1

An investigation of the enablers and barriers to job analysis in the Korean government1

Hyeon-Suk Lyu* , Jongsoon Jin+ *The Korea Institute of Public Administration; +Myongi University Abstract

Job analysis is often regarded a management activity which collects and analyzes information and data such as accountability for performance, job evaluation, job requirements, and various other job-related information. A majority of literatures in human resource management and development have emphasized repeatedly the necessity of using job analysis through the whole process of human resource management from selection to performance evaluation. Ever since year 2000, many public organizations in Korea conducted job analysis, but most of the organizations are not very keen on using job analysis results despite the exceedingly invested resources and time. The purpose of this study is to find some reasonable answers for why job analysis is not widely used in the Korean government. In this light, it attempts to reveal which main barriers are commonly encountered and which enablers are potentially the most useful for expanding the existing job analysis across the 35 central government agencies in South Korea. Based upon the findings from the literature review and survey, this study could put forward report two basic strategies for future job analysis. First, in company with the close link between job analysis and performance-based HR management, an unwavering follow-up management of job analysis and strong leadership and commitment should be developed. The other is that job analysis need to be conducted systematically in a need-basis and easy to use technical platform to resolve current problems in personnel management.

I. Introduction

Job analysis is generally regarded an activity in which managers collect and analyze information and data such as accountability for performance, job evaluation, job requirements, and various other job-related information. Much of the human resource management and development literature emphasizes the necessity of using job analysis through the whole process of human resource management, from employee selection to performance evaluation. Since 1963, many public organizations in Korea have conducted job analyses, but most of the organizations are not very keen on using the results, despite the high investment of resources and time.

The purpose of this study is to uncover the reasons why the results of job analyses are not widely used in the Korean government. Specifically, the paper attempts to identify the commonly encountered barriers to using such results, as well as the enablers that are potentially most useful for expanding the existing job analysis method across the 35 central government agencies in South Korea.

II. Historical Background of Job Analysis Practice in the Korean government

The Korean civil service management has been rooted on rank system which selects and evaluates the employ’s position and performance. It is based on a rank or grouping system dictated by scores and 1 This paper is written based upon the survey data drawn from the 2010 KIPA policy report, ‘A Study on Expanding Job Analysis Practice of the Korean Government’. This paper is a work-in-progress and feedback is welcome. However, the paper should be treated as ‘not-for-citation’ unless the consent of the author is obtained.

2

entrance exams rather than individual job performance. In addition, the length of services is highly considered in deciding pay rise, performance evaluation, and training opportunity etc. However, it has been argued that the rank system in Korean civil service overshadows the performances evaluation with the government human resource management.

The analysis of job positions within the Korean Government officially began with the passing of the “Position Classification Law” in 1963. It is worthwhile to examine the background and the progress made since Korea’s first attempt since that time. This study will then review the performances and limitations of each job analysis. Progress over time is demarcated by and large by the periods before and after 2000 when the government began to put into practice job analysis along with new personnel management system as opposed to the existing rank system (Lee, 2002; Cho, 2002; Park, 2002; Lee & Kwon, 2007; Lee et al., 2007; Administration Diagnostic Center, 2009).

1. Job analysis prior to 2000

Prior to 2000, the analysis of government jobs reveals inconsistent patterns with respect to background, purpose and contents. This paper examines, in turn, job analysis in the 1960s as led by the Ministry of the Government Administration, analysis in 1995 when it was controlled by the Job Analysis Project Team and finally in 1998 when it was covered by Government Organizational Management Diagnosis.

1) Park Chung Hee government: establishment of Position Classification Law in 1963

Park Chung Hee’s government was the first to promote the position classification system by passing the ‘Position Classification Law’. Its purpose was to determine the rank of the individual positions and the jobs for the general-duty civil servant and to introduce the position classification system within five years. The government completed the investigation of half of the state officials’ positions, and by forming the occupation group, job series and job grade; they were able to finish a report on position statement in the same year. The word ‘grade’ used in job analysis is defined as ‘all the positions that could be paid the same salary as there is similarity in the difficulty, responsibility and eligibility requirements’. This notion is analogous to the more recent concept of ‘rank’ which indicates an official's advanced understanding of the position classification system. The position classification system was scheduled to be implemented across the government, but was faced with several politically-related challenges. In addition, due to its unrealistic program approach as well as it being advocated unilaterally without much discussion or persuasion, attempts to introduce the system ended in failure (Civil Service Committee, 2002). 2) Kim Young sam government: Job Analysis, 1996-7

The Kim Young sam government conducted job analysis by installing a temporary organization entitled the ‘Job Analysis Project Team’ in 1996 and 1997. Job analysis progressed as part of this government’s neo-liberal policies while aiming to strengthen the competitiveness of the civil service by attracting external civilian experts through the open employment system. To achieve this, operating regulations of the ‘Job Analysis Promoting Council’ were established and the job analysis team was formed to commence work. The Kim Young sam government also implemented job analysis via a more general system. Their aim was to find 13,000 open professional positions that were higher than 5th Grade. Through this, they obtained good results whereby 201 open professional positions were chosen across seven different sectors including legal, information and communications.

3

The distinguishing feature of this job analysis was that there were attempts to enhance overall objectivity and rationality by the ‘Job Analysis Practice Operating Council’ consisting of academic experts and the Korea Institute of Public Administration. However, there were limitations in that the analysis was only centered on the field of activity, and thus the results were unable to be used in a meritocratic fashion (Civil Service Committee, 2002).

3) Kim Dae jung’s government: the end of 1998

Kim Dae jung’s government performed the task of job analysis as a means to improve the efficiency of government organizations given the fact that these were poorly managed. The ‘Planning and Budget Committee’ approached this undertaking by conducting the government-wide organizational management diagnosis. This time the analysis focused on duties and strategies rather than individual positions. This team attempted the ‘selection of the open position’ and was able to efficiently reorganize the government departments and its functions based on their results. From seeing that they simultaneously presented the performance indicators of each unit and the research on the management plan for it, it can be concluded that to some extent, performance-based job analysis had an effect on this area. In addition, it is clear that they adopted variety of market factors. For example, they drew the achievement of the research by putting a large research staff over three months and requesting the private consulting agencies to do the practical jobs. However, it is thought that there were some factors that hindered the acceptance of the internal public sector including excessive dependence on external agencies such as private companies and academia, the premise of staff reduction as a way to improve organizational efficiency, and the fact that there was very little communication between the external agencies and the target organization. Some critics have said that the introduction of excessive liberal market elements may have contributed to the government overlooking its responsibility to investigate valuable factors such as publicity or equity.

Table 1 Main characteristics of job analysis time series

Time Contents Characteristics 1963

The establishment position

classification law

- implemented job analysis for the introduction of position classification system

- targeted all the general position

- the failure of the adoption of position classification system (too idealistic)

- many part of it is applied to the government official act of 1973

1996~1997

- conducted by the job analysis project team (temporary organization) under the ministry of the government administration

- Aimed to find the 20 open professional position and improve the unreasonable structure of the job-series

- focused on the methodological activity

- unable to connect due to the outcome-centered management

The end of 1998

- carried out the government organizational management diagnosis led by the planning budget committee (the field work was led by the external agencies)

- reorganized on the assumption of the quota reduction and selected the open position

- There were more emphasis on the visible research product so there was little communication with the target organization

2000s

- conducted by the Civil Service Committee - there was clear objective of realization of

performance-based personnel administration - materialized in the form of performance-

related payment

-Induced the result-oriented thought by setting the focus to the performance responsibility

4

- used the HAY technique - ensured the voluntary participation in target

department

2. Job analysis after 2000

Since 2000, the Civil Service Committee has implemented job analysis consistently to achieve the objective of promoting performance-based personnel administration. It is worthwhile to review job analysis as conducted in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Meteorological Administration. And this study will further examine job analysis within the National Tax Agency, Ministry of Construction & Transportation, Civil Service Committee in 2001 and the analysis of Rural Development Administration, Supply Administration, and National Marine Police Agency respectively. Finally we will review the job analysis of senior positions in 2005 and the additional analysis carried out in 2005~2006. 1) 2000: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Meteorological Administration

The Civil Service Committee selected the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT), Meteorological Administration (MA) as the target agency for job analysis because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade itself promoted reform and the Meteorological administration was also considered a small and reformist organization. First, MOFAT converted the personnel system from people-oriented to job-centered by using the newly designed concept and framework of job grade which replaced the existing hierarchy system in organization management and pay scheme. MOFAT chose the 200 positions of its headquarters, embassies, Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security which is responsible directly to MOFAT for representative duties. MOFAT set the responsibility and the value of positions clearly through a scientific analysis that could be applied to issues of wage, recruitment, training and education. They also developed the competitive personnel system based on individual ability and professionalism and ensured objectivity and fairness in personnel matters and in payment. In short they established the foundation for cultivating elites and specialized diplomats (National Archives, 2001).

The Meteorological Administration (MA) promoted job analysis along with MOFAT with a view to increasing the level of weather forecast accuracy and service benefiting the public through the efficient management of human resources. Initially, the MA selected some segments of 1013 posts as representative positions and conducted job analysis via several workshops. The Civil Service Committee carried out relevant human resource activities and salary reform (National Archives, 2001). 2) In 2001: Nation Tax Agency, Ministry of Construction & Transportation, Civil Service Committee

In 2001, job analysis targeting the National Tax Agency (NTA), the Ministry of Construction & Transportation (MOCT), and the Civil Service Committee (CSC) was implemented. CSC, the supervisory department of this job analysis endeavor, analyzed all 54 positions except for technical posts in an attempt to revitalize the work of job analysis. The MOCT wrote job descriptions and evaluated the job duties of the 192 delegate posts of headquarters and extension agencies after seven to eight workshops, while the NTA also went through a similar process with their 230 posts. They implemented performance management systems to take advantage of the results of this round of job analysis so that they could follow their organizations’ missions.

5

3) In 2002: Rural Development Administration, Supply Administration, National Marine Police Agency

In 2002, the job analysis for the Rural Development Administration (RDA), the Supply Administration (SA), and the National Marine Police Agency (NMPA) was conducted via the same process as in 2001 so as to build the new administration on the basis of performance and capacity. The performance duty of 106 posts in RDA, 72 posts in SA and 192 posts in NMPA were defined and a matrix of performance duty was created to clarify the linkage between the classes. The NMPA expanded the scientific basis for estimating job values through the job analysis and suggested not only desirable career courses but also the basis of personnel management by examining the nature of the position and the job characteristics. 4) In 2003-2004: The job analysis on Senior position (for Senior Civil Service)

The Rho Moo Hyun administration carried out its job analysis on the positions of the head of the departments and the directors of the bureau for 2 years by following the personnel reform roadmap to secure the preliminary data for the introduction of Senior Civil Service. The job duties and the value of positions were calculated for the total of 889 positions including 467 representative posts of 879 posts which are higher than the director of the bureau of 18 central government agencies in 2003 and 422 representative posts out of 558. In addition, they also analyzed competency requirements such as the skills and talents necessary for successful job performance. The results of this job analysis were used as the basis for designing the resultant system of performance, management, payment, competency assessment and development in the senior civil service.

5) In 2005-2006: further implementation of the Job Analysis

Since 2005, additional job analysis was conducted for the newly established or changed positions, positions with special duties, special environment, and special areas such as in remote working areas after any job analysis on senior positions in 2003-2004.

Table 2 Korean Government job analysis in 2010: current state of affairs

The range of the implementation Purpose

The public servant on general duty in central department

Total of 13,460 positions

- to select the open professional positions - to improve the efficiency of the personnel management - to subdivide and simplify occupational group administration

The higher position than the director of the bureau in central department

- readjustment of the function - reorganization - to find the open appointment position

Meteorological Administration 151 positions

- to set the rank of the job duty - to design the payment system - to introduce the performance-based system for positions

Headquarter and embassies in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and

Trade Total 288 representative positions

- to set the grade of the job duty - to design the payment system - to introduce the performance-based system for positions

Higher than 5th Grade in the headquarters of the National Tax

- To complement the goal management through the introduction of performance-based management system (including the

6

Agency Total 230 positions

indicator, performance evaluation) - to promote gradual improvement in the payment system

Total of 54 general duty positions in the Civil Service Committee

The headquarter and extension institutions in the Ministry of

Construction & Transportation Total 192 positions

- to introduce the performance-based system for positions - to promote gradual improvement in the payment system

As outlined so far, the objectives and the background in which the Korean government promoted job analysis shows that there is a clear split pre- and post- the year 2000. Prior to 2000, job analysis was conducted to introduce the position classification system, but after 2000 it was carried out with a focus on setting up performance-based personnel administration. In the case of methodology and organization, previous job analyses were conducted by the personnel or temporary agencies only through a general procedure. However, after 2000, job analysis was performed by the Civil Service Committee and the external consulting company adopting the HAY technique which was more systematic and was being used internationally. Hence, it seems reasonable to analyze the tasks, the development and the achievement of before and after the year 2000 separately.

