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 jobrelated 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.
1
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.
2
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
- implemented job analysis for the introduction
1963
The establishment of position classification system
- targeted all the general position
position
classification law
1996~1997
- the failure of the adoption of position
classification system (too idealistic)
- many part of it is applied to the
government official act of 1973
- conducted by the job analysis project team
- focused on the methodological
(temporary organization) under the ministry of activity
the government administration
- unable to connect due to the
- Aimed to find the 20 open professional
outcome-centered management
position and improve the unreasonable
structure of the job-series
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 performancerelated payment
-Induced the result-oriented thought
by setting the focus to the
performance responsibility
3
- 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.
4
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
5
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 jobrelated 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
6
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
1 step
Contents
Collecting Background Position Information
7
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
8
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
9
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
Providing clear objectives & visions of Job Analysis
Providing best practice of Job Analysis
Job
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Analysis
Implement
Process
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
Clear definition of the scope of the usage of Job Analysis
The existence of Job Analysis team
Institutional Aspect
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
U
s
I
Strong leadership and government support
Regular updates of Job Analysis
Localized Job Analysis program in Korean context
Methodology
Systematic task-based Job Analysis
Highly convincing Job Analysis method design
Performance
- based system
Human Factor
Consistency with performance based human resource management
Staff capability building for utilizing Job Analysis (i.e. not relying on external consulting
company)
10
n
g
Staff-centered Job Analysis
Regular updates and refinement of Job Analysis
o
f
Follow-up Management
Job Analysis linked to human resource management (linked to selection, career
management, education and training, etc).
Cooperation with performance evaluation government bodies
J
o
b
A
n
a
l
y
s
I
S
Job Analysis utilized in sub-organization level (e.g. directorate, division, team etc.)
Outcome database for Job Analysis
Post-Job Analysis management system in place(ex, implementing clear regulation and
institutions for Job Analysis usage
The existence of Job Analysis team
Institutional Aspect
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
Misinformation regarding visions, roles and strategies of a given organization
Job
Analysis
Implement
Process
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
Inappropriate benchmarking of Western cases
P
r
o
c
e
Overemphasized organizational changes
Methodology
(e.g. inappropriate Job Description to Job Analysis, inconsistency of Job Analyzing framework, unclear
s
s
U
s
I
n
g
Job Analysis techniques are flawed
wording)
performance
Negative perception of performance-based HR system (i.e. Job Analysis is unsuitable for the existing
- based system
ranking system)
Human Factor
Job Analysis is incompatible with the Korean government culture
11
o
f
Lack of clear understanding of roles and responsibility attached to various positions
J
o
b
Follow-Up
Failure to continue Job Analysis
Management
Outdated Job Analysis, not adapted to task change
A
n
a
l
y
s
Job Analysis lacks detailed contents
Problem of Job
Analysis
Failure to adopt to new institutional change caused by Job Analysis
I
S
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 resultoriented 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
12
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
13
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
Practice of job analysis
Factors in the successful
implementation
Factors might hinder the
implementation
Rank
Years of service
Valid N
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
358
358
1
-2.939
5
7.542
2.93
0
Std.
Deviation
0.89
1
358
-3.228
7.756
0
1
358
358
358
2
1
7
5
4.16
2.89
1.18
1.48
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
Factors in the
successful
implementation
factors might
hinder the
Questions
Factor
loading
Consistency with performance based human resource
management
0.690
Staff capability building for utilizing Job Analysis (i.e.
not relying on external consulting company)
0.727
Staff-centered Job Analysis
Regular updates and refinement of Job Analysis
Job Analysis linked to human resource management
(linked to selection, career management, education and
training, etc).
Cooperation with performance evaluation government
bodies
0.553
0.701
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
The existence of Job Analysis team
0.691
Strong Leadership and government support
Regular updates of Job Analysis
0.655
0.768
Negative perception of performance-based HR system
(i.e. Job Analysis is unsuitable for the existing ranking
system)
0.710
14
Eigenvalue
(variance)
Cronbach’s
alpha
5.993
(31.544)
0.912
4.688
(56.216)
0.907
0.694
0.647
0.639
implementation
Job Analysis is incompatible with the Korean
government culture
Lack of clear understanding of roles and responsibility
attached to various positions
Failure to continue Job Analysis
Outdated Job Analysis, not adapted to task change
Job Analysis lacks detailed contents
Failure to adopt to new institutional change caused by
Job Analysis
0.749
0.753
0.812
0.825
0.786
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
Constant
Factors in the successful implementation
Factors might hinder the implementation
Rank
Years of service
Adjusted
F ratio
R2
Coefficient
2.575
0.186**
-0.094**
0.052
0.048
0.057
Standard Error
0.210
0.046
0.046
0.040
0.032
t-statistic
12.240
4.057
-2.048
1.297
1.531
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
15
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 welldefined job analysis design.
16
Figure 2 Positive contributing factors in job analysis process
Clear objectives & visions
Highly convincing
4.0
Best practice
method design
3.91 Systematic task‐based
3.85 3.5
Strengthening the training
3.65 Job Analy sis
3.71 Localized program
3.60 3.0
3.93 3.51 Promotion of Job Analysis
2.5
Regular updates
Strong leadership &
government support
3.49 3.35 Incentives to organizations
3.70 3.78 3.60 3.85 The existence of the team
3.87 Clear channel of
communication
Staff awareness of
the necessity
Clear definition of
the scope of the usage
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 performancebased 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 suborganization 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.
17
Figure 3 Positive contributing factors in the usage of job analysis
Consistency with
human resource management
4.0 Regular updates
Staff capability building for utilizing
3.5 Strong Leadership & government support The existence of the team
3.51 3.66 3.0 3.45 2.5 3.53 3.70 Post‐management system
3.67 Staff‐centered Job Analysis 3.65 3.59 3.39 Regular updates and refinement 3.75 Linked to human resource management 3.65 3.47 Cooperation with performance evaluation government bodies Outcome database
Utilized in sub‐organization level
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 subfactors 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).
18
Figure 4 Constraining Factors in Job Analysis Process
Misinformation regarding
visions, roles and strategies 4.0 Job Analysis techniques are flawed
3.59 3.5 Failure of HRM 3.44 3.71 Overemphasized
organizational changes 3.0 Overwhelming image
3.51 3.15 2.5 3.38 3.58 Inappropriate benchmarking of Western cases
Organizational members’ misunderstanding 3.62 3.58 Lack of leaders’
interest and support
Lack of staff participation 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 subfactors. 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.
19
Figure 5 Constraining Factors in the Usage of Job Analysis
Negative perception of
performance‐based HR system
4.0 Failure to adopt to new institutional change
3.48 incompatibility with the Korean government culture 3.5 3.52 3.56 3.0 3.48 2.5 Lack of detailed contents
3.55 3.49 Lack of clear understanding of
roles & responsibility 3.63 Not adapted to task change
Failure to continuing
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
20
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, performancereward 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. 247262.
21
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.347368.
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, PerformanceReward 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
22