This study explores proactive administration in South Korea not only from legal and institutional perspectives but also from the viewpoint of achieving the public interest through collaborative relationships with citizens. In addition, it examines how job-related factors—job clarity, autonomy, job resources, and job competency—are associated with proactive administration. The findings indicate that all job-related factors are positively related to proactive administration; however, these effects vary by rank. Based on these findings, the study provides both theoretical and practical implications, contributing to empirical research on the expanded concept of proactive administration.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
The Board of Audit and Inspection of South Korea introduced the Regulations on Privilege Institution Proactive Administration in 2009. This initiative aims to encourage public officials to adopt a proactive approach and to protect those who engage in such actions from potential disadvantages regarding their future status. Since then, there has been a steady increase in interest regarding public officials’ conduct and desirable actions. This interest is based on the normative understanding that public officials should pursue service to citizens and the enhancement of the public good, responding proactively to improve the quality of life of the people (Choi & Jung, 2020). Furthermore, it reflects the public’s expectation that the public sector should operate more efficiently and effectively in the face of wicked problems that are increasingly difficult to address through existing policies (Peters, 2017).
Proactive administration in South Korea was initiated as part of efforts to reform the long-standing practices of complacency officials (Won et al., 2024) and bureaucratic inertia (Wilson, 1975). Public organizations in South Korea are characterized by rigid control through strict procedures and regulations, resulting in low flexibility (Bysted & Jespersen, 2014). As a result, public officials are often described as having “trained incapacity” (Ahn & Lee, 2017). However, with the spread of the New Public Service, which emphasizes government accountability, bureaucratic integrity, and the fundamental purpose of administration (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000), the government has implemented various measures to promote proactive administration, and discussions aimed at activating this approach have been gradually increasing.
Anzeige
Studies on proactive administration in South Korea are generally based on the Privilege Institution Proactive Administration. However, concerns regarding its effectiveness have been persistently raised, with arguments suggesting that inducing changes in public organizations requires not only the establishment of legal frameworks but also a fundamental transformation in the values and behaviors of public officials (Kang & Park, 2019). In this regard, Choi and Jung (2020) proposed a new perspective, viewing proactive administration as more than merely enhancing internal organizational factors; it is an attitude in which public officials actively engage with citizens and reconcile competing interests. The government also defines “collaborative actions that create public value through partnerships between administrative agencies, the public, and private sectors, or by mediating stakeholder interests” as a form of proactive administration, implying that proactive administration is inherently linked to public values. This suggests that public organizations must shift from a unilateral approach to realizing public interests through collaborative capability, which involves communicating with and building relationships with various local community stakeholders (Na & Lee, 2023). Nevertheless, previous studies have not fully embraced the expanded concept of proactive administration. Moreover, while proactive administration is crucial for enhancing organizational performance by positively influencing individuals’ perceptions and attitudes (Wu & Parker, 2017), the emphasis has predominantly been on top-down approaches that prioritize leadership (Segarra-Ciprés et al., 2019).
In this study, the expanded concept of proactive administration is addressed. Additionally, the study focuses on job-related factors— job clarity, autonomy, job resources, and job competency—as essential facilitators of proactive administration, given that these factors can be effectively translated into policies from an organizational management perspective, beyond merely relying on the competencies of leaders. Furthermore, given that public organizations in operate as bureaucratic entities within hierarchical systems, this study examines whether these factors vary across ranks, aiming to contribute to the development of more effective policies.
Drawing on a sample of South Korean public officials from 2020 to 2023, this study finds that all job-related factors are positively associated with proactive administration. Interestingly, the results show that these effects varied based on the respondents’ rank. Additional theoretical and practical implications, including limitations, are discussed following the description of the theoretical background, research methods, and study results.
Theoretical Background
Proactive Administration
Proactive administration in South Korea is defined as the active creation of an administrative environment that pursues the public interest and provides services to citizens, emphasizing the democratic and efficient functions of government. This contrasts with the international context, where proactive administration is often described as focusing on addressing discrimination, with government efforts directed toward ensuring equal treatment for relatively underprivileged or marginalized groups (Lee, 2016).
Anzeige
The promotion of proactive administration in the public sector can be explained by the emergence of the New Public Service (NPS) and the subsequent shift in the concept of accountability. Denhardt and Denhardt (2000) introduced the concept of the NPS as an alternative to traditional public administration, emphasizing that the primary role of public administration is to be citizen-oriented. While traditional administration was confined to providing services through a centralized bureaucracy with restricted discretion, the NPS perspective views the beneficiaries of administrative services not merely as customers or consumers, but as citizens. Consequently, the role of the public sector is understood as establishing trust and cooperative relationships with citizens based on responsiveness, sharing interests, and creating common values.
Discussions on government accountability highlight bureaucrats’ attitudes toward civil society. Kim & Kim (2016) noted the concept of accountability into objective accountability and subjective accountability. Objective accountability refers to the faithful execution of the official duties assigned to bureaucrats in accordance with the law, while subjective accountability refers to the internal responsibilities of public officials, encompassing moral responsibility aimed at professional ethics and conscience. Considering that the public sector is moving towards an NPS approach, the growing interest in proactive administration can be seen as a change that emphasizes not only the objective accountability of public officials but also subjective accountability. This shift encourages public officials to uphold the fundamental spirit of public service—serving citizens and realizing the public good.
