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. 64, No. 1, pp.201-223
ISSN: 1229-6694 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2026
Received 25 Jan 2026 Revised 15 Mar 2026 Accepted 20 Mar 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24145/KJPA.64.1.7

포용적 분위기와 공무원의 다차원적 직무성과 간 관계: 능동성의 매개효과

문명* ; 김상숙**
*주저자, 제주대학교 행정학과 강사 mmoooonn9190@gmail.com
**교신저자, 이화여자대학교 정책과학대학원 초빙교수 sangsuk_kim@ewha.ac.kr
The Relationship Between Inclusive Climate and Public Officials’ Multidimensional Job Performance: The Mediating Effect of Proactivity
Myung Moon* ; Sangsuk Kim**

초록

급변하는 행정환경 속에 공공조직이 성과를 유지･향상하기 위해서는 구성원이 존중받고 능동적으로 업무에 참여할 수 있게 하는 조직 조건을 규명할 필요가 있다. 본 연구는 공공조직에서 포용적 분위기가 직무성과(과업 숙련도, 과업 적응성, 과업 선제성)에 이르는 경로를 분석하였다. 선제적 동기 모형(proactive motivation model)을 바탕으로 포용–동기–행동–성과로 이어지는 심리적 경로의 검증을 위해 한국행정연구원의 ｢한국의 공･사조직 구성원 인식 비교 조사｣ 결과를 활용하였다. 분석 결과, 포용적 분위기는 능동성을 매개로 과업 숙련도, 과업 적응성, 과업 선제성 모두에 유의미한 정(+)의 영향을 미쳤다. 특히 과업 선제성에 대한 간접효과가 상대적으로 크게 나타났다. 이는 포용적 분위기가 과업수행의 정확성을 넘어 구성원의 문제탐색과 개선 실행을 촉진하는 조직적 맥락으로 기능할 수 있음을 시사한다. 나아가 국내 공공부문에서 포용에 관한 실증연구의 확장과 함께 포용을 인사관리 제도와 조직운영 방식으로 재개념화할 필요성을 제시하였다는 데 의미가 있다.

Abstract

Identifying organizational conditions that enable public officials to feel respected and engage proactively in their work is essential for maintaining and improving performance in a rapidly changing administrative environment. This study examines how an inclusive climate influences multidimensional job performance in public organizations, focusing on task proficiency, adaptability, and proactivity. Based on the proactive motivation model, the study verifies the relationship between inclusive climate and performance through employees’ proactivity and tests the hypotheses using survey data from the ‘Comparative Survey of Perceptions among Members of Public and Private Organizations in Korea’ conducted by Korea Institute of Public Administration. The mediation analysis shows that an inclusive climate is positively associated with all performance dimensions via proactivity. The indirect effect is stronger for task proactivity, suggesting the importance of an inclusive climate as an organizational condition that facilitates employees’ problem search and improvement-oriented action beyond accurate task execution. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are presented.

Keywords:

inclusive climate, proactivity, job performance, task efficiency, task adaptability, task proactivity

키워드:

