Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Journal of Public Administration
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Public Administration - Vol. 63, No. 3, pp.179-211
ISSN: 1229-6694 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2025
Received 22 Mar 2025 Revised 15 Jul 2025 Accepted 30 Jul 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24145/KJPA.63.3.7

공공조직의 증거기반실무는 어떻게 이뤄지는가: 자기결정성 이론을 통한 메커니즘 탐구

장민주* ; 이장범**
*제1저자, 서울대학교 행정대학원 박사수료 jangminju11@snu.ac.kr
**교신저자, 한국행정연구원 부연구위원 jangbumlee@kipa.re.kr
How Is Evidence-Based Practice Achieved in Public Organizations?: Exploring the Mechanisms through Self-Determination Theory
Minju Jang* ; Jangbum Lee**

초록

이 연구는 조직적 차원에서 증거기반행정을 활성화하기 위한 리더십이 조직 구성원의 개인적 증거기반실무에 미치는 영향을 자기결정성 이론의 관점에서 분석하였다. 구체적으로, 기본심리욕구이론, 인지평가이론, 유기통합이론 등 자기결정성 이론의 하위 이론들을 적용하여 리더십이 유능성, 자율성, 관계성 등 심리적 욕구와 증거기반 실무동기를 통해 구성원의 증거기반실무에 미치는 영향을 다중매개효과 모형을 통하여 검정하였다. 분석 결과, 리더십이 심리적 욕구와 동기를 매개로 하여 증거기반실무에 긍정적인 영향력을 미친다는 이 연구의 가설이 부분적으로 지지되었다. 이러한 결과는 증거기반 관점을 실증적으로 연구하는 데 있어 자기결정성 이론이 핵심적인 이론적 토대가 될 수 있음을 시사하며 최근 주목받고 있는 증거기반실무와 데이터 기반 행정을 촉진하기 위한 정책 수립에 대한 실천적 제언을 제공한다.

Abstract

This study analyzes the influence of leadership at the organizational level on individual members’ evidence-based practice (EBP) from the perspective of self-determination theory (SDT). Specifically, it applies the sub-theories of SDT—basic psychological needs theory, cognitive evaluation theory, and organismic integration theory—to examine how leadership affects competence, autonomy, and relatedness, as well as motivation for EBP, thereby influencing members’ engagement in EBP. A multiple mediation model was employed to test these relationships. The results partially supported the hypothesis that leadership positively impacts EBP through the mediating roles of psychological needs and motivation. These findings suggest that SDT can serve as a critical theoretical foundation for empirical research on evidence-based perspectives and offer practical implications for policy development aimed at promoting evidence-based practice and data-driven governance.

Keywords:

evidence-based practice, data-based administration, self-determination theory, leadership, multiple mediation model

키워드:

