
Performance management and evaluation
Chapter 5 reviews the Korean government’s performance management and evaluation systems delineated as integrative with the relevant types of evaluation routines and performance appraisals and collaborative with agencies, public officials, and external stakeholders. This chapter intends to explore the Korean government’s performance management and evaluation systems and practices. It presents an overview of the performance management landscape, details the performance routines and appraisals, and discusses lessons learned and practical implications. Through recognizing a practical benchmark case of the government performance management system for developing countries, its establishment and implementation result from the Korean government’s strong and ongoing commitments to make the performance management system work. The Korean government has pushed to link the evaluation results with budget decisions and pulled culture of performance-driven management coupled with other government-wide managerial practices. Through experimentation, the performance management routines have been standardized and rigorously applied to evaluate work performance for further improvements.
Following the overhaul of the Framework Act of Government Performance Evaluation of 2001 (in 2006), the Korean government has aggressively expanded and specified the performance management and evaluation systems by applying adequate, reliable approaches and methods to assess the performance of agencies and public officials. Productive government agencies and employees are vital in ensuring the effectivity of committing resources and the accountability to operate governments and implement policies as planned. This allows the Korean government to sustain its organizational excellence and improvements. Furthermore, the presence of performance management in South Korea is linked to the requirements of internal and external stakeholders; therefore, multilayered performance goals occur within its performance management spectrum.
To improve organizational management practices and job performance, the Korean government has designed and implemented performance-based evaluation systems across three public provisions levels: central ministries, local governments, and public institutions. At the organizational tier, agencies are subject to performance evaluations, regarding targeted policy implementation, financial performance, and various key subject areas in either self-evaluation or a specific evaluation category. At the individual tier, performance appraisals serve as a framework for improving employees’ job performance by providing sufficient feedback. A systematic link between organizational and individual performance appraisals in the Korean government uses performance appraisal indicators to achieve organizational-level strategies and goals. These strategies follow the four processes of the government-wide performance management system featured in planning, implementation, evaluation, and feedback. The balanced scorