다. 부서장의 양면적 리더십 특성은 구성원들의 활용과 탐험 활동의 균형을 촉진하고 부서 성과 인식에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로, 연구결과를 바탕으로 실무적 시사점과 조직발전을 위한 제언을 제시하였다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently complex and dynamic environments require military organizations to strengthen not only efficiency but also creativity and innovativeness. The present study focuses on the potential conflict that may arise from pursuing these two required properties within military organizations. Researchers argue that the heterogeneity of organizational contexts relevant for efficiency activities (exploitation) and innovative activities (exploration) would underlie the potential conflict and suggest that organizations need to establish ambidexterity in order to solve the conflict and to ensure the continuous development. Drawing on these arguments, the present study conducted an exploratory investigation to diagnose the status of ambidexterity in military organizations with the data collected from three Air Force units. Results indicate that Air Force organizations are, in general, characterized as a collaborative-hierarchical culture. Structural separation of the organizational contexts between units was not found, meaning that Air Force units are likely to have homogeneous contexts regardless of their heterogeneous roles. Moreover, results show that organizational members’ ambidextrous behaviors can be facilitated by paradoxical leadership of work group supervisors.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 허문구, "통합 기제로서의 사회적 자본: 분리된 활용과 탐험 조직 간 통합을 중심으로" 한국인사조직학회 23 (23): 171-201, 2015
• 2 이철기, "탐험학습 및 활용학습과 조직성과의 관계" 한국직업능력개발원 15 (15): 1-23, 2012
• 3 이내주, "전쟁과 무기의 세계사 : 전쟁을 승리로 이끈 무기의 비밀" 채륜서 2017
• 4 윤만호, "장수기업의 조건"
• 5 통계청, "장래인구추계"
• 6 장용선, "양면성 조직의 조직문화 연구" 한국인사조직학회 19 (19): 169-200, 2011
• 7 조성식, "양면성 조직의 리더십과 조직문화 - 경쟁가치모형을 기반으로 -" 한국인적자원관리학회 20 (20): 15-38, 2013
• 8 장용선, "양면성 조직문화의 상황 조건 연구" 한국인적자원관리학회 21 (21): 63-82, 2014
• 9 이동수, "모순적 리더십과 조직문화 : 경쟁가치와 양면성" 계명대 출판부 2015
• 10 윤세준, "모순관리 - 개념적 틀과 실현조건 -" 경영연구소 34 (34): 3-42, 1997
• 11 최병순, "군 지휘관의 리더십 역량에 관한 연구 : 한국형 리더십 역량모형을 중심으로" 국가안전보장문제연구소 52 (52): 99-125, 2009
• 12 국방일보, "국방개혁, 개선·발전 넘어 환골탈태를"
• 13 최병욱, "국방개혁 추진, 어떻게 해야 하나?: 탈 냉전시대 미 육군의 개혁사례와 교훈" 한국국방연구원 35 (35): 121-143, 2019
• 14 박상언, "경쟁가치 리더십과 양면성: 팀 양면성의 선행조건과 결과에 대한 실증연구" 한국인사조직학회 22 (22): 203-242, 2014
• 15 Kauppila, O. P, "The social‐cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behaviour and the supportive role of group managers’leadership" 53 (53): 1019-1044, 2016
• 16 Levinthal, D. A, "The myopia of learning" 14 : 95-112, 1993
• 17 Duncan, R. B, "The management of organization,vol. 1" North-Holland 167-188, 1976
• 18 Gibson, C. B, "The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity" 47 (47): 209-226, 2004
• 19 Soeters, J, "The Viability of Human Security" Amsterdam UP 2008
• 20 Galvin, T. P, "The Challenge of the Paradoxical Vision: Innovating Where No Solution Seems Possible" 16 (16): 1-8, 2016
• 21 Hannan, M. T, "Structural inertia and organizational change" 49 (49): 149-164, 1984
• 22 Boyne, G. A, "Public and private management: what’s the difference?" 39 (39): 97-122, 2002
• 23 Lewis, M. W, "Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility" 56 (56): 58-77, 2014
• 24 Lavine, M, "Paradoxical leadership and the competing values framework" 50 (50): 189-205, 2014
• 25 Zhang, Y, "Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences" 58 (58): 538-566, 2015
• 26 Scott, W. R, "Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems" Prentice Hall Inc 1981
• 27 Hartnell, C. A, "Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions" 96 (96): 677-694, 2011
• 28 O'Reilly III, C. A, "Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future" 27 (27): 324-338, 2013
• 29 Raisch, S, "Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance" 20 (20): 685-695, 2009
• 30 Lawrence, P. R, "Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration" Harvard University 1967
• 31 Hill, A, "Military innovation and military culture" 45 (45): 85-, 2015
• 32 Smith, W. K, "Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams" 16 (16): 522-536, 2005
• 33 Muthén, L. K, "MPlus: statistical analysis with latent variables-User’s guide"
• 34 Ghoshal, S, "Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management" 15 (15): 91-112, 1994
• 35 Williams, L. J, "Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact?" 74 (74): 462-469, 1989
• 36 Mom, T. J, "Investigating managers’exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top‐down, bottom‐up, and horizontal knowledge inflows" 44 (44): 910-931, 2007
• 37 Marsh, H. W, "Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology" American Psychological Association 441-456, 2006
• 38 Connelly, S, "Handbook of Research on Leadership and Creativity" Edward Elgar publishing 2017
• 39 Kennedy, K. J, "Going the distance: why some companies dominate and others fail" FT Press 2003
• 40 He, Z. L, "Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis" 15 (15): 481-494, 2004
• 41 March, J. G, "Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning" 2 : 71-87, 1991
• 42 Cameron, K. S, "Diagnosing and changing organizational culture:Based on the competing values framework" Addison-Wesley 1999
• 43 Lawrence, K. A, "Behavioral complexity in leadership:The psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire" 20 (20): 87-102, 2009
• 44 Lavie, D, "Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation" 49 (49): 797-818, 2006
• 45 Tushman, M. L, "Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change" 38 (38): 8-29, 1996
• 46 O’Reilly III, C. A, "Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability:Resolving the innovator's dilemma" 28 : 185-206, 2008
• 47 Lubatkin, M. H, "Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration" 32 (32): 646-672, 2006
• 48 Bierly III, P. E, "Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms" 38 (38): 493-516, 2007
• 49 김윤태, "4차 산업혁명 스마트 국방혁신 개념과 현황" (3) : 2019
• 50 류태규, "4차 산업혁명 기술과 국방연구개발 방향" 한국국방연구원 35 (35): 7-25, 2019
• 51 국방부, "2018 국방 백서" 2018