Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication (KSJCS)
[ Journalism Communication ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 62, No. 6, pp.109-140
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2018
Received 09 Aug 2018 Revised 30 Nov 2018 Accepted 02 Dec 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2018.62.6.004

조직 동화 관점에서 본 의사결정 커뮤니케이션 특성 연구 : 20대비례대표국회의원의상임위원회참여과정을중심으로

박종민* ; 이두희** ; 최영선*** ; 채희준****
*경희대학교언론정보학과교수, 주저자 jongmin@khu.ac.kr
**경희대학교언론정보학과박사과정, 교신저자 paoldh@gmail.com
***경희대학교언론정보학과박사과정 believeyou35@naver.com
****경희대학교언론정보학과학부과정 ultimate0615@gmail.com
A Study on the Communication Characteristics in the Processes of Decision-Making and Organizational Assimilation : 20th National Assemblymen of Proportional Representation on the Standing Committee Minutes
Park, Jongmin* ; Lee, Doo Hee** ; Choi, Young Sun*** ; Chae, Hui Jun****
*Professor, Department of Journalism and Communication, Kyung Hee University jongmin@khu.ac.kr
**Doctoral Student, The Graduate School of Journalism and Communication, Kyung Hee University paoldh@gmail.com
***Doctoral Student, The Graduate School of Journalism and Communication, Kyung Hee University believeyou35@naver.com
****Department of Journalism and Communication Kyung Hee University ultimate0615@gmail.com

초록

본 연구는 20대 비례대표 국회의원의 의사결정과정에서의 커뮤니케이션 특성을 살펴보았다. 이를 위해 국회상임위원회 회의록에 기록된 비례대표의원들의 발언 내용을 추출하여, 비례대표의원들의 인구통계적 정보와 커뮤니케이션 특성과의 상관관계, 커뮤니케이션 특성과 의원활동성의 상관관계, 마지막으로 조직 동화에서 커뮤니케이션 특성의 변화 정도를 알아보았다. 연구결과전문성을기초로한커뮤니케이션특성이발화빈도가가장높았으며, 정치적수사와 같은 형식성, 그리고 여론 반영이나 정부견제를 반영한 국민대표성이 그 다음으로 높은 발화빈도를 보였다. 선행연구와는 다르게 무조건적 반대나 인신공격 같은 정파적 커뮤니케이션 특성은발화빈도가미약했다. 성별, 소속정당, 전직경력에따른커뮤니케이션특성차이는통계적으로 유의미한 결과를 보이지는 않았다. 연령에 따른 커뮤니케이션 특성차이가 일부 나타났는데, 60대 이상에서는 연대성이 그리고 50대 이하에서는 타협성이 강조되는 것으로 나타났다. 의원의 활동성과 관련하여, 국회의원의 발의안 건수에 대해 타협성은 정적 상관관계를 권위성은 부적 상관관계를 보였다. 또한 출석률과 관련해서는 전문성, 연대성, 형식성 등이정적 상관관계를보였다. 조직동화측면에서의원들의커뮤니케이션유형은시간의흐름에따른패턴 변화는 발견되지않았다. 다만, 전체적으로당선 후6개월 이내에 가장활발한참여가일어났고, 그이후에는전반적으로발화를통한참여가줄었다.

Abstract

The current study explored the communication characteristics of 20th national assemblymen of proportional representation in the processes of decision-making. We extracted the statements of the proportional representation members recorded in the minutes of the National Assembly Standing Committee, and categorized those statements based on seven communication characteristics: professionalism, partisan, compromise, mutualism, authority, formality, and public representation. Then, Researchers analyzed the demographic information of the proportional representation members with the communication characteristics, the correlation between the communication characteristics and the member activities. As a result, the professionalism showed the highest frequency of utterance, followed by the formality such as political rhetoric, and the public representation reflecting public opinion or government check. Unlike previous studies, the frequency of partisan utterances such as unconditional objections and human attacks was low. There was no statistically significant difference in communication characteristics according to sex, affiliation party, and previous career. There was some difference in communication characteristics according to age. In the age group of 60 and over, mutualism was emphasized while in the other group, compromise was emphasized. Regarding the activity of congressmen, the number of the proposed law was negatively associated with authority and positively correlated with compromise. There was a positive correlation between attendance rate and professionalism, mutualism and formality. In terms of organizational assimilation, the patterns of communication among the members of the legislature did not change with time. Overall, however, the most active participation occurred within six months after the election, and thereafter the overall participation through speaking decreased.