On the whole, it is widely argued that the job analysis program has not been implemented and used in most government organizations beyond a theoretical plan of action in South Korea even after all these continuous long running government efforts. What are the factors that might have impeded embracing this program? III. Review of the Literature Much of the earlier research on job analysis has focused on methodological aspects of the concept of job analysis. These efforts made a significant contribution to the field of HR management by developing various techniques and procedures to generate accurate and practically useful job-related data (Ash and Levine, 1980; Bemis et al., 1983; Gael, 1988). This laid the groundwork that allowed HR professionals to identify and examine several possible applications of job analysis information. Unlike other countries, the previous research on job analysis in South Korea has focused on highlighting the necessity of job analysis as a strategic HRM practice with potential contribution to realizing performance–based HR management. However, as mentioned above, job analysis has not been widely practiced across the government departments in Korea, for this reason a majority of previous research in Korea have focused on identifying the impediments both in institutional aspect and human aspects. Following this reasoning, this study is to identify the main enablers and barriers that might affect the job analysis process and use in the Korean government context.

Job analysis is usually defined as the systematic process of acquiring and analyzing information about a job. In general, job analysis is used in the position classification system to align positions and classes, yet the analysis result can have meaningful use in personnel management of the rank system. Ubanek(1997) defines job analysis as the foundation and basic management activity of personnel management. Similarly, McKillip (2001) recognizes job analysis as the starting point of assessing needs for education training by identifying successful activities for good job performance. In short, job analysis could be regarded a management activity which collects and analyzes information and data such as accountability for performance, job evaluation, job requirements, and various other job-related information. The bulk of human resource management and development literature has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of using job analysis throughout the whole process of human

7

resource management from selection to performance evaluation. Most tasks performed by HR are directly and indirectly involved with job analysis. Diverse uses

of job analysis have been identified. Using job analysis, HR can determine whether a job is necessary to the organization. They can also decide how many supervisors are necessary. The amount of interaction between employees and management, as well as the amount of information flow throughout the organization. The HR department can use job analysis in the recruitment process to target applicants who are qualified for the job. They can use key words to search for items that match the job description. In the selection process, applicants are given tests, such as personality tests, that help recruiters select the appropriate applicant for the job. Salaries can be set according to the level of skills involved with the job. Job analysis also helps to determine the amount and types of training that will be required. If skill gaps are apparent after doing the analysis, training programs can be instituted to correct the problems. Cascio (1992), for instance, distinguishes 15 different applications of job analysis within the area of human resources management. Although some methods for job analysis are supposed to be useful for many applications, in practice it turns out that specific methods are appropriate for specific areas of human resources management (Algera, 1991). Quirin (2001) summarizes the possibly applications of job analysis as follow in Figure 1.

Figure 1 The Multifaceted Nature of the Job Analysis

According to the Susan M. Jenkins & Patrick Curtin (2006), job analysis is used widely in terms

of the staff scrutiny and organizational psychology. It provides HR programs with improved knowledge for the assessor and a systematic method of service delivery. Job analysis data could then be utilized to increase insights into how the employees maintain the program, provide services and interpret outcomes. The data could also compare programs and estimate the possibility of applications in other departments. Job analysis could assess both the service for human and social welfare programs as it plays an important role in customer service and user experience. The process of the job analysis is usually divided into five steps to be analyzed.

Table 3 Process of Job Analysis

Step Contents

1 step Collecting Background Position Information

8

2 step Identifying Position Duties, Tasks an KSAs

3 step Collecting Data

4 step Analyzing Data

5 step Reporting

Source: Jenkins & Curtin, 2006

By using structured job analysis methods, or a combination of different methods, jobs are broken

down into their constituent components. Essentially job analysis consists of two elements: a job description and a job specification. A job description is a written account of the activities that have to be performed. It also contains information about tools and equipment used in the job and outlines working conditions. Job descriptions specify the job content and context. The job specification, meanwhile, indicates which specific skills, competences, knowledge, capabilities and other physical and personal attributes a certain post requires in order to perform the job successfully. A common acronym used to describe which types of attributes referred to in job analysis is KSAO (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Other characteristics).

The job description is a means of tracking accountability of performance and communicating the strategy and goals of an organization. Additionally, the job analysis could be used as the principal reference for decision-making in job evaluation and personnel management. According to Cascio (1995), task categories will become increasingly important in the future as jobs are more broadly defined and traditional organizational boundaries are removed (see also Johnson, 2000). Ultimately, job analysis is a process of implementing change in public sector personnel management as represented in the formula below.

Effective Change = Quality x Acceptance

Quality refers to the precision of the technical aspect of the change. In order to attain expected results from job analysis, technical means and implementation processes should be in accordance with organization objectives. However, a high quality job analysis system does not ensure the success of job analysis. The positive attitude of public servants towards job analysis is a prerequisite for successful job analysis in public organizations. Therefore, government organizations are required to seek to enhance both the quality of their job analysis system and the perception of public servants regarding job analysis. Coert Visser, Wieby Altink & Jen Algera (1997) said the job duty is to set the limit of the work and connect and it contributes to attain the goals of organization through the special method. In this regard, they argue that the personnel administrators are required to have the adequate knowledge about the mechanisms at work and relationships between staff. They further postulate that the job analysis is the traditional starting point prior to the systematic examination of the forms of decision-making that occur between staff and their work, and that this job analysis is still an applicable technique.

In practice, however, job analysis has been proven to be much less popular than would be expected (Ryan & Sackett, 1987). Visser, Altink, and Algera (1997) argue that one possible reason for this is that practitioners often lack knowledge about the area as well as the value of job analysis. Visser et al also content that, in relation to the limited interest in practice, there has been for a long

9

time little research or innovation (see also Pearn & Kandola, 1993). Some scholars and practitioners raise a rather fundamental doubt about the value of doing a job analysis in the governmental context (Lee 2002, Cho, 2002). Schmidt and Hunter (1981) argue that differences in civil service job content and context would have little or no consequence in terms of demarcating job tasks and in predicting further future work performance.

