지역 교육청 성과급 제도 운영실태와 개선방안 연구 = A Study on the Operational status and Improvement of Performance-based Incentive System in Regional Office of Education

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The performance-based system was introduced to create an atmosphere of hard work in the public office and to improve administrative productivity and service quality. However, even 20 years after the performance-based incentive system was implemented, seniority has been given priority over performance-oriented, and it has not been settled in the public office.
Accordingly, this study aimed to derive the problems and improvement measures of the system by analyzing the current status of the operation of the performance-based system of local government officials under level 6 of the Jeollabuk-do Office of Education. The subjects of the study were those in charge of the performance bonus payment for local government officials at the Jeollabuk-do Office of Education, and eight public officials of level 6 or below who were eligible for the study were randomly selected by series and rank, and the method of research was conducted using the FGI method.
The contents of the investigation are as follows.
First, it was intended to examine how public officials perceived effectiveness as a motivation and motivation to introduce performance-based bonus systems.
Second, it was intended to examine how public officials perceive the fairness of the performance rating method.
Third, it was intended to examine the degree of acceptance by public officials about the level of performance pay.
Fourth, this study aimed to examine how public officials perceive the differential width between performance pay grades, the ratio of the number of employees paid for each grade and the rate of payment, and department performance pay.
Based on the results of this study, the problems and improvement plans of the performance-based bonus system are summarized as follows.
As a problem of the performance-based bonus system, first, the performance pay was not enough to motivate public employees, and the performance incentive effect was low because the performance pay was mainly paid in the order of career. In addition, it was found that the intrinsic factors such as promotion and responsibility for work were more important than performance-based salaries. Second, since the seniority was given priority to evaluation of performance grades, public employees were less aware of the fairness of the evaluation criteria. Third, it was considered that the performance grade was determined by the longevity rather than the individual's ability or performance. Fourth, there was a lot of dissatisfaction about forcing the ratio of personnel by grade, considering that it is unfair for the difference between grades to be large and the difference in the amount of payment between grades to be unfair.
In order to establish a successful performance-based bonus system based on the above problem recognition, this study suggested the following improvement measures.
To increase the motivational effect, you can consider raising the standard for paying performance pay and using various intrinsic compensation mechanisms as well as performance pay to motivate members.
In order to secure the fairness of the performance evaluation criteria, it is necessary to prepare evaluation items and evaluation indicators considering the characteristics of each evaluation unit through the participation of various stakeholders. In addition, it is necessary to find a reasonable unit of payment unit that can be accommodated by the members and make it a practical performance evaluation.
In order to increase the acceptability of performance grades, it is necessary to develop a feedback system during the performance evaluation process to improve trust through dialogue between the evaluator and the evaluator.
Lastly, in order to secure the rationality of the performance-based bonus system, it is possible to consider a method of reducing the differential between performance-based grades, classifying grades, and group performance-based and absolute evaluations.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적과 필요성 1
• 제2절 연구범위 및 방법 3
• 제2장 이론적 배경 및 성과급 제도 현황 5
• 제1절 성과급 제도의 의의와 주요이론 5
• 1. 성과급 제도의 의의 5
• 2. 성과급 제도의 주요이론 6
• 제2절 공무원 성과급 제도 운영 현황 10
• 1. 우리나라 공무원 성과급 제도 현황 10
• 2. 선진국 공무원 성과급 제도 현황 및 시사점 17
• 제3절 지방공무원 성과급 제도 운영 현황 25
• 1. 지급대상 25
• 2. 지급 방법 및 지급 단위기관 27
• 3. 지급 등급과 지급률 27
• 4. 지급 등급별 인원 결정 28
• 5. 지급액의 결정 28
• 6. 개인별 지급 등급의 평가 방법 29
• 7. 성과급심사위원회 개최 및 성과상여금 지급 31
• 제4절 선행연구 고찰 32
• 제3장 성과급 제도 운영실태 분석 34
• 제1절 조사설계 34
• 1. 조사개요 34
• 2. 분석국면 35
• 3. 분석틀 36
• 제2절 분석 38
• 1. 도입 취지 및 효과성에 대한 인식 38
• 2. 평가방법의 공정성에 대한 인식 42
• 3. 지급등급의 수용성에 대한 인식 46
• 4. 지급기준의 합리성에 대한 인식 48
• 제3절 문제점 53
• 1. 동기부여 효과성 미흡 53
• 2. 성과평가 방법의 공정성에 대한 부정적 인식 53
• 3. 성과등급에 대한 수용성 부족 54
• 4. 지급기준의 합리성에 대한 부정적 인식 54
• 제4장 성과급 제도 개선방안 55
• 제1절 도입 취지 및 효과성에 대한 인식 측면 55
• 1. 성과급 지급 기준액 인상 55
• 2. 내재적 동기요인과의 연계 제고 55
• 제2절 평가방법의 공정성에 대한 인식 측면 56
• 1. 성과평가 기준 및 방법 개선 56
• 2. 합리적인 지급 단위기관 발굴 57
• 제3절 지급등급의 수용성에 대한 인식 측면 57
• 1. 성과평가 과정 중의 지속적인 피드백 제도 마련 57
• 2. 연공중심의 공무원 인식 개선 58
• 제4절 지급기준의 합리성에 대한 인식 측면 58
• 1. 성과급 등급 간 차등폭 완화 및 등급 세분화 58
• 2. 집단 성과급의 병행 58
• 3. 절대평가 병행 59
• 제5장 결론 60
• 참고문헌 62