인사관리강도(HRM Strength)의 속성의 개념과 용어의 인식 차이에 관한 연구

A Study on the Conceptualization and Perception Discrepancies of HRM Strength Attributes: A Focus on Perceptual Differences in the Domestic Corporate Management Environment

Purpose - This study focuses on the restructuring of the terminology and subdimensions of HRM Strength, as it is deemed not suitable for the domestic corporate environment. Design/Methodology/Approach - The research involved the formation of three groups (6 companies, with 2 domestic banks, 3 major companies, 2 venture companies, and 15 HR directors and general employees), and conducted interviews through Focus Group Interviews (FGI). Findings - The study results indicate that the conceptualization of HRM Strength by Bowen and Ostroff (2004), specifically in terms of distinctiveness (visibility, understandability, legitimacy of authority, relevance), consistency (instrumentality, validity, consistent HRM messages), and consensus (agreement among principal HRM decision makers fairness), has been modified into terminology that is easier for domestic HR directors and employees to understand. The terminology change and subdimension restructuring transformed distinctiveness into HRM Systemicity (visibility, understandability, consistent HRM messages), consistency into HRM Fairness (instrumentality, validity, agreement (agreement among principal HRM decision makers + fairness), and consensus into HRM Expertise (legitimacy of authority, relevance). Research Implications - Despite some limitations, such as the absence of empirical validation for the suitability of the new terminology, this study is significant in that it restructured and conceptualized the HRM Strength concept to be more suitable for domestic companies through FGI. It also identified issues related to the understanding of HRM Strength attributes in corporate settings and the perception of terminology, as well as laid the foundation for terminology change, new terminology definitions, and the restructuring of HRM Strength subdimensions.