Nevertheless, the job analysis is still regarded as important and it is expected that new techniques of the job analysis will appear continuously. Coert Visser, Wieby Altink & Jen Algera (1997) insist that we need to focus on team building, transition of job duty and new demand. They suggest that conventional job analysis has some aspect that prevents universal implementation. Their reasoning includes shortage of job analysis knowledge, lack of user-friendly analysis techniques and the decline of interest in research and innovation over the long course. Regardless of the method used for collection, job analysis data typically includes contents such as task requirements for the job as well as education, experience, and training information relevant to the personnel.

Still, even in the private sectors of developed countries, performance management typically took three to five years to temper resistance from employees. Sawhill & Williamson (2001) admit that performance evaluation in public organizations is entangled in beneficiary relationships with the environment and is deterred by goals being abstract and the complexity involved in identifying exact accountability. Therefore, they propose the establishment of specific and clear duties; research on ways to monitor the effectiveness of performance in the achievement of duties; and to divide objectives into macro and micro levels so as to measure performance and thus measure public organization job performance. Huettner (2001) considers the regulation, instruction manuals, program, recruitment criteria, budgets and other such resources, position technology, employment, training and supervisor's evaluation as the essential components in his research report on management system for job analyses to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). When all the requirements are met, the management of the organization reflects the laws which underlie the group, becomes the basis of budgets and resources. It could link the individual to the business systems and could help the personnel management, evaluation, and the clarification of accountability.

With reference to the job analysis practice in the Korean context, past research and job analysis literature is reviewed to form the basic list of possible enablers and barriers with regards to expanding job analysis in the Korean government. Lee (2002), in his research of ‘The Analysis of Result of Performance-based Job Analysis’, identified the following four major barriers of job analysis practice in the Korean government: i) lack of clear objective of doing job analysis; disconnection between the job analysis results and performance evaluation; lack of communication between job analysis team and other staff; and job analysis methods conflicting with the organizational culture of Korean government. Based upon this observation, he suggests the following enablers that might improve the Korean government’s job analysis practice. They are consistency with performance-based HR management, effective communication between JA team and the majority of staff; clarifying role and responsibility among staff; customized JA program which is compatible with the Korean context, government officials’ awareness of the necessity for job analysis, improvement of HR team’s knowledge and techniques of job analysis and so on. Lee, Moon, and Lee (2007) in their attempt to prove the correlation between job analysis and job performance, recognized the main hindrances of job analysis practice in the Korean government based upon the central government officials’ perception. They argue that the acceptance and usage of job analysis is confined due to the misunderstanding of job analysis or lack of awareness of job analysis, lack of institutional preparedness for job analysis, lack of leadership, organizational and cultural resistance towards performance-based HR system et cetera. In their study, they suggested that ‘staff awareness of the necessity of job analysis’ as the most significant enabler for widening use of job analysis across the

10

government departments. Based upon his several years of civil service, Cho (2002) identified the main impediments of job analysis practice in the Korean government as lack of appropriate job analysis methodologies that suit for the Korean government; unclear wording in job analysis program; negative perception of performance-based HR system; failure of suggesting the future institutional changes as result of job analysis; lack of understanding of roles and responsibilities that associated with various positions; unclear purpose of job analysis; lack of staff participation in the process of job analysis; outdated job analysis which fails to reflect changes in job position and job requirement and so forth. Based upon these issues raised, he suggests a number of enablers that might have positive impacts on improvement of government job analysis such as user-oriented job analysis, clear objectives and visions of job analysis, incentives to organizations exercising job analysis, demonstration of best practices of job analysis, collaboration between job analysis team and performance evaluation team, staff competence of utilizing job analysis and so on. Lee and Kwon (2007), Park (2007), Administrative Diagnostic Center of Ministry of Public Administration and Security (2009), and The Korean Society of Public Personnel Administration identified fairly similar enablers and barriers to the aforementioned ones.

Based up the previous literature review, this study manages to form a list of barriers and enablers of job analysis in the Korean government. The initial listings are as shown in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4 Positive factors influencing job analysis

Factors might enable the successful implementation

J o b

A n a l y s i s

P r o c e s s

Job Analysis

Implement Process

Providing clear objectives & visions of Job Analysis

Providing best practice of Job Analysis

Strengthening the Job Analysis training

Promotion of Job Analysis

Providing incentives to organizations that exercise Job Analysis

Clear channel of communication between Job Analysis team and the staff

Staff awareness of the necessity of Job Analysis

Institutional Aspect

Clear definition of the scope of the usage of Job Analysis

The existence of Job Analysis team

Strong leadership and government support

Regular updates of Job Analysis

Methodology

Localized Job Analysis program in Korean context

Systematic task-based Job Analysis

Highly convincing Job Analysis method design

U s I

Performance - based system Consistency with performance based human resource management

Human Factor Staff capability building for utilizing Job Analysis (i.e. not relying on external consulting company)

11

n g

o f J o b

A n a l y s I S

Staff-centered Job Analysis

Follow-up Management

Regular updates and refinement of Job Analysis

Job Analysis linked to human resource management (linked to selection, careermanagement, education and training, etc).

Cooperation with performance evaluation government bodies

Job Analysis utilized in sub-organization level (e.g. directorate, division, team etc.)

Outcome database for Job Analysis

Institutional Aspect

Post-Job Analysis management system in place(ex, implementing clear regulation andinstitutions for Job Analysis usage

The existence of Job Analysis team

Strong Leadership and government support

Regular updates of Job Analysis

Table 5 Negative factors influencing job analysis

factors might hinder the implementation

J o b

A n a l y s i s

P r o c e s s

Job Analysis

Implement Process

Misinformation regarding visions, roles and strategies of a given organization

Failure of HRM fully explaining possible changes (as result of Job Analysis) to staff

Overwhelming image of Job Analysis

Organizational members’ misunderstanding of the purpose of Job Analysis

Lack of staff participation in Job Analysis

Institutional Aspect Lack of leaders’ interest and support in Job Analysis

Methodology

Inappropriate benchmarking of Western cases

Overemphasized organizational changes

Job Analysis techniques are flawed

(e.g. inappropriate Job Description to Job Analysis, inconsistency of Job Analyzing framework, unclear

wording)

U s I n g

performance - based system

Negative perception of performance-based HR system (i.e. Job Analysis is unsuitable for the existing

ranking system)

