자생적 조직변화의 요건들: 조직의 의미공유, 개인의 즉흥연기 그리고 일에 대한 몰입

An organization is a component of environment and facing complex environment. The complexenvironment is generated when components change or they interact to each other. On occasion,a change of component in the environment has some impacts upon entire environment and oftenleads to unintended consequences. There is no one single component that possesses enough capacityto represent the entire environment. The behavior of the entire environment cannot be reducedto the behavior of each components of the entire environment. Hence, an organization cannot predicthow organizational environment will be made with absolute certainty because the complex environmentis irreversible and nonlinear(Jervis, 1999; Dekker, Cillers & Hofmeyr, 2011). Current theories in the field of organizational change(determinism and voluntarism) have notvarious significant contributing for the enhancement of our understanding of the organization underthe circumstance of made any the complex environment being irreversible and nonlinear. The survivalof an organization cannot be guaranteed if it simply responds to the demands of the environment,leaves with life and death in the environment, or makes decisions on a course of action by a personor a group predicting the future of the complex environment. However, it can survive with organizationalown autogenetic change that individuals of an organization are at the center for organizationalself-reactions to the complex environment. The autogenetic change includes ‘sense-sharing’,‘improvisation’, and ‘flow in work’. Through sense-sharing, members of an organization learnto understand their complex environment, rightly connect individuals of an organization withcomponents of environment, and combine individual actions with an organizational action responsiblefor complex environment. Improvisation is also helpful for the transformation of individual actionsin order to cope with nonlinear activities of components of environment. The meaning of the flowin work is that through it, the above mentioned the sense-sharing and improvisation are properlyoperated because they provide opportunity and capability. It also makes that individuals become harder to undo as individual actions become more public and irrevocable being made by thesense-sharing and individuals become harder to disown when individual actions are also volitionalthat is made by the improvisation(Weick, 2001). In this study, sense-sharing, improvisation andflow in work are theoretically revealed. This study examined how sense-sharing influences improvisation,how improvisation affects the outcomes of an organization and its employees, and flow in workis present in mediation effect as improvisation mediates the relationships between the sense-sharingand outcomes of an organization and its employees. Using a Likert scale to evaluate survey data from 530 employees working in five types of Koreanorganizations, this study found that sense-sharing, improvisation, and flow in work are multidimensionalconstructs that have been measured using a variety of indicators. The sense-sharing included‘information-sharing’, ‘participation’, ‘management support’, and ‘job control’. Measures of theimprovisation included ‘self-reported learning’ and ‘transformational capacity’. The flow in workincluded ‘practical success’, ‘improved performance’, ‘personal growth’, and ‘emotional commitment’. Correlations between ‘transformational capacity’ and ‘practical success’(.141), ‘improved performance’(.122), ‘personal growth’(.258) and ‘emotional commitment’(.253) were found as statistically significant. But the correlation analysis does not remove co-variances. Also ‘transformation capacity’ wasnot higher than ‘self-reported learning’{i.e., ‘practical success’(.329), ‘improved performance’(.352),‘personal growth’(.361) and ‘emotional commitment’(.423)}. To test my research hypotheses, Iused a structural equation modeling and tested its mediation effects using Sobel’s(1982) test. Results revealed that those are positive effects of ‘information-sharing’, ‘participation’, ‘managementsupport’, and ‘job control’ on ‘self-reported learning’ and ‘transformational capacity’ that earlycome from. But there was no significant relationship found between ‘management support’ and‘transformational capacity’. I presumes that ‘management support’ is not sufficient or anticipationof the future behavior of the persons belong to organizations. Various new behaviors that mayemerge in the future have their own ambiguity so that what managers support or organizationalclimate taking a serious view of performance does not invest the function of the time and resourcesin such future behaviors because of the inefficiency in organization. ‘Self-reported learning’ hada clearly positive impact on ‘practical success’, ‘improved performance’, ‘personal growth’, and‘emotional commitment’. ‘Transformational capacity’ was negatively associated with ‘practicalsuccess’, ‘improved performance’, ‘personal growth’, and ‘emotional commitment’. In addition,‘sense-sharing’(i.e., information-sharing, participation, management support, and job control) indirectlyinfluenced the outcomes of an organization(i.e., practice success and improved performance) andits individuals(i.e., personal growth and emotional commitment) through improvisation(i.e., selfreportedlearning and transformational capacity) excluding between management support andtransformational capacity. The negative association between transformational capacity and theoutcomes of an organization and its individuals may be the result of the job anxieties expressedin the process of personal searching for new things within works of an organization.