대인관계 상황에서 체면을 고려하는 것은 보편적인 현상일 뿐만 아니라 서구에 비해 우리나라에서 보다 중시되고 있지만 조직차원에서의 연구는 미흡하다. 특히 부 하의 체면에 영향을 미치는 상사의 행위에 대해서는 연구가 매우 부족한 실정이다. 부하체면에 대한 상사행위의 구성개념과 타당성 있는 측정도구를 개발하기 위 하여 군조직의 간부들을 대상으로 2단계의 연구가 진행되었다. 먼저, 연구 1에서 는 상사의 부하에 대한 ‘체면세움행위’ 및 ‘체면손상행위’ 문항을 자유응답식 설문 과 내용분석 과정을 통하여 도출하고, 육군 간부들로 이루어진 표본에 대하여 탐 색적 요인분석을 통해서, 요인구조가 ‘능력체면행위’와 ‘인격체면행위’의 두 차원으 로 이루어져 있음을 확인하였다. 연구 2에서는 독립적인 새 표본을 구성하여 개발 된 문항들의 타당성을 검증하고 태도변수와의 관계를 확인하였다. 분석 결과, 개 발된 측정도구는 교차타당성, 그리고 수렴 및 판별타당성이 있음을 확인할 수 있 었다. 부하 태도변수와의 관계를 확인한 결과, 상사의 부하체면에 대한 체면세움 행위는 부하의 LMX, 직무만족, 조직몰입에 정의 관계를 보였고 이직의도에는 부 의 관계를 나타내었다. 상사의 부하체면에 대한 체면손상행위는 부하의 LMX, 직 무만족 및 조직몰입과 부의 관계가 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 이는 부하체면에 대 한 상사행위가 조직 유효성을 설명하는데 적절한 변수임을 의미한다. 마지막으로, 본 연구의 의의와 한계 및 미래 연구방향을 제시하였다.
The issue of face in social interactions is more pervasive in Asian cultures than in Western ones. However, very few studies have investigated face in organizational context in Korea. Face is dependent on individual social status (Goffman, 1955; Ho, 1976), which points to the fact that leaders’ face is considered to be more important than subordinates’ face due to the status difference. Nevertheless, the importance of subordinates’ face is gradually becoming salient as the autocratic culture is transformed into a democratic one in modern organizations. The majority of the studies on face have focused on the leaders’ face, which, in turn, has yielded no study of leader’s behavior influencing subordinates’ face. The subordinates’ attitudes and behaviors can obviously vary depending on whether their leader takes the subordinates’ face into consideration or not. The subordinates are said to possess favorable attitudes towards a leader who saves the subordinates’ face, while they are likely to maintain negative attitudes towards a leader who makes them lose their face. Thus, it is necessary to study on the relationship between leader’s behaviors concerning subordinates’ face and the subordinates’ attitudes and behaviors. Since there is no measure for leader’s behavior influencing subordinates’ face, the valid and reliable measure should be developed. The current research was designed to identify the constructs of leader’s behavior influencing subordinates’ face (LBSF), and to develop and validate a sound psychometric measure of LBSF. This paper consists of two parts: in Study 1, we generated items of leader’s face-giving (LFGB) and face-threatening (LFTB) behavior towards subordinates, and identify the construct and factor structures of LBSF. In Study 2, a confirmatory factor analysis with independent samples showed the cross validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Then, we verified the nomological validity and the potential utility of LBSF to predict organizational outcome variables. Finally, implications and possible research directions are discussed. Respondents in the current research are officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) in the ROK (Republic of Korea) Army. In general, military organizations are more autocratic and hierarchical than the other civil organizations. Therefore, the subordinate’s face can be valued less than leader’s face. The difference between leaders who respect their subordinates’ face and leaders who do not can be easily distinguished in the military context. For this reason, military organization is suitable for the current research. Study 1 In Study 1, we collected data from 98 officers and NCOs using open-ended questionnaire, which included two following questions: “What behavior of a leader made you save face?” and “What behavior of a leader made you lose face?” From the data, 623 LFGB items and 791 LFTB items were firstly derived. Next, we combined the items that had same contents and expressions into 113 LFGB and 154 LFTB items. Then, the content validation of the generated items was performed in three phases. Finally, 21 items for LFGB and 17 items for LFTB were used in the current study. Using the data collected from 125 officers and NCOs, exploratory factor analyses with principal components were conducted. The results indicated that LFGB and LFTB consisted of two factors, ‘ability dimension’ and ‘character dimension.’ Specifically, LFGB consisted of 11 items, 6 items for ability-related LFGB (ALFGB) and 5 items for character-related LFGB (CLFGB). Likewise, LFTB also consisted of 12 items, 5 items for ability-related LFTB (ALFTB) and 7 items for character-related LFTB (CLFTB). Study 2 The data, independent of Study 1, were used in Study 2. That is, the data from 156 officers and NCOs were used for LFGB, and that from 163 were used for LFTB. As a result of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), two-factor model indicated more acceptable fit indices compared with one-factor model. Therefore, the cross validity of LFGB and LFTB was verified. In order to test discriminant validity and convergent validity, separate CFA was conducted for transformational leadership construct (e.g., charisma, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation), LFGB, and LFTB. The correlations between LBSF constructs were higher than correlations between LBSF constructs and transformational leadership constructs, which was empirical evidence for discriminant validity and convergent validity. For verifying the nomological validity, the following hypotheses drawn from previous research were tested. H1a : LFGB is positively related to LMX (subordinates’ perception). H1b : LFTB is negatively related to LMX (subordinates’ perception). H2a : LFGB is positively related to subordinates’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and negatively related to subordinates’ turnover intention. H2b : LFTB is negatively related to subordinates’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and positively related to subordinates’ turnover intention. The results of hierarchical regression analysis supported H1a and H1b, and partially supported H2a and H2b. ALFGB was positively related to job satisfaction and affective commitment. However, CLFGB was positively associated with affective commitment, continuous commitment, and normative commitment, and negatively related to turnover intention. ALFTB was negatively related to job satisfaction, while CLFTB was negatively related to affective commitment, continuous commitment, normative commitment. Hence, we could verify the nomological validity of LBSF measures and their potential utility to predict organizational effectiveness. The theoretical implications from the findings are as follows. First, LBSF is an important construct to understand a leader-subordinate relationship. Second, LBSF consists of two dimensions, ability-related LBSF and character-related LBSF. Third, LBSF is a meaningful variable to predict organizational effectiveness. Traditionally, face is regarded as a key variable to explain the complex phenomena of social interactions, but the majority of previous studies has mainly focused on the concept of face, face situations, and individual behaviors in face-losing situations (Kim & Nam, 1998). Therefore, relatively little attention has been paid to identify the relationship between face and organizational outcomes. In this paper, we highlight the face role in leader-member relationships, and suggest LBSF should be considered as one dimension of leadership. In conclusion, the developed LBSF measure has construct validity and is a very important concept in organizational behavior research. Thus, various studies related to face is needed.