Human Factor Job Analysis is incompatible with the Korean government culture

12

o f J o b

A n a l y s I S

Lack of clear understanding of roles and responsibility attached to various positions

Follow-Up Management

Failure to continue Job Analysis

Outdated Job Analysis, not adapted to task change

Problem of Job Analysis

Job Analysis lacks detailed contents

Failure to adopt to new institutional change caused by Job Analysis

IV. Empirical Research

Lee (2002) views the environment surrounding job analysis as being divided into internal factors and external factors. Internal factors show how organization members perceive job analysis adoption and implementation and how effective analysis of jobs can affect the results of job analysis. External factors include the policy decision maker's position in the adoption and implementation of the job analysis system and the application of job analysis results. Additionally, the broader social and cultural environment influences both the implementation and the results of job analysis. 1. Sample and Demographic Profiles

Following this same light of reasoning, this study will explore in the first instance both internal factors, that is to say, the perception of civil servants in 35 central government departments and external factors, that is, the mind-set of HR personnel in charge of the job analysis and evaluation system, as well as other socio-cultural environmental factors. In order to identify the success and obstacle factors, this study will conduct a survey on perception levels targeted at central government officials as well as among officials who are responsible for job analysis.

The survey questionnaires were distributed to approximately 170 staff from the HR teams within 35 central government departments. Simultaneously, 330 survey questionnaires were sent to the four government departments (i.e. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the National Tax Agency, the Meteorological Administration, and the Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs) that carried out job analysis for all employees within their organizations. Usable questionnaires were returned by 358 out of approximately 500 potential participants.

Table 6 Main contents of the questionnaires

Classification Contents

Enablers and the barriers Investigation of the importance of success factors and obstacle factors for using the job analysis result

The value for result-oriented management

A survey covering perception levels and values pertaining to results-oriented management

Preference for the job analysis Research on the preference for the job analysis

13

The utilization of the job analysis result Soundings on the utilization of the job analysis result

Table 7 Selected 35 institutions

Unit Name of Government Organizations

Ministry

Ministry of Education and Science and Technology, Ministry of National Defense, Ministry of Land, Transportation Maritime Affairs, Ministry of Strategy and Finance, Ministry of Labor, Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Ministry of Gender Equality & Family, Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Ministry of Unification, Ministry of Public Administration and Security, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Agency Government Legislation Agency, Patriot and Veterans Administration Agency

Administration

National Tax Agency, Supply Administration, National Statistical Office, Customs Service, Public Prosecutor's Office, Military Manpower Administration, Meteorological Administration, Forest Service, Rural Development Administration, Small & Medium Business Administration, Industrial Property Office, Food and Drug Administration, National Marine Police Agency, Defense Acquisition Program Administration, National Emergency Management Agency, Cultural Properties administration, Multifunctional Administrative Constructive Agency

SPSS 18.0 will be used to calculate frequency analysis, chi-squared test, average-difference test, ANOVA, back-testing, and regression analysis.

Of the 358 respondents, 75.4% were males and 24.6% were female. 11.0% of respondents were in their 20s, 45.4% were in their 30s, 35.5% were in their 40s, and 8.2% of respondents were over 50. The majority of respondents were between the age of 30 and 40. Looking at the department of respondents, 38.5% of respondents were responsible for HR and the remaining 61.5% of respondents were responsible for general administrative services. With regards to the job position of respondents, 31.5% of respondents were grade 6, team leaders and chiefs (grade 5, 29.3% were grade 7, 4.3% were grade 8, 1.7% of respondents were manages g, grade 9. 24.5% of respondents which had the most percentage of response have 5 to 10 years of service. 20.8% of respondents have less than 5 years of civil service experience, 20.0% of respondents have 10 to 15 years of service, 17.7% have 15 to 20 years of service, 16.3% have over 20 years of working experience in government.

2. Test of Statistical Significance of the selected variables

In this section, this study attempts to find out whether the barriers and enablers drawn from the literature review have impact on the job analysis process and its usage with the statistical significance. The result of the regression analyses does not show that the main barriers and enablers have significant effect on job analysis process. However the main barriers and enablers affect significantly the usage of job analysis as discussed in the previous literature review. This result demonstrates that the selected list of barriers and enablers are supported by statistical analysis.

Practice of job analysis has a range of a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 5 (higher values represent more practice), with a mean of 2.93. The factors affecting the successful implementation of job analysis are ranged from -2.9392 to 7.542 with a mean of 0. The factors might hinder the implementation of job analysis are ranged from -3.228 to 7.756 with a mean of 0. Higher values represent that the factors are more important in both cases. The rank is ranged from 2 to 7 (higher

14

value represents higher ranking officer) with a mean of 4.16. The years of service is ranged from 1 to 5 (higher value represents longer working years) with a mean of 4.16. Higher values represent that these factors are more important in each case. The summary statistics of the regression analysis such as number of samples, minima, maxima, means, and standard deviations for the variables are listed in the following Table 8.

Table 8 Summary Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

DeviationPractice of job analysis 358 1 5 2.93 0.89 Factors in the successful implementation

358 -2.939 7.542 0 1

Factors might hinder the implementation

358 -3.228 7.756 0 1

Rank 358 2 7 4.16 1.18 Years of service 358 1 5 2.89 1.48 Valid N 358

According to factor analysis, two factors’ eigenvalues are higher than 1 in principle component analysis. We got more definite factor loading by 3 Varimax circulations. These factors can either work for or against the successful implementation of job analysis. These results are consistent with the previous studies on the Korean government’s job analysis practice. According to the reliability test, these factors are proven to be statistically valid because Cronbach’s alphas are about 0.9.

Table 9 Factor analysis on practice of job analysis

Questions Factor loading

Eigenvalue (variance)

Cronbach’s alpha

Factors in the successful

implementation

Consistency with performance based human resource management 0.690

5.993 (31.544) 0.912

Staff capability building for utilizing Job Analysis (i.e. not relying on external consulting company) 0.727

Staff-centered Job Analysis 0.553 Regular updates and refinement of Job Analysis 0.701Job Analysis linked to human resource management (linked to selection, career management, education and training, etc).

0.694

Cooperation with performance evaluation government bodies

0.647

Job Analysis utilized in sub-organization level (e.g. directorate, division, team etc.)