According to Choi and Jung (2020), proactive administration can be categorized from two perspectives: the control-oriented perspective and the public value creation-oriented perspective. The control-oriented view defines proactive administration in contrast to passive administration, emphasizing the need to guard against complacency among public officials. This perspective is based on utilizing the Privilege Institution Proactive Administration, as proactive administration is essentially considered an act that violates regulations. The creation-oriented perspective emphasizes how effectively public officials meet the demands of civil society, viewing proactive administration as a tool to realize public value aligned with the core mission of bureaucracy. With the Korean government now recognizing “collaborative actions that create public value through partnerships between administrative agencies, the public, and private sectors, or by mediating stakeholder interests” as part of proactive administration, this perspective represents an expanded understanding that incorporates the control-oriented view.
Previous research on proactive administration has primarily focused on theoretical discussions to promote it (Lee, 2016) and has examined the concept from various perspectives (Park, 2019; Choi & Jung, 2020). Some studies have explored specific factors influencing proactive administration. However, empirical research on the factors affecting public officials’ proactive administration remains inadequate (Kim et al., 2023). Additionally, proactive administration is often conflated with innovative behavior, which focuses on challenging the status quo and applying new ideas (Bysted & Jespersen, 2014). However, proactive administration is broader, involving flexible interpretation of regulations to improve practices and public value creation, where public officials mediate citizen interests. This study seeks to expand the understanding of proactive administration through empirical research based on this comprehensive framework.
Job-Related Factors: Job Clarity, Autonomy, Job Resources, and Job Competency
The concept of job characteristics is rooted in work design theory (Nurjaman et al., 2019), which defines work design as the process of specifying how tasks will be performed, shaped by the inherent characteristics of the work. This work design serves as the basis for the development of job characteristics theory. Job characteristics are known to directly influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In public organizations, these characteristics may relate to individual motivation and proactive behavior, as proactive behavior inherently involves the attitudes and actions demonstrated during task performance. This study focuses on two of the most frequently discussed job characteristics—autonomy based on Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job model, and job clarity from Dalpour (1987)—to examine proactive administration. Additionally, since job characteristics alone reflect only the nature of the job, it is important to explore other factors that may impact job performance for a more comprehensive understanding of proactive administration. Therefore, this study incorporates factors such as job resources and job competency, as suggested by Roh (2021), to further develop discussions on proactive administration among public officials.
Job Clarity
Job clarity refers to having clear and unambiguous guidelines on how tasks should be performed and the expected outcomes (Molleman et al., 2011). This is closely linked to whether employees have sufficient information to perform their tasks effectively (Dalpour, 1987). When job clarity is lacking, employees may struggle to perform their roles, making it difficult to achieve the desired outcomes (Ahmed et al., 2017).
The elements of job characteristics are known to have a negative correlation with role ambiguity (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Role ambiguity refers to a perceived environmental demand characterized by uncertainty in the process of performing a role (Abramis, 1994). It arises when there is difficulty in identifying task priorities, unclear communication of work processes, or ambiguity regarding responsibilities. Van Sell et al. (1981) linked role ambiguity to a lack of clarity, which can adversely affect individual performance, attitudes, and job satisfaction.
As the definition of proactive administration suggests, it requires the recognition of problems in the tasks one manages and an active effort to enhance them. Furthermore, since proactive administration involves breaking away from rigid and standardized frameworks and embracing change with a certain degree of risk-taking (Bysted & Jespersen, 2014), a lack of job clarity may cause employees to face difficulties in establishing goals and result in unclear boundaries of authority, which could negatively impact proactive administration. Therefore, it is essential for public officials to have a clear understanding of their assigned responsibilities. Based on this discussion, this study identifies job clarity as an important factor in promoting proactive administration.
Hypothesis 1: Job clarity is positively associated with proactive administration
Autonomy
Autonomy refers to the extent of freedom and discretion employees have in scheduling and deciding the procedures for their work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Akhtar and Ali (2023) found that greater autonomy encourages employees to take more responsibility, contributing to better task management. The theoretical foundation for the idea that autonomy influences administration can be explained by self-determination theory. Self-determination theory is a motivation theory that posits individuals are more motivated when they act with a sense of volition and feel they have a choice in their actions (Gagné & Deci, 2005). According to this theory, greater autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation, resulting in higher job satisfaction and performance. In other words, when employees have the opportunity to respond actively rather than passively to their tasks, they are more likely to engage proactively in their work (Deci et al., 2017). Zhou’s (1998) study further supports this, demonstrating that employees with higher autonomy are more likely to engage in creative behavior compared to those with lower autonomy.