Keywords:

organizational assimilation, 20th national assemblymen, the standing committee minutes, the processes of decision-making, the communication characteristics

키워드:

소집단의사결정, 조직동화, 국회의원, 상임위원회, 커뮤니케이션특성

References

  • 강장석(2008). 국회의원비례대표제도및활동성과분석. <연구보고서>, 2008(12), 1-125.
  • 권은실·이영환(2012). 국회법안심의의사결정요인에관한연구: 17대국회보건복지위원회, 산업자원위원회법안심사소위원회회의록분석을중심으로. <한국사회와행정연구>. 23(1). 317-341.
  • 김기동·이재묵 (2017). 국회의원 선출유형에 따른 입법활동 차이 분석. <한국정당학보>, 16(1), 101-135.
  • 김민수(2016). 비례대표국회의원의활동방향에대한연구. <사회과학연구>, 23(4), 175-202.
  • 김은희(2017). 비례대표제확대와여성의정치적대표성. <이화젠더법학>, 9(2), 33-68.
  • 김인철·강문희·김두현(2002). 국회의정부예산안수정및결정요인에관한연구: 한국의사례. <국제지역연구>, 5(4), 171-197.
  • 목광수(2013). 민주주의적덕성과공론장. <사회와철학>, 25, 365-398.
  • 박찬욱·김진국 (1997). 제14대 국회 상임위원회 제도와 그 의사결정에 관한 연구. <한국정치연구>, 7, 449-488.
  • 박경미(2009). 17대국회의원법안발의와처리결과. <의정연구>, 15(2), 161-185.
  • 박종민(2015a). 조직커뮤니케이션. 이준웅·박종민·백혜진(편), <커뮤니케이션과학의지평> (105-165쪽). 서울: 나남.
  • 박종민(2015b). 바람직한대정부관계활동을위한입법과정내로비스트관련법률안재고찰, <한국광고홍보학보>, 17(1), 5-29.
  • 박종민·정영주·권구민(2018). 미디어법개정과정에나타난18대국회상임위원회의의사결정에영향을미치는커뮤니케이션특성연구의회조직이론, 개인의사결정속성, 조직커뮤니케이션특성, 집단사고징후를중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 62(4), 44-81.
  • 서인석·권기현·이종구·김태진 (2009). 국회 및 서울시의회 예산총골심의과정에서의 의사결정; 질적인연구방법을활용한예산결산특별위원회회의록분석. <한국행정학보>, 43(4). 47-80.
  • 서인석·이동구·박형준(2010). 국회의원상임위원회정책결정행태요인에관한연구: 수자원예산심의에 관한국회상임위원회의사록분석을중심으로. <한국행정연구>, 19(1). 79-100.
  • 손병권·가상준(2008). 갈등의현실과합의에대한소망: 국회운영및의사결정방식에대한17대국회의원들의인식. <한국정치연구>, 17(1), 87-109.
  • 안병철(2009). 위원회조직의의사결정과정분석; 자치구의정비심의위원회를중심으로. <한국자치행정학보>, 23(2). 309-328.
  • 이상명(2015). 비례대표국회의원선거제도의개선방안. <법학논총>, 32(4), 1-22.
  • 이진옥·황아란·권수현 (2017). 한국국회는대표의다양성을 보장하는가?: 비례대표제와 여성할당제의 효과와한계. <한국여성학>, 33(4), 209-246.
  • 이재희·김도경 (2012). 비례대표 여성의원과 대표성: 19대 총선을 중심으로. <여성학연구>, 22(3), 7-41.
  • 이효성·이호은(2011). 국회의원언어모니터링분석. <정치커뮤니케이션연구>, 20. 131-166.
  • 이현출 (2011). 국회 특별위원회 활동과정에 대한 분석: 기후변화특위를 중심으로. <의정논총>, 6(1), 81-105.
  • 장문선·윤성식 (2002). 국회예산심의액 증감의 영향요인에 관한 실증적 분석: 예산결산특별위원회를 중심으로. <한국정책학회보>, 11(2), 99-119.
  • 전상경(2000). 집합적의사결정과대표제도에관한시론적논의. <한국행정학보>, 34(1), 83-100.
  • 전진영(2013). 비례대표국회의원여성할당제의제도적특성과정당의후보자공천: 제16대총선~제19대 총선을중심으로. <한국정당학회보>, 12(3), 89-112.
  • 정성호·이준호(2011). 국회의정활동과구사언어에대한신문보도내용분석. <정치커뮤니케이션연구>, 20, 167-213.
  • 정태일·김일수(2012). 한국의비례대표선거제도에대한비판적고찰. <한국동북아논총>, 64, 215.
  • 황윤원(1993). 우리나라예산심의의결정변수분석. <한국행정학보>, 27(2), 437-457.
  • Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239-253. [https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022745]
  • Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148. [https://doi.org/10.2307/256633]
  • Baron, D. P., & Ferejohn, J. A. (1989). Bargaining in legislatures. The American Political Science Review, 83, 1181-1206. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1961664]
  • Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989) Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107-124. [https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100709]
  • Brehmer, B. (1976). Social judgement theory and the analysis of interpersonal conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 985-1003. [https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.83.6.985]
  • Bullis, C. (1993). Organizational socialization research: Enabling, constraining, and shifting perspectives. CommunicationMonographs, 60, 10-17. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376289]
  • Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730-743. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.730]
  • Clair, R. P. (1993). The use of framing devices to sequester organizational narratives: Hegemony and harrassment. CommunicationMonographs, 60, 113-136. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376304]
  • Cox, G., & McCubbins, M. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Fenno, R. F. (1973). Congressmen in committees, Boston: Little, Brown.
  • Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 505-538. [https://doi.org/10.5465/256485]
  • Gailliard, B., Myers, K., & Seibold, D. (2010). Organizational assimilation: A multidimensional reconceptualization and measure. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 552-578. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910374933]
  • Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (2003). Effective decision making and problemsolving in groups: A functional perspective. In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication theory and practice: An anthology (8th ed., pp. 27-38). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
  • Hirokawa, R. Y., & Rost, K. M. (1992). Effective group decision making in organizations: Field test of the vigilant interaction theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 267-288. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318992005003001]
  • Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 679-740). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial decisions. New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Kramer, M. W., & Miller, V. D. (1999). A response to criticisms of organizational socialization research: In support of contemporary conceptualizations of organizational assimilation. CommunicationMonographs, 66, 358-367. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376485]
  • Leon-Gonzalez, R. (2015). The assimilation of migrant households in the urban areas of a developing country. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49, 335-354. [https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2015.0040]
  • McLeod, P. L. (2013). Distributed people and distributed information: Vigilant decision-making in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 44(6), 627-657. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413500696]
  • Miller, K. (1999). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (2nd ed.). Ohio: Wadsworth.
  • Modaff, D. P., & DeWine, S. (2002). Organizational communication: Foundations, challenges, andmisunderstandings. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
  • Myers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimilation. Communication Quarterly, 51, 438–457. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370309370166]
  • Schweiger, D., Sandberg, W., & Rechner, P. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745-772. [https://doi.org/10.5465/256567]
  • Xie, Y., & Greenman. (2011). The social context of assimilation: Testing implications of segmented assimilation theory. Social Science Research, 40, 965-984. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.01.004]