0.685

Outcome database for Job Analysis 0.752

Post-Job Analysis management system in place(ex, implementing clear regulation and institutions for Job Analysis usage

0.691

The existence of Job Analysis team 0.639

Strong Leadership and government support 0.655Regular updates of Job Analysis 0.768

factors might hinder the

Negative perception of performance-based HR system (i.e. Job Analysis is unsuitable for the existing ranking system)

0.710 4.688 (56.216) 0.907

15

implementation Job Analysis is incompatible with the Korean government culture 0.749

Lack of clear understanding of roles and responsibility attached to various positions 0.753

Failure to continue Job Analysis 0.812Outdated Job Analysis, not adapted to task change 0.825Job Analysis lacks detailed contents 0.786Failure to adopt to new institutional change caused by Job Analysis 0.752

According to multi-collinearity analysis, all tolerances are 0.95 - 0.99, which are much larger

than 0.1. VIF(variance Inflation Factor) are about 1.0. Therefore, it can be considered that there is no multi-collinearity problem.

The Table 10 shows the regression of practice of job analysis on enablers and barriers of job analysis. Among the four variables, the two variables are statistically significant and show the expected results; factors affecting the successful implementation of job analysis, and factors that might hinder the implementation of job analysis. Rank and length of service could not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. The interpretation of the coefficient is controlling for other variables, when the factors in the successful implementation increase by one point, the practice of job analysis increase by 0.186 points on average; controlling for other variables, when factors might hinder the implementation decrease by one point, the practice of job analysis decrease by 0.094 points, on average. The analysis of these two variables can be interpreted as the practice of job analysis is increased when the factors in the successful implementation are facilitated, and the factors might hinder the implementation are impeded. Table 10 Regression of practice of job analysis on enablers and barriers of job analysis

Linear Model Independent Variables Coefficient Standard Error t-statistic

Constant 2.575 0.210 12.240 Factors in the successful implementation 0.186** 0.046 4.057 Factors might hinder the implementation -0.094** 0.046 -2.048 Rank 0.052 0.040 1.297 Years of service 0.048 0.032 1.531

Adjusted 2R 0.057

F ratio 6.383 **Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. *Statistically significant at the 0.1 level. V. Findings The study first attempted discovers who the respondents think should be the main target of job analysis. With regards to the primary target for job analysis, a majority of respondents answered that grade 8 or 9 should be Among the respondents, those who have experience of either working for HRM or belong to job analysis team reported that job analysis for grade 8 or 9 should be conducted first. However, they feel that they should not be the primary target of job analysis.

Next, the general perception of the central officials for job analysis could be discussed in the following categories: needs for job analysis; process of designing job analysis; utilization of job analysis, and effective use of job analysis outcomes, performance-based personnel administration, and discrepancy in financial reward corresponding to job responsibility. The survey result shows that a majority of respondents are in favor of needs of job analysis (mean=3.79) and discrepancy in financial reward corresponding to job responsibility (mean=3.58 point) takes a relatively high point. Hence, this study suggests that the Korean government officials consider these two factors have the

16

significant impacts on job analysis practice with higher mean values. In contrast, it is reported that process of designing job analysis (mean= 2.89), utilization of job

analysis (mean= 2.91), and effective use of job analysis outcomes (mean=2.84) score relatively low point. These factors have a lower mean value, thus they are considered less influential.

Regardless of job analysis experience, the need for job analysis seems to be strongly recognized in each group. While understanding of job analysis is relatively low, the potential need for job analysis is widely identified. It is worthy to note that while those in the high position such as senior executives, section chiefs tend to recognize the need for job analysis, however the outcome of job analysis has not been utilized. This result might be due to the assumption that financial reward corresponding to performance is incompatible practically with a rank system.

Next, the positive factors and negative factors will be discussed in two levels: job analysis process and utilization of job analysis. First of all, with the significance rating for each factor, the positive factors and negative factors in the process and application of the job analysis are identified as follows:

1. Enabling Factors

1) Job analysis process

Positive contributing factors in the job analysis process can be divided into three aspects. Those are the job analysis implement process, institutional aspect, and the aspect of methodology. At the start, 7 sub-factors in the Job analysis implement process are identified and analyzed with mean values. They are clear objectives and visions of job analysis (mean=3.91), staff awareness of the necessity of job analysis (mean=3.87), better communication between job analysis team and other staff (mean=3.70), providing best practices of job analysis(mean=3.65), strengthening the job analysis training(mean=3.60), promotion of job analysis(mean=3.51 ), and providing incentives to organizations that exercise job analysis(mean=3.49),

Secondly, with regard to institutional aspect, 4 sub-factors were identified and analyzed: clear definition of the scope of the usage of job analysis (mean=3.85), strong leadership and government support(mean=3.78), presence of job analysis team(mean=3.60), and regular update of job analysis (mean=3.35). Thirdly, 3 sub-factors in the aspect of methodology are identified and analyzed: customized job analysis program reflecting the Korean organizational culture (mean=3.93), highly convincing job analysis program design (mean=3.85), and systematic task-based job analysis (mean=3.71).

Through the Likert 5 point scale analysis, Figure 2 demonstrates that the most influential variables affecting the job analysis process was identified as the customized job analysis program in harmony with the Korean context, followed by clear objective and visions of job analysis and well-defined job analysis design.

17

Figure 2 Positive contributing factors in job analysis process

3.91 

3.65 

3.60 

3.51 

3.49 

3.70 

3.87 3.85 

3.60 3.78 

3.35 

3.93 

3.71 

3.85 

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0Clear objectives & visions

Best practice

Strengthening  the training

Promotion of Job Analysis

Incentives to organizations

Clear channel ofcommunication

Staff awareness ofthe necessity

Clear definition of the scope of the usage

The existence of the team

Strong  leadership &government support

Regular updates

Localized program

Systematic task‐basedJob Analysis

Highly convincingmethod design

2) The usage of Job Analysis

Positive contributing factors in the usage of Job Analysis can be divided into four aspects. Those aspects are performance-based system, human factor, follow-up management, and institutional facet. First, one sub-factor in the aspect of performance-based system is consistency with performance-based HR management (mean=3.53). Second, 2 sub-factors in the attribute of human factor are staff capability building for utilizing job analysis, that is to say, not relying on external consulting company(mean=3.67) and staff-centered job analysis(mean=3.65). Third, 5 sub-factors as regards follow-up management are identified and analyzed: database for job analysis (mean=3.95), regular update and improvement of job analysis (mean=3.75), employ job analysis associated with HR management to selection, career management, education and training, etc (mean=3.65), collaboration between job analysis team and performance evaluation team (mean=3.58), job analysis utilized in sub-organization level (e.g. directorate, division, team etc.) (mean=3.47). Lastly, 4 sub-factors in the institutional aspect are identified as follows: follow-up management system in place (e.g. implementing clear regulation and policies for job analysis usage) (mean=3.70), strong leadership and government support(mean=3.66), regular update of job analysis (mean3.5), and the presence of job analysis team institutions (mean=3.45).