증거기반실무, 데이터기반행정, 자기결정성 이론, 리더십, 다중매개모형

References

  • 김병조. (2021). 한국 공공기관의 증거기반관리: 조직지원과 리더특성의 역할. ｢국가정책연구｣, 35(1), 127-153.
  • 김병조･은종환. (2020). 행정-정책 의사결정에서 머신러닝 (machine learning) 방법론 도입의 정책적 함의: 기계의 한계와 증거기반 의사결정 (evidence-based decision-making). ｢한국행정학보｣, 54(1), 261-285.
  • 김승용･이병철･김기홍. (2013). 임파워링 리더십이 구성원의 지식공유와 내재적 동기부여에 미치는 영향: 상사신뢰 매개를 중심으로. ｢지식경영연구｣, 14(2), 89-116.
  • 김법연. (2020). 데이터기반행정 관련 국내 법제 동향. ｢경제규제와 법｣, 13(2), 188-197.
  • 강원석･김지영･김우철. (2021). 리더십과 업무몰입의 관계에 관한 메타분석 연구: 최근 10 년간 국내 연구를 중심으로. ｢HRD 연구 (구 인력개발연구)｣, 23(1), 57-85.
  • 윤건. (2019). 데이터기반행정 강화 방안 연구: 공공데이터 융합(integration)을 중심으로. KIPA 연구보고서 2019-03.
  • 이지혜･이수진･김석영･윤석화･정민영. (2022). 국내 윤리적 리더십에 관한 연구: 체계적 고찰과 메타분석. ｢조직과 인사관리연｣, 46(2), 5-55. [https://doi.org/10.36459/jom.2022.46.2.5]
  • 전영한. (2004). 공공조직의 목표모호성: 개념, 측정 그리고 타당화. ｢한국행정학보｣, 38(5), 49-66.
  • 조세현･차세영･김준형･권향원･김경민･박주원･부성필. (2022). 클라우드전환시대 데이터기반행정 추진전략: 데이터 분석･ 활용 강화 방안을 중심으로. 한국행정연구원.
  • 정하･수란･손영우. (2015). 변혁적 안전리더십이 안전행동에 미치는 영향: 안전 분위기, 안전동기의 매개 효과와 리더에 대한 신뢰의 조절 효과. ｢한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직｣, 28(2), 249-274.
  • 변주영. (2024). 공공조직 진성 리더십과 결과 변인에 대한 메타분석. ｢대한경영학회지｣, 37(2), 277-300.
  • Barends, E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2018). Evidence-based management: How to use evidence to make better organizational decisions. Kogan Page Publishers.
  • Barends, E., Villanueva, J., Rousseau, D. M., Briner, R. B., Jepsen, D. M., Houghton, E., & Ten Have, S. (2017). Managerial attitudes and perceived barriers regarding evidence-based practice: An international survey. PloS one, 12(10), e0184594. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184594]
  • Cantarelli, P., Belle, N., & Hall, J. L. (2023). Information use in public administration and policy decision-making: A research synthesis. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1667-1686. [https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13735]
  • Chen, B. M., & Libgober, B. (2024). Do administrative procedures fix cognitive biases? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(1), 105-121. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac054]
  • Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 529-557. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui030]
  • Cyert, R., & March, J. (2015). Behavioral theory of the firm. In Organizational Behavior 2 (pp. 60-77). Routledge.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Perspectives in social psychology. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7]
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. [https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01]
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macro theory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801]
  • Gomathy, C. K., Karthikeya, T., Srikar, S., & Sai Pranav, S. (2024). The effect of leadership on organisational behaviour and performance. SCSVMV Deemed to be University.
  • Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence‐based policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1-11. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00564.x]
  • Head, B. W. (2010a). Evidence-based policy: Principles and requirements. Strengthening Evidence-Based Policy in the Australian Federation, 1(1), 13–26.
  • Head, B. W. (2010b). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29(2), 77–94. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001]
  • Head, B. W. (2016). Toward more “evidence‐informed” policy making?. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472-484. [https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12475]
  • Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. Wiley.
  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. [https://doi.org/10.2307/973677]
  • March, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.
  • Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?. Journal of public administration research and theory, 20(4), 849-866. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004]
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: A handbook, 97-146. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2490-4_4]
  • Pandey, S. K., Cheng, Y., & Hall, J. L. (2022). Epistemic decolonization of public policy pedagogy and scholarship. Public Administration Review, 82(6), 977-985. [https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13560]
  • Rousseau, D. M. (2020). The realist rationality of evidence-based management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(3), 415-424. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2020.0050]
  • Rousseau, D. M. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763986.001.0001]
  • Rousseau, D. M., & Gunia, B. C. (2016). Evidence-based practice: The psychology of EBP implementation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 667-692. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033336]
  • Rousseau, D. M., & ten Have, S. (2022). Evidence-based change management. Organizational Dynamics, 51(3), 100899. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2022.100899]
  • Rynes, S. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2017). Evidence-based management: Foundations, development, controversies, and future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 235-261. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113306]
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). University of Rochester Press.
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2024). Self-determination theory. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6229-6235). Springer International Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_2630]
  • Sackett, D. L. (1997). Evidence-based medicine. In Seminars in Perinatology, 21(1), 3-5. WB Saunders. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80013-4]
  • Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communication, and the public interest (pp. 37-72). Johns Hopkins Press.
  • Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. In Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161–176.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1958). Reinforcement today. American Psychologist, 13(3), 94. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049039]
  • Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. NuVision Publications, LLC.
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185 (4157), 1124-1131. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124]
  • Van der Voet, J., & Lerusse, A. (2024). Performance information and issue prioritization by political and managerial decision-makers: A discrete choice experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, muae011. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae011]
  • Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197-222. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2139277]
  • Oettingen, G., & Mayer, D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: expectations versus fantasies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(5), 1198-1212. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1198]
  • Yukl, G. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2020). Leadership in Organizations [on line].