What Makes an Organization a Great Place to Work in South Korea?

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify diverse factors that positively and negatively affect a workplace and to suggest a model for great places to work in South Korean organizational contexts. The research questions guiding the study are (a) What are the most desirable characteristics of a great place to work? and (b) What are the most undesirable characteristics of a bad place to work? An online survey and mobile application with two questions asking about the components of the most desirable and undesirable characteristics of workplaces were distributed to 1,500 randomly selected job seekers and currently employed persons in various organizations in South Korea. Out of the 1,500 surveys sent, 786 people responded (a response rate of 53%). Based on the survey data, the study identified various factors that positively and negatively affect people's perceptions of a great or bad place to work, including employee welfare, pay, working hours, work environments, and interpersonal relationships. From an in‐depth analysis, the study proposes a model for great places to work in South Korea. Discussions and implications for practice and future research are included.

Organizational culture, leaders’ vision of talent, and HR functions on career changers’ commitment: the moderating effect of training in South Korea

“…Nevertheless, 41.3% of Korean workers employed in small-tomedium-size enterprises (SMEs) are seeking opportunities to change and develop their careers in larger organizations (OECD 2017). Although Korean employees prefer to work in larger companies, most Korean career changers, including job-seekers and employees, highly value a strong organizational culture, vision of leaders for people, and talent development when they are choosing between seeking a new job and remaining in their current organization (Park et al 2015). Korean society has been deeply influenced by the country's Confucian cultural tradition, so work practices and networking remain largely male-dominated in Korean organizations (Cooke 2010;Rowley, Kang and Lim 2016).…”

Our Quest for a Great Place to Work: Meaning in and at Work through the Fit Perspective

“…However, these characterizations of great places to work are confounded by a myriad other somewhat idiosyncratic suggestions at the individual, leadership, work group, and organizational levels. At the individual level, factors such as good physical workspace and compensation, recognition, caring human resource, learning and career development opportunities, flexibility, job satisfaction, challenging work, etc., have been suggested to characterize great places to work (Park et al, 2015;Mencl & Lester, 2014;Butler, 2014).…”

“…At the leadership level, it is suggested that great places to work have inspiring, authentic, and servant leadership (Henderson, 2011;Love & Singh, 2011;McGee-Cooper & Trammell, 2010). At the group level, factors such as team spirit, mutuality, cohesiveness, group focused processes, quality relationship, authentic behavior, collaboration, diversity are stated to signal great places to work (Park et al, 2015;Mencl & Lester, 2014;Crainer, 2014;Taskinen, 2011). Finally, at the organizational level, studies suggest that factors such as low levels of hierarchy, consistent assessment practices, autonomy, focus on employee wellness and engagement, worklife balance, safety orientation, fun work environment, transparency, accountability, civility and networking opportunities, focus on all stakeholders, corporate citizenship behavior, community oriented policies, social goals, and well laid out and easily accessible ethics statement are indicative of great places to work (Hoover & Pepper, 2014;Philipsen, 2014;Hinkin & Tracey, 2010;Bakker, 2010;Bernardi, Bosco & Vassill, 2006;DeCotiis, Sullivan, Hyatt, & Avery, 2004;van Marrewijk, 2004;Joyce, 2003).…”

“…Although there are a few academic studies which examine the antecedents and several which study the outcomes of great places to work, they generally avoid defining the construct. When it is defined, most studies adopt the definition suggested by the Great Places to Work Institute (e.g., Park et al, 2015;Carvalho & Areal, 2015;Henderson, 2013;Soininen, 2013;Areal & Carvalho, 2012;Hinkin & Tracey, 2010;Fulmer et al, 2003). An exception in the academic literature, is Butler's (2014) attempt to define a "great firm to work for."…”

“…The meaning-through-fit model of great places to work works around the problematic one-size fits all approach, acknowledges the differences among the employees in the understanding of and expectations from a great places to work, offers increased generalizability and a pathway to leaders to build great places to work from the employees' perspective, and contributes theoretically and empirically to Positive Organizational Scholarship. Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix Why Great Places to Work? In this section I explain why I focus on "great places to work" and not on constructs such as the best employer, the employer of choice, the quality of work life, the most admired companies (Park, Song, Kim & Lim, 2015), etc. Typically a great place to work is one's preferred work situation, where one feels that the relationship with one's work and one's work environment is such that one is likely to rate the organization on top of lists of places to work.…”