Figure 3 shows that in the 13 items which contribute to the application of the job analysis, job analysis in consistent with performance-based HR management and follow-up management for job analysis get the highest points, followed by the staff’s capability building for utilizing job analysis and strong leadership and commitment. It is thought that the important thing is the consistency between the HR management and job analysis, job analysis program customized to the Korean government culture, clear vision and objectives of job analysis, and strong leadership and commitment for job analysis are recognized as the significant enabling factors by taking the most score both in the process and use of job analysis.

18

Figure 3 Positive contributing factors in the usage of job analysis

3.53  3.67 

3.65 

3.59 

3.75 3.39 

3.47 3.65 

3.70 

3.45 

3.66 

3.51 

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

4.0 

Consistency withhuman resource management

Staff capability building for utilizing

Staff‐centered Job Analysis 

Regular updates and refinement 

Linked to human resource management  

Cooperation with performance evaluation government bodies 

Utilized in sub‐organization level

Outcome database

Post‐management system

The existence of the team

Strong Leadership & government support 

Regular updates

2. Constraining Factors

1) Job Analysis Process

Constraining factors can be discussed in the three aspects: job analysis implementation process, institutional aspect, and methodology. To begin with, jo analysis implementation is consisted of 5 sub-factors with the following mean values: failures of HRM in explaining the possible future changes that might occurred to organization and organizational members (mean=3.71), staff’s misunderstanding of the purpose of job analysis (mean=3.58), lack of staff participation in job analysis (mean=3.58), lack of information of visions, roles and strategies of an organization (mean=3.44), and overwhelming organizational restructuring image of job analysis (mean=3.15).Secondly, an institutional aspect is identified as lack of leader’s interest and commitment for job analysis (mean=3.62) Thirdly, methodology encompasses 3 sub-factors. They are inadequate job analysis techniques (mean=3.59), overemphasized organizational changes (mean=3.51), and benchmarking of badly chosen Western countries’ cases of job analysis (mean=3.38).

Figure 4 shows that among the 9 negative constraints in the course of the job analysis, failure of HR team in explaining possible organizational changes to staff and lack of leaders' interest and support in job analysis were recognized as the most noteworthy constraining factors that might have bad impact in the process of job analysis. However, unlike the previous literature suggested, overwhelming government reform image associated with job analysis seems not a big issue as it shows the least significance (mean=3.15).

19

Figure 4 Constraining Factors in Job Analysis Process

3.44 

3.71 

3.15 

3.58 

3.58 3.62 

3.38 

3.51 

3.59 

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

4.0 

Misinformation regardingvisions, roles and strategies 

Failure of HRM 

Overwhelming image

Organizational members’ misunderstanding 

Lack of staff participation Lack of leaders’interest and support

Inappropriate benchmarking of Western cases

Overemphasizedorganizational changes 

Job Analysis techniques are flawed

2) The utilization of Job Analysis

With regard to utilizing job analysis for various applications, hindering factors can be divided into four aspects: performance-based system, human factor, follow-up management of job analysis, problem of job analysis itself.

First, performance-based system includes 1 sub-factor, that is, the government officials’ negative perception of performance-based HR management (mean=3.48). Second, human factor has 2 sub-factors. They are incompatibility of job analysis and the Korean government culture (mean=3.56 point) and lack of clear understanding of roles and responsibility attached to various positions (mean=3.55). Third, follow-up management comprises 2 sub-factors. They are outdated job analysis which fails to reflect job changes (mean= 3.63) and failure of continuing job analysis (mean=3.49). Lastly, problem of job analysis includes 2 sub-factors. They are job analysis lacking detailed contents (mean=3.52) and failure to adjust to new institutional change caused by job analysis (mean=3.48)

The failure to continuing job analysis, that is, one-time use of the job analysis ranks the highest as the negative factor in the usage of the job analysis, followed by the incongruity of job analysis and the Korean organizational culture and lack of clear understanding of roles and responsibility. Hence, it is considered that the continuous implementation and the development of the suitable model for the Korean government are mostly required for expanding the job analysis across the government departments.

20

Figure 5 Constraining Factors in the Usage of Job Analysis

3.48 

3.56 

3.55 

3.63 3.49 

3.48 

3.52 

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

4.0 

Negative perception ofperformance‐based HR system

incompatibility with the Korean government culture 

Lack of clear understanding ofroles & responsibility 

Failure to continuingNot adapted to task change

Lack of detailed contents

Failure to adopt to new institutional change

VI. Discussion and Implications

It seems that there is a great awareness of the need for job analysis in the Korean government even though the level of knowledge on job analysis is relatively low. There appears to be a discrepancy between the needs for job analysis that the government officials recognize and their actual knowledge of job analysis. Thus, the Korean government official’s knowledge of job analysis should be improved. Based upon the findings from the literature review and survey, this study could put forward report two basic strategies for future job analysis. First, in company with the close link between job analysis and performance-based HR management, an unwavering follow-up management of job analysis and strong leadership and commitment should be developed. The other is that job analysis need to be conducted systematically in a need-basis and easy to use technical platform to resolve current problems in personnel management.

However, with regard to performance-based HR management, the findings of the survey shows that 51% of respondents do not seem to think that job analysis is in agreement with the Korean governmental organizational culture which is deeply embedded in a hierarchical rank system. More specifically, 64.5% of the respondents who worked for HRM and 60.2% of the respondents responsible for job analysis recognized that ‘job analysis is incompatible with the Korean government culture’ factor is the most important negative constraint factor. 42.7% of the respondents in charge of general jobs and 48.2% of the respondents who had no experience with implementing job analysis reported that ‘job analysis is incompatible with the Korean government culture’ factor is the most important negative factor. 57.7% of senior executives, section chief, and team leaders and 56.8% of grade 6, and 38.8% grade 7 officials responded answered the same. Above all, those who work or used to work at the HRM and those are in charge of the job analysis have a tendency to think that ‘job analysis is incompatible with the Korean government organizational culture’ is the most critical constraining factor. Hence, one might argue that the job analysis associated with performance-based HR seems loosely coupled with a rank system in the Korean government. For that reason, it is crucial to develop a customized job analysis program that fit in the Korean governmental cultures. In this regard, many academics and practitioners of HR in public sector argue that job analysis must occur

21

before choosing a selection system, rather than as a retrospective analysis after the event, this is the case of the Korean government job analysis practice.