Autonomy can lead to a flexible role orientation, which in turn positively influences proactive administration (Parker et al., 2006). Individuals with flexible role orientations are more likely to engage in proactive behaviors, actively solving and improving organizational issues, rather than passively performing their assigned tasks. When employees have autonomy in their work, they gain a sense of positive control over their tasks, which enhances their sense of responsibility and motivation, leading to more active behavior in fulfilling their roles. Therefore, autonomy can be considered a key factor in promoting proactive administration.
Hypothesis 2: Autonomy is positively associated with proactive administration
Job Resources
Providing resources refers to supplying employees with the necessary budget, personnel, knowledge, and authority required to perform their tasks (Montjoy & O’Toole, 1979). In general, resource is considered a critical factor in improving services and driving change (Boyne, 2003), and successful organizational change is often viewed as dependent on the adequate allocation of resources (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006). What constitutes a resource can vary, but this study follows Roh’s (2021) categorization of public organization resources into human resources, material resources, and information resources, such as IT technology. The theoretical expectation that resource provision is related to proactive administration among public officials can be supported by the resource-based view theory. This theory emerged as a response to dissatisfaction with the structure-conduct-performance model in industrial organization theory (Russo & Fouts, 1997). It emphasizes how various resources affect performance, highlighting that adequate resources can positively influence organizational growth and outcomes (Lee & Whitford, 2013). Specifically, the theory posits that an organization’s success is determined by its unique and valuable resources, emphasizing the importance of managing these internal resources effectively to secure a competitive advantage.
While this theory has been widely used in the business management field to measure corporate performance and explore conditions necessary for organizational survival and growth, it is increasingly relevant to public organizations. As change and innovation are now seen as critical for achieving government policies and organizational success, the effective utilization of resources in the public sector has become essential (Boyne, 2003). Proactive administration by public officials is linked to long-term organizational performance and assumes behavior that seeks change beyond the status quo. Therefore, the provision of sufficient resources is expected to motivate public officials to pursue change. Drawing on these discussions, this study posits that there is a positive relationship between job resources and proactive administration.
Hypothesis 3: Job Resources are positively associated with proactive administration
Job Competency
Job competency can be defined as the sense of competence that organizational members feel when performing their tasks. Generally, when individuals perceive that they can handle their tasks confidently, it tends to improve job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation (Parker et al., 2006). Furthermore, job competency is considered a crucial source of organizational performance and is related to factors that explain individual attitudes (Dharmanegara et al., 2016).
The connection between job competency and proactive administration can be explained through self-efficacy theory. According to this theory, self-efficacy refers to the belief in one’s ability to successfully perform tasks in specific situations, which influences goal setting, effort, and responses to challenges (Bandura, 1991). When individuals feel confident in their abilities, they are more likely to perform tasks effectively and respond positively to changes through strategic planning and challenging goal setting. The tasks and situations that public officials handle today are becoming increasingly complex and challenging. As such, rather than relying on rigid, conventional approaches and passive attitudes, public officials are required to identify problems and adopt an active, proactive attitude toward their tasks. In this context, it is clear that job competency plays a vital role in fostering self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 4: Job Competency is positively associated with proactive administration
Rank of Public Officials
In the public sector, rank aligns with the concept of hierarchy, which refers to the structured arrangement of members based on one or more significant criteria (Anderson & Brown, 2010). The rank of public officials is rooted in bureaucratic theory. Scholars such as Weber, Wilson, and Hegel, who made significant contributions to the development of this theory, argue that the emergence of modern public administration is an inevitable historical progression, and bureaucracy is seen as the most efficient and rational way to exercise authority within an organization (Sager & Rosser, 2009). According to this perspective, public officials have been systematically classified according to organizational principles, a practice that has evolved into today’s commonly used term “rank”.
Members with different ranks exert varying levels of authority in their roles and access different resources, which can influence their decision-making and organizational impact (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). As a result, employees at different ranks may make different choices even when faced with the same situation, highlighting the need to consider rank differences when examining individual behaviors in public organizations. Moreover, public organizations are often characterized by bureaucratic inertia—the tendency to resist change and maintain existing processes (Wilson, 1975). This suggests that factors such as discretion and authority, which are necessary for proactive administration, may manifest differently depending on rank.
Hypothesis 5-1: The impact of job clarity on proactive administration will vary by rank.
Hypothesis 5-2: The impact of autonomy on proactive administration will vary by rank.
Hypothesis 5-3: The impact of job resources on proactive administration will vary by rank.
Hypothesis 5-4: The impact of job competency on proactive administration will vary by rank.
Research Methods
Data Set
This study utilizes data from the Public Employee Perception Survey conducted by the Korea Institute of Public Administration (KIPA), a government-funded research institute in South Korea. This survey is a vital resource for the effective design of government personnel policies, as it systematically tracks changes in public officials’ perceptions over time. Specifically, the survey examines key aspects of human resource management among public officials and their perceptions, allowing for the accumulation and analysis of comprehensive data that assists the government in systematically managing human resources. Since its inception in 2011, the survey has been conducted annually using nearly identical questionnaire structures, targeting both national and local public officials. This consistency enables the survey to effectively track changes in public officials’ perceptions over time. Utilizing a multi-stage stratified sampling method, efforts were made to construct a sample distribution that reflects the composition and proportions of the population of South Korean public officials. The survey gathers responses through email-based web questionnaires.
For this study, data spanning four years (2020–2023) were analyzed, encompassing responses from 15,986 participants. This approach was adopted due to the cross-sectional nature of the survey data, which inherently carries limitations, such as potential estimation errors from sampling and an inability to fully capture contextual shifts over time (Ko & Cho, 2017). While previous studies have investigated the factors influencing proactive administration, their findings have often been inconsistent. Therefore, adopting a combined model that integrates data from multiple years is expected to yield more robust and consistent results. To enhance the integrity and reliability of the variables, this study exclusively utilized key variables derived from identical survey items across all four years. Control variables were also selected based on consistent definitions and ranges to further improve the stability of the combined model.
Measurements
The dependent variable in this study is proactive administration among public officials. In addition to the control-oriented perspective, which focuses on improving unreasonable regulations, procedures, and practices or actively interpreting and applying regulations based on the Privilege Institution Proactive Administration, this study also incorporates a creation-oriented perspective, which views proactive administration as the public official’s active effort to mediate interests in their interactions with citizens (Choi & Jung, 2020). Proactive administration was measured using four items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with the average score used for analysis. Items included efforts to innovate, generate new ideas, improve inefficiencies, and resolve citizen conflicts (Cronbach’s α = 0.87).
This study included job clarity, autonomy, job resources, and job competency as job-related factors and independent variables. All were measured using 5-point Likert scale items, with average scores used for analysis. Job clarity was assessed with three reverse-coded items regarding unclear responsibilities, priorities, and methods (Cronbach’s α = 0.89). Autonomy was measured with items about control over task procedures, pace, and performance metrics (Cronbach’s α = 0.80). Job resources were measured by assessing adequacy of human, material, and informational resources (Cronbach’s α = 0.82). Job competency was measured with two items on capability and performance standards (Cronbach’s α = 0.61).
Rank is used as a moderating variable. Generally, ranks in Korean public organizations are classified into the following categories: Grades 4 and above for managerial positions, Grade 5 for middle managers, and Grades 6 to 9 for street-level bureaucrats (Lee & Ahn, 2019). In this study, rank was categorized into four levels based on the original data.
This study included several control variables in the analysis that could be closely related to dependent, moderating, and independent variables. Demographic characteristics of respondents, such as gender, marital status, age, education level, entry route, type of agency, and tenure, were included. Gender and marital status were coded as binary variables. Age was categorized into four groups following the original data format (20’s, 30’s, 40’s, more than 50’s). In addition, this study constructed a combined model integrating data across different years, but the data used were not panel data tracking the same individuals over multiple time points. Therefore, each survey year (2020 to 2023) was treated as a binary variable and included as a control variable in the analysis to account for temporal variations (Ko & Cho, 2017).
Results
Table 1 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics for the variables included in the following analyses. The sample comprises both male (57.69%) and female (42.31%) public officials, with an average age in their 30s. The majority of the respondents hold a bachelor’s degree (74.42%), and 81.16% began their public sector careers through open competitive recruitment. The type of agency the respondents belong to was evenly distributed, with 52.88% in central government and 47.12% in upper-level local governments. The average tenure was between 11 and 15 years. In terms of rank, Grades 6 and 7 accounted for the largest proportion of respondents.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the variables (N = 15,986)
Variable
Mean
SD
Minimum
Maximum
Proactive Administration
3.39
0.66
1
5
Job clarity
3.33
0.81
1
5
Autonomy
3.10
0.78
1
5
Job resources
3.13
0.75
1
5
Job competency
3.61
0.61
1
5
Age
2.75
0.91
1
4
Malea
57.69
0
1
Marrieda
33.78
0
1
Education level
High school or lessa
3.84
0
1
Collegea
4.66
0
1
Bachelor’sa
74.42
0
1
Master’sa
14.72
0
1
Doctorala
2.36
0
1
Entry route
Open competitivea
81.16
0
1
Career competitivea
18.47
0
1
Other typesa
0.37
0
1
Type of Agency
1
Central governmenta
52.88
0
1
Upper-level local governmentsa
47.12
0
1
Tenure
3.17
1.77
1
6
Rank
Grades 8 and 9a
11.99
0
1
Grades 6 and 7a
59.38
0
1
Grade 5a
23.03
0
1
Grade 4 and abovea
5.60
0
1
Year
Y2020a
27.14
0
1
Y2021a
25.85
0
1
Y2022a
23.41
0
1
Y2023a
23.60
0
1
Note. SD = standard deviation
aThese are binary variables, and their means represent the proportions.
Table 2 shows the analysis results, estimating the association between job-related factors and public administration. Model 1–1 includes only the control variables, while Model 1–2 to Model 1–5 each include the independent variables. Model 1–6 includes all. In Model 1–2, job clarity is positively associated with proactive administration (Hypothesis 1), supporting Van Sell et al. (1981) that enhanced clarity reduces job performance uncertainty, enabling clearer goals and authority recognition, thus improving performance.
Table 2
OLS regression predicting proactive administration and job-related factors
Model 1–1
Model 1–2
Model 1–3
Coef.
(SE)
Coef.
(SE)
Coef.
(SE)
Job clarity
0.126***
(0.006)
Autonomy
0.232***
(0.006)
Job resources
Job competency
Rank
Grades 8–9 (Ref.)
Grades 6–7
−0.073***
(0.017)
−0.062***
(0.017)
−0.052**
(0.016)
Grade 5
0.053*
(0.021)
0.056**
(0.021)
0.044*
(0.020)
Grade 4 and above
0.095**
(0.029)
0.084**
(0.029)
0.049
(0.028)
Male
0.169***
(0.010)
0.160***
(0.010)
0.147***
(0.010)
Married
0.068***
(0.013)
0.067***
(0.012)
0.065***
(0.012)
Age
0.028**
(0.010)
0.025*
(0.010)
0.034***
(0.010)
Education level
High school or less (Ref.)
College
0.036
(0.034)
0.026
(0.034)
0.036
(0.033)
Bachelor’s
0.045
(0.026)
0.050
(0.026)
0.053*
(0.025)
Master’s
0.196***
(0.029)
0.200***
(0.029)
0.203***
(0.028)
Doctoral
0.284***
(0.042)
0.286***
(0.041)
0.299***
(0.040)
Entry route
Open competitive (Ref.)
Career competitive
0.113***
(0.014)
0.106***
(0.013)
0.091***
(0.013)
Other types
0.194*
(0.081)
0.162*
(0.080)
0.148
(0.077)
Type of agency
Central gov. (Ref.)
Upper-level local gov.
0.062***
(0.011)
0.062***
(0.011)
0.042***
(0.010)
Tenure
0.063***
(0.005)
0.055***
(0.005)
0.049***
(0.005)
y2020
0.066***
(0.014)
0.066***
(0.014)
0.056***
(0.013)
y2021
0.040**
(0.014)
0.040**
(0.014)
0.024
(0.013)
y2022
0.049***
(0.014)
0.046**
(0.014)
0.047***
(0.014)
Constant
2.841***
(0.032)
2.451***
(0.037)
2.171***
(0.035)
N
15,986
15,986
15,986
R2
0.128
0.151
0.199
Model 1–4
Model 1–5
Model 1–6
Coef.
(SE)
Coef.
(SE)
Coef.
(SE)
Job clarity
−0.001
(0.006)
Autonomy
0.136***
(0.007)
Job resources
0.139***
(0.007)
−0.013
(0.007)
Job competency
0.464***
(0.007)
0.413***
(0.008)
Rank
Grades 8–9 (Ref.)
Grades 6–7
−0.050**
(0.017)
−0.055***
(0.015)
−0.046**
(0.015)
Grade 5
0.083***
(0.021)
0.044*
(0.019)
0.036
(0.019)
Grade 4 and above
0.120***
(0.029)
0.074**
(0.026)
0.047
(0.026)
Male
0.158***
(0.010)
0.129***
(0.009)
0.122***
(0.009)
Married
0.074***
(0.012)
0.048***
(0.011)
0.048***
(0.011)
Age
0.028**
(0.010)
0.013
(0.009)
0.018
(0.009)
Education level
High school or less (Ref.)
College
0.038
(0.034)
0.004
(0.030)
0.007
(0.030)
Bachelor’s
0.059*
(0.026)
0.021
(0.023)
0.027
(0.023)
Master’s
0.211***
(0.029)
0.115***
(0.026)
0.127***
(0.026)
Doctoral
0.312***
(0.041)
0.170***
(0.038)
0.189***
(0.037)
Entry route
Open competitive (Ref.)
Career competitive
0.107***
(0.013)
0.072***
(0.012)
0.065***
(0.012)
Other types
0.179*
(0.080)
0.077
(0.072)
0.065
(0.071)
Type of agency
Central gov. (Ref.)
Upper-level local gov.
0.063***
(0.011)
0.071***
(0.010)
0.058***
(0.009)
Tenure
0.054***
(0.005)
0.047***
(0.005)
0.042***
(0.005)
y2020
0.050***
(0.014)
0.073***
(0.012)
0.068***
(0.012)
y2021
0.020
(0.014)
0.054***
(0.012)
0.045***
(0.012)
y2022
0.044**
(0.014)
0.026*
(0.013)
0.028*
(0.013)
Constant
2.408***
(0.037)
1.321***
(0.037)
1.139***
(0.040)
N
15,986
15,986
15,986
R2
0.152
0.302
0.323
Note. Coef. = Coefficient; SE = Standard errors; Ref. = Reference Category
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
In Model 1–3 and Model 1–6, autonomy is positively associated with proactive administration (Hypothesis 2). This result supports self-determination theory, which posits that increased autonomy fosters intrinsic motivation, allowing employees to engage more actively in their tasks. When individuals are granted autonomy and exert positive control over their work methods and processes (Parker et al., 2006), proactive administration is likely to be facilitated.
Similarly, Model 1–4 shows a positive link between job resources and proactive administration (Hypothesis 3), aligning with the resource-based view that proper resource allocation improves organizational growth and performance. Given that proactive administration is closely tied to long-term organizational outcomes in the public sector (Boyne, 2003), effective use of organizational resources becomes essential. Therefore, it is important.
for organizations to ensure the timely provision of sufficient human, material, and informational resources to motivate employees and foster proactive administrative actions.
Models 1–5 and 1–6 indicate that job competency has a positive relationship with proactive administration (Hypothesis 4). This finding supports self-efficacy theory, which suggests that when organizational members possess confidence in their tasks and a strong belief in achieving their goals, they are more likely to produce effective outcomes and drive positive change by setting challenging goals (Parker et al., 2006). Therefore, it is important to establish an environment that encourages members to view their tasks and goal attainment positively.
Table 3 presents the analysis results, highlighting the moderating effects of rank on the association between job-related factors and public administration. Figure 1 further provides a visual representation of these findings.
Fig. 1
OLS regression predicting moderating effects of rank
Regarding job clarity, a stronger positive relationship with proactive administration was observed in grade 5 and grade 4 and above compared to grades 8–9 (Model 2 − 1). Job clarity is associated with sufficient information for task execution (Ahmed et al., 2017). In South Korean public organizations, mid- to upper-level officials are primarily responsible for organizational decision-making and policy planning, making them sensitive to both internal and external environments and requiring them to utilize diverse information for effective task performance (Song, 2015). As a result, ambiguities in responsibilities, task priorities, or implementation methods can significantly affect their work attitudes. For proactive administration to be effectively carried out, it is crucial toreduce these ambiguities and ensure job clarity. However, lower-ranked officials, functioning as street-level bureaucrats, face structural constraints that confine them to standardized and routine tasks. Even when clear guidelines are provided, the risks involved in exercising discretion are relatively high (Kim & Im, 2011), which may prevent them from leading to a positive direction in proactive administration. Therefore, job clarity appears to have a more positive impact on proactive administration among higher-ranked officials, such as those in grade 5 or above, who are able to engage in more diverse interactions and policy-related activities.
While autonomy positively affects proactive administration, it shows a slightly weaker effect in grades 6–7 compared to grades 8–9 (Model 2–2). Traditionally, public officials in grade 6 and below are considered lower-level and function as street-level bureaucrats handling administrative tasks. Especially, officials in grades 6 and 7 tend to have a relatively heavy workload and often experience promotion stagnation due to structural challenges, leading to high job stress (Cha et al., 2023). Therefore, even if autonomy is granted, allowing them to contribute to their work methods or establish performance standards, the lack of supportive conditions may dilute its positive impact on proactive administration.
The impact of job resources on proactive administration was found to be positive among grades 8–9, while a declining pattern was observed for grades 6–7 and grade 5 (Model 2–3). In grades 8–9, employees are responsible for the most practical, hands-on tasks, often facing high work intensity and more frequent interactions with citizens. Therefore, when resources such as personnel, accessible information, and a budget that can directly support their work are provided, they are more likely to engage proactively. However, higher-ranked employees tend to carry a greater sense of responsibility and management burdens. Specifically, mid-level managers often encounter various conflicts within the organization due to the nature of their roles and positions (Ayala Calvo & García, 2018). Roh (2021) noted that even when public employees are adequately provided with resources, organizational constraints can impede the effective utilization of these resources, potentially exerting a negative impact on proactive administration. This suggests that merely providing resources may not always enhance proactive administration and could even lead to confusion or increased managerial burdens. Thus, the study highlights the importance of considering the organizational context and members’ conditions when allocating resources.
Job competency positively influences proactive administration at all levels; however, there are slight differences observed in both grade 5 and grade 4 and above compared to grades 8–9 (Model 2–4). When members within an organization have a stronger belief in their ability to perform tasks successfully, it positively affects their creativity in setting goals and overcoming challenges (Bandura, 1991). This can serve as a source of organizational performance (Dharmanegara et al., 2016), especially for higher-ranked officials who have more discretion and greater responsibility for management and oversight, thereby increasing their potential to directly impact outcomes. Therefore, when confidence and expectations regarding their roles are fulfilled, the motivation to engage in proactive administration, which often involves taking risks beyond routine tasks, is likely to be stronger among managerial positions at grade 5 and above compared to those in grades 8–9.
In summary, the analysis results of this study indicate that all job-related factors have a positive relationship with proactive administration. However, the degree and direction of their influence vary depending on the rank (Hypothesis 5 − 1 to 5 − 4).
Table 3
OLS regression predicting moderating effects of rank
Model 2−1
Model 2–2
Model 2–3
Model 2–4
Coef.
(SE)
Coef.
(SE)
Coef.
(SE)
Coef.
(SE)
Job clarity X Rank Grades 8–9 (Ref.)
Job clarity X Grades 6–7
−0.002
(0.016)
Job clarity X Grade 5
0.048**
(0.018)
Job clarity X Grade 4 and above
0.061*
(0.028)
Autonomy X Rank Grades 8–9 (Ref.)
Autonomy X Grades 6–7
−0.035*
(0.017)
Autonomy X Grade 5
−0.007
(0.020)
Autonomy X Grade 4 and above
0.024
(0.028)
Job resources X Rank Grades 8–9 (Ref.)
Job resources X Grades 6–7
−0.043*
(0.018)
Job resources X Grade 5
−0.047*
(0.020)
Job resources X Grade 4 and above
−0.030
(0.030)
Job competency X Rank Grades 8–9 (Ref.)
Job competency X Grades 6–7
−0.008
(0.022)
Job competency X Grade 5
0.061*
(0.025)
Job competency X Grade 4 and above
0.116**
(0.038)
Constant
1.184***
(0.059)
1.075***
(0.060)
1.019***
(0.062)
1.191***
(0.075)
N
15,986
15,986
15,986
15,986
R
0.323
0.323
0.323
0.324
Note. Coefficient; SE = Standard errors; Ref. = Reference Category. The results related to the main effects and control variables were omitted to ensure parsimony, given the complexities that arise in interpreting these effects when interaction terms are included in the models
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Discussion and Conclusion
The public sector is expected to respond more proactively to issues close to citizens, ultimately aiming to realize the public interest. This is because the rise of social challenges and unexpected crises can pose significant threats to the quality of life for citizens. The introduction of proactive administration is grounded in this context. This study identified job-related factors as potential determinants of proactive administration and examined their influence on it. The findings showed that all job-related factors can positively influence proactive administration. However, the impact of these factors varied based on rank.
This study provides important theoretical insights that contribute to public administration. To begin with, it expands the scope of research by empirically analyzing the factors that can induce proactive administration, moving beyond the theoretical discussions that have primarily focused on its concepts and types. In particular, by exploring proactive administration through job-related factors—areas that have been limitedly addressed in previous studies (Roh, 2021)—and rank, this research contributes to the generalization of related theories, such as self-determination theory, resource-based view, and self-efficacy theory. Additionally, this study suggests that broadening the concept of proactive administration is beneficial for achieving a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Previous research has largely confined proactive administration to being an innovative behavior related to creativity or as a concept of Privilege Institution Proactive Administration that cautions against passive administration. However, it is essential to recognize proactive administration not only as previous concepts but also as a public official’s interaction with civil society to realize the public interest, as suggested by Choi and Jung (2020). This study attempted to expand the theoretical discourse on proactive administration based on these discussions.
The results of this study provide practical implications. By focusing on job-related factors in exploring the relationships influencing proactive administration, the study provides guidance that can contribute to establishing and promoting policies that encourage proactive administration from an organizational management perspective. Unlike organizational culture or individual values, which are difficult to change, job-related factors can be more easily adjusted through policy measures such as modifying regulations or operational policies. The results of this study indicate that job clarity, autonomy, job resources, and job competency all increase the likelihood of inducing proactive administration. This suggests that when public organizations aim to drive behavioral changes among public officials, policies that consider job-related factors are also necessary. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the factor may vary by rank, highlighting the need to consider rank diversity to implement effective policies within public organizations.
Although these implications are valuable, this study has certain limitations, mainly stemming from the distinctive nature of the sample and data set used in the analysis. First, despite reflecting an expanded discussion on proactive administration, this study was unable to fully address variables that could support this discussion in the empirical analysis. The data used in this study primarily comprised items based on regulation and creativity, consistent with existing discussions on measuring proactive administration. So, it lacked sufficient items to measure interactions with citizens and the realization of public interest, thereby limiting the extent to which these aspects were reflected in the analysis. Second, the existence of the Privilege Institution Proactive Administration, which serves as the foundation for proactive administration, suggests that proactive administration is inherently related to audits. This study recognizes that the risk of audits could be a factor influencing the intrinsic motivation of public officials; however, due to the limitations of secondary data, this variable was not addressed in the discussion on proactive administration. Finally, although this study attempts to overcome the limitations of cross-sectional data by constructing a combined model that integrates multiple years, the data still retains the characteristics of cross-sectional data in a strict sense. This makes it difficult to establish causal relationships between variables and capture individual characteristics or changes over time, as possible with panel data. Future research can address these limitations by supplementing data for a more robust empirical analysis.
Declarations
Ethical Approval
None (not applicable).
Informed Consent
None (not applicable).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
This paper is based on the author’s MA thesis.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abramis, D. J. (1994). Work role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and job performance: Meta-analyses and review. Psychological Reports, 75(3_suppl), 1411–1433.CrossRef
Ahmed, U., Khalid, N., Ammar, A., & Shah, M. H. (2017). Assessing moderation of employee engagement on the relationship between work discretion, job clarity and business performance in the banking sector of Pakistan. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 7(12), 1197.CrossRef
Ahn, S., & Lee, S. Y. (2017). An analysis of the effects of a Performance-Oriented personnel system on organizational commitment: A test of system and experience as referents of equity. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 55(2), 103–136.
Akhtar, M. S., & Ali, H. (2023). Innovative work behavior: An association of leadership Styles, job Autonomy, and employee proactive behavior. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 3(1), 190–211.CrossRef
Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 55–89.CrossRef
Ayala Calvo, J. C., & García, G. M. (2018). Hardiness as moderator of the relationship between structural and psychological empowerment on burnout in middle managers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 362–384.CrossRef
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.CrossRef
Boyne, G. A. (2003). What is public service improvement? Public Administration (London), 81(2), 211–227.CrossRef
Bysted, R., & Jespersen, K. R. (2014). Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behaviour: Comparing private and public employees. Public Management Review, 16(2), 217–241.CrossRef
Cha, Y. G., Ahn, K. C., & Kim, S. J. (2023). Effect of job stress of public officials on job Satisfaction - Focusing on the moderating effect of organizational culture types. Korean Journal of Local Government and Administration Studies,37(1), 105–129.
Choi, T., & Jung, Y. (2020). Exploring philosophical and ethical foundations of active administration: Vindication, Limitation, and context. The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 29(1), 1–30.CrossRef
Dalpour, S. (1987). Relationships between task clarity, role conflict, job satisfaction and job performance among university faculty. University of Northern Colorado.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43.CrossRef
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.CrossRef
Dharmanegara, I. B. A., Sitiari, N. W., & Wirayudha, I. D. G. N. (2016). Job competency and work environment: The effect on job satisfaction and job performance among SMEs worker. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 18(1), 19–26.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.CrossRef
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.CrossRef
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.CrossRef
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16–78.CrossRef
Kang, N. Y., & Park, S. M. (2019). An empirical exploration of the determinants of proactive administration in Korean bureaucracy: Drawing upon an organizational behavioral perspective. Korean Association of Government Studies.
Kim, B., & Kim, J. (2016). Bureaucratic responsibility and governance according to risk typology. Korean Public Administration Review, 50(4), 139–168.
Kim, S., Kim, S., & Kim, S. Y. (2023). Analysis of factors influencing public officials’ active administration: Focusing on public service motivation and public service value. Korean Public Personnel Administration Review, 22(2), 1–47.
Kim, Y. M., & Im, T. (2011). How do street level bureaucrats exercise their discretionary power? Korean Review of Organizational Studies, 8(3), 25–59.CrossRef
Ko, K., & Cho, S. (2017). How do corruption experienced citizens understand causes of corruption? Korean Society and Public Administration, 28(1), 31–56.
Lee, J. S. (2016). Analyzing the issues and policy alternatives for positive administration. The Korea Local Administration Review, 30(4), 3–24.
Lee, S., & Ahn, S. (2019). The impacts of human capital, institutional and environmental factors on innovative behavior of government officials: Focusing the difference on the rank of government officials. Korean Public Personnel Administration Review, 18(2), 187–209.CrossRef
Lee, S. Y., & Whitford, A. B. (2013). Assessing the effects of organizational resources on public agency performance: Evidence from the US federal government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(3), 687–712.CrossRef
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.CrossRef
Molleman, E., Emans, B., & Turusbekova, N. (2011). How to control self-promotion among performance‐oriented employees: The roles of task clarity and personalized responsibility. Personnel Review, 41(1), 88–105.CrossRef
Montjoy, R. S., & O’Toole, L. J. (1979). Toward a theory of policy implementation: An organizational perspective. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 465–476.CrossRef
Na, C., & Lee, B. H. (2023). Improving voluntary compliance through Problem-Oriented governance: A case study of South korea’s efforts to increase the COVID-19 vaccination rate. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 58(2), 174–195.CrossRef
Nurjaman, K., Marta, M. S., Eliyana, A., Kurniasari, D., & Kurniasari, D. (2019). Proactive work behavior and innovative work behavior: Moderating effect of job characteristics. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(6), 373–379.CrossRef
Park, Y. (2019). The study on the concept of proactive public administration. Korean Public Personnel Administration Review, 18(4), 273–283.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636.CrossRef
Peters, B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society, 36(3), 385–396.CrossRef
Roh, J. (2021). Impacts of Job-Related factors on the innovative behavior of public employees: Focusing on the moderating effects of transformational leadership. Korean Public Personnel Administration Review, 20(3), 1–32.
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.CrossRef
Sager, F., & Rosser, C. (2009). Weber, Wilson, and hegel: Theories of modern bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1136–1147.CrossRef
Segarra-Ciprés, M., Escrig-Tena, A., & García-Juan, B. (2019). Employees’ proactive behavior and innovation performance: Examining the moderating role of informal and formal controls. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(5), 866–888.CrossRef
Song, S. (2015). Goal ambiguity and organizational behavior: The effects on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and public service motivation (Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Public Administration, Seoul National University).
Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34(1), 43–71.CrossRef
Wilson, J. Q. (1975). The rise of the bureaucratic state. The Public Interest, 41, 77.
Won, H., Lee, H., & Lee, S. (2024). Exploring antecedents of active administration using critical incident technique: Focusing on the comparison of success and failure events. Korean Public Administration Review, 58(2), 189–223.CrossRef
Wu, C. H., & Parker, S. K. (2017). The role of leader support in facilitating proactive work behavior: A perspective from attachment theory. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1025–1049.CrossRef
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 261.CrossRef