포용적 분위기, 능동성, 직무성과, 과업 숙련도, 과업 적응성, 과업 선제성

References

  • 김윤권. (2021). 협업행정의 동인과 제약에 관한 이론적 연구. ｢한국행정학보｣, 55(3), 59-94.
  • 김준합･임상혁･강보경･궈인핑. (2023). 포용적 리더십과 혁신행동과 실책관리문화 인식과의 관계 연구. ｢리더십연구｣, 14(S1), 3-31.
  • 김홍민･임헌진. (2020). 포용적리더십이 조직시민행동에 미치는 영향: 심리적주인의식의 매개효과. ｢지역산업연구｣, 43(4), 3-23.
  • 임태호･이석환. (2011). 정부 간 재정지원 제도의 변화가 지방정부의 효율성과 형평성에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구. ｢행정논총｣, 49(1), 117-137.
  • 이미희･신호철. (2025). 포용적 리더십이 구성원의 혁신행동에 미치는 영향: LMX 의 매개효과와 지각된 실책관리풍토의 조절효과. ｢혁신기업연구｣, 10(1), 209-227.
  • Alang, T., Stanton, P., & Rose, M. (2022). Enhancing employee voice and inclusion through inclusive leadership in public sector organizations. Public Personnel Management, 51(3), 309-329. [https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221085583]
  • Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118. [https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202]
  • Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589-604. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589]
  • Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3]
  • Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736076]
  • Brewer, M. B. (2012). Optimal distinctiveness theory: its history and development. P. A. M., Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins. (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2, 81–98. London: Sage [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n30]
  • Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel psychology, 43(2), 313-575. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb01561.x]
  • Cho, S., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2008). Understanding of diversity and inclusion in a perceived homogeneous culture: A study of organizational commitment and job performance among Korean employees. Administration in Social Work, 32(4), 100-126. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03643100802293865]
  • Cingolani, L., & Salazar-Morales, D. (2024). The role of public workforce diversity and the administrative ecosystem in advancing digital public service innovation. Public Management Review, 26(10), 2966-2991. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2303609]
  • Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462. [https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304]
  • Desai, A., & Manoharan, A. P. (2024). Digital transformation and public administration: The impacts of india’s digital public infrastructure. International Journal of Public Administration, 47(9), 575-578. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2024.2350762]
  • De Graaf, G., & Paanakker, H. (2015). Good governance: Performance values and procedural values in conflict. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(6), 635-652. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014529361]
  • Edelman, L. B., Fuller, S. R., & Mara-Drita, I. (2001). Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1589-1641. [https://doi.org/10.1086/321303]
  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999]
  • Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087]
  • Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performnce, 14(1), 97-124. [https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_06]
  • Fuller Jr, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329-345. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008]
  • Gonzalez, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross‐level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(1), 21-40. [https://doi.org/10.1002/job.498]
  • Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002]
  • Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634438]
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E.(2009). Multivariate data analysis(7th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Harman, H. H.(1967). Modern factor analysis. CA: University of Chicago Press.
  • Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103-128. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640]
  • Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Knippenberg, D. V., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204-1222. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.35732995]
  • Hwang, J., & Hopkins, K. (2012). Organizational inclusion, commitment, and turnover among child welfare workers: A multilevel mediation analysis. Administration in Social Work, 36(1), 23-39. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2010.537439]
  • Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 934-945. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.11.934]
  • Kim, P. S. (2021). South Korea’s fast response to coronavirus disease: implications on public policy and public management theory. Public Management Review, 23(12), 1736-1747. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1766266]
  • Korkmaz, A. V., Van Engen, M. L., Knappert, L., & Schalk, R. (2022). About and beyond leading uniqueness and belongingness: A systematic review of inclusive leadership research. Human Resource Management Review, 32(4), 100894. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100894]
  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9): 705-717. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705]
  • Marin-Garcia, J. A., & Martinez Tomas, J. M. (2016) Deconstructing AMO framework: a systematic review. Intangible Capital, 12, 1040–1087. [https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.838]
  • Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological methods, 9(3), 275-300. [https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.275]
  • McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key?. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35-62. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x]
  • Meier, K. J., Davis, J., & Xu, X. (2023). Effectiveness, efficiency, and equity tradeoffs in public programs: A citizen experiment. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1462-1477. [https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13690]
  • Mor Barak, M. E., & Daya, P. (2014). Fostering inclusion from the inside out to create an inclusive workplace: Corporate and organizational efforts in the community and the global society. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (eds), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 391–412). CA: Jossey-Bass. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch13]
  • Mor Barak, M. E., Lizano, E. L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M. K., Hsiao, H. Y., & Brimhall, K. C. (2016). The promise of diversity management for climate of inclusion: A state- of-the-art review and meta-analysis. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(4), 305-333. [https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1138915]
  • Mor Barak, M. E., Luria, G., & Brimhall, K. C. (2022). What leaders say versus what they do: Inclusive leadership, policy-practice decoupling, and the anomaly of climate for inclusion. Group & Organization Management, 47(4), 840-871. [https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211005916]
  • Murphy, K. R. (2005). Why don't measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job performance?. Human Performance, 18(4), 343-357. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1804_2]
  • Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823]
  • Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. (2018). A multi-level process model for understanding diversity practice effectiveness. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 37-82. [https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0044]
  • OECD. (2017). Fostering Innovation in the Public Sector. Paris, OECD Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270879-en]
  • OECD. (2024). Public Innovation for Social Inclusion in Ibero-America: Facilitators, Challenges and Impact. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris, OECD Publishing.
  • Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 661-691. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208]
  • Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633-662. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554]
  • Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1171-1204. [https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241]
  • Parker, S. K., & Knight, C. (2024). The SMART model of work design: A higher order structure to help see the wood from the trees. Human Resource Management, 63(2), 265-291. [https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22200]
  • Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K.(2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4): 827-856. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732]
  • Parker, S. K., Wang, Y., & Liao, J. (2019). When is proactivity wise? A review of factors that influence the individual outcomes of proactive behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 221-248. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015302]
  • Roberson, Q. M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 69–88. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015243]
  • Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: how regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.285]
  • Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Jung, D. I., Randel, A. E., & Singh, G. (2009). Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?. Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 117-133. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.10.004]
  • Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943]
  • Vogt, C., van Gils, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., Grover, S. L., & Eckloff, T. (2021). Proactivity at work. Journal of Personnel Psychology. 20(3), 103-149 [https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000275]
  • Yean, T. F., Tan, F. C., & Nadarajah, D. (2022). Determinants of adaptability and its impact on the change readiness of civil servants. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 35(5), 622-639. [https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-12-2021-0263]