Another issue worthy of attention in the Korean job analysis is that clear objective and vision of job analysis is required along with strong leadership. This suggests that the job analysis practice in Korea has been exercised without knowing precisely why job analysis is needed for and without senior officials’ genuine commitment. Perhaps for this reason, the job analysis practice in the Korean government has been largely limited to a single time implementation in order to show that they followed the government efforts to employ job analysis.

Furthermore, the job analysts should be properly trained in the different techniques to ensure that they collect objective information and are as free from bias as possible. However, perhaps the most imperative issue for the job analysis practice in the Korean government may be the widely shared recognition of the government officials that job analysis should determine the most important and critical aspects of the job and it is upon these that the key attributes and selection and evaluation for the job should be based.

For the expansion of job analysis in government, this paper further stresses the need for contingent design of job analysis based on each organization's specific condition and needs. As the means to increase use of job analysis, the report recommends training job analysis supervisors as champions of change; building knowledge sharing system in organizations; including job analysis education as core course in public servant education trainings; and seminar tour in all ministries and agencies to promote job analysis.

References

Cho, S.Y. (2002). Direction for development of the job analysis. Public Administration, No.13, The Central Personnel Committee. pp. 26-37.

Coert Visser, Wieby Altink and Jen Algera. (1997). From job analysis to work profiling Do traditional procedures still apply? In Handbook of Assessment and Selection, Andersen & Herriot, New York, John Wiley & Sons

Fleishman EA, Quaintance MK. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Frederick P. Morgeson and Michael A. Campion. (2000). Accuracy in Job Analysis: Toward an Inference-Based Model. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21(7): 819-827.

Goldstein IL, Zedeck S, Schneider B. (1993). An exploration of the job analysis-content validity process. In Personnel Selection in Organizations, Schmitt N, Borman WC and Associates (eds) Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA; pp. 3-34.

Harvey RJ. (1991). Job analysis. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, 2nd edn. Dunnette MD, Hough LM (eds) Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA; pp. 71-163.

Hirschfeld, Robert R., Schmitt, Leigh P., Bedeian, Arthur G. (2002). Job-content perceptions, performance-reward expectancies, and absenteeism among low-wage public-sector clerical employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16(4), 553-564.

Jeff W. Johnson (2000), Factor Analysis of Importance Ratings in Job Analysis: Note on the Misinterpretation of Cranny and Doherty (1988). Organizational Research Methods, Vol.3 No.3, 267-284.

Juan I. Sanchez, Edward L. Levine. (2000). Accuracy or Consequential Validity: Which Is the Better Standard for Job Analysis Data?. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21(7): 809-818

Kleiman, Lawrence S. and Biderman, Michael. (1989). Job analysis managerial selection: A guidelines-based approach. Journal of Business and Psychology. 3:(3)

Lee, C.G., et.al. (2007). The effect of job analysis on the organization outcome: with the investigation on the recognition of central civil service, The Korea Association for Public Administration Winter Conference.

Lee, H.B. & Kwon, Y. S. (2007), A study on the application of the job analysis for diagnose the organization and manpower. The Journal of the Korean Society for Public Personnel Administration, Vol.6(2). pp. 247-262.

22

Lee, S.W. (2002). The analysis of the experiment data for the job analysis. The Journal of the Korean Society for Public Personnel Administration. pp.425-440

Levine EL. (1983). Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Job Analysis. Mariner: Tampa, FL. McCormick, E.J., Jeanerette, P.R. & Meacham, R.C. (1972). A Study of job characteristics and job dimensions

as based on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 56. pp.347-368.

McCormick EJ. (1976). Job and task analysis. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dunnette MD (ed.). Rand-McNally: Chicago, IL; 651-696.

McKillip. (2001). Case studies in job analysis and training evaluation. International Journal of Training and Development.

Morgeson FP, Campion MA. (1997). Social and cognitive sources of potential inaccuracy in job analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82: 627-656.

Park, C. H. (2002). The usefulness and limitation of the job analysis: with the experience of the work for the government job analysis. Public Administration, No.10, The Central Personnel Committee. pp. 52-63.

Paul E. Spector. (2000). Introduction: Job Analysis Accuracy versus Consequential Validity. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21(7): 807

Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., and Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary Assessment: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. Reading Research Quarterly. 42(2): 282-296.

Pynes, J. E. (2004). Human Resources Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Robert J. Harvey, Mark A. Wilson. (2000). Yes Virginia, There Is an Objective Reality in Job Analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21(7): 829-854.

Robert R. Hirschfeld, Leigh P. Schmitt, Arthur G. Bedeian. (2002). Job-Content Perceptions, Performance-Reward Expectancies, and Absenteeism among Low-Wage Public-Sector Clerical Employees. Journal of Business and Psychology. 16(4): 553-564

Ronald N. Johnson and Gary D. Libecap. (1994). The Rise of Federal Employees as an Interest Group: The Early Years, NBER Chapters, in The Federal Civil Service System and The Problem of Bureaucracy, pages 76-95 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Sanchez JI, Levine EL. (2000). Accuracy of consequential validity: which is the better standard for job analysis data?. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21: 809-818.

Susan M. Jenkins and Patrick Curtin. (2006). Adapting Job Analysis Methodology to Improve Evaluation Practice. American Journal of Evaluation. 27(4): 485-494

Tenopyr ML. (1977). Content-construct confusion. Personnel Psychology. 30: 47-54.

The Ministry of Public Administration and Security. (2009). The manual of the job analysis for the efficient organization management.

Wart, M. W. (2000). The Return to Simpler Strategies in Job Analysis: The Case of Municipal Clerks. Review of Public Personnel Administration, summer 2000

Yoder, Dale. (1970). Personnel management and industrial relations. 6th edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Korea Central Civil Service Committee. www.csc.go.kr