기본연구과제

This study aims to develop a new index for evaluating the competency levels of director-level public employees in local government and, ultimately, to suggest ways to strengthen their competencies. In that regard, this paper attempted to identify and define the competency requirements of local government employees above the director-level personnel. This study also aims to develop a plan to improve the competency evaluation system by diagnosing the current evaluation system so that such competency requirements can be generated, reinforced, and sustained in the long run.
   It has been suggested that developing the competencies of middle managers is significant in effectively establishing and implementing the development strategies of local government. In this regard, this study is conducted focusing on the competency requirements of middle managers in local governments.
   The study highlights the necessity of improving the competency evaluation index of the current director-level personnel based on literature reviews and related theories. The core problem identified through this study is the lack of consideration of the differences in competency requirements between managers at the central and local levels as well as the difference between junior managers and senior managers. In particular, when identifying and evaluating competency requirements of middle managers at the local levels, it is necessary to reflect on the characteristics of the region as well as the work responsibilities of director-level middle managers. In this regard, this study attempts to develop competency evaluation indicators, considering such issues and searched for the direction to improve educational programs and systems to strengthen their capacities.
   This study analyzed the competencies, competency evaluation indicators, and competency enhancement educational programs targeting director-level public employees in local government. The analysis identified the sub-factors for each criterion in detail and reviewed them thoroughly using a survey/interview of director-level local government employees or those eligible for promotion to directors, including public employees, public sector human resources professionals, residents, and so on.
   The survey utilized questions in four sections relating to contents of competency evaluation indicators, contents of problems in terms of competency evaluation, degree of importance of competency evaluation when evaluated for promotion to a director, and specific contents of supportive or educational programs to improve competencies of director-level personnel. The in-depth interview was conducted to explore, in detail, the current challenges or problems with the competency evaluation index, overall problems of the competency evaluation system, and qualities required to be considered for promotion to director levels.
   Findings suggest that there are some differences in the competency requirements between central and local levels as well as the ones between senior and director levels. When reviewing the relative importance of the competency requirements of the high-ranking central government employees, problem recognition was ranked first, followed by strategic thinking, coordination and integration, change management, customer orientation, and performance orientation. In the case of central government director-level public employees, policy planning was ranked first, followed by communication, organizational management, interest coordination, and performance management. In the case of local government director-level employees, Problem-solving was ranked first, followed by resident orientation, policy planning, change orientation, motivation, and performance management.
   The competency evaluation system was perceived as having problems overall. Specifically, it turns out that the current competency evaluation system employed at local levels is not fully institutionalized in a way to enable its effective implementation. Also, there is insufficient institutional support for implementing such a competency evaluation system. In addition, interviews with experts suggest that it is necessary to improve the effectiveness as well as the appropriateness of competency-developing programs to review the validity of the competency evaluation indicators and index and improve the fairness and appropriateness when reflecting competency evaluation outcomes in promotion decisions.
   In summary, the survey outcome shows that respondents recognized the necessity to improve competency educational programs and secure institutional support for the competency evaluation system. The majority of the survey participants turned out to suffer a considerable amount of stress from preparing for a competency evaluation. Despite such challenges, the majority perceived it as a system that could ensure fairness in HR-related decisions. Regarding the competency education program and its curriculum, it turns out that there is no educational program specifically prepared for developing the competency of director-level personnel. It was also found that there is sustainable demand for competency-enhancing programs and curricula. Some opinions related to the appropriate duration of the educational programs and providers were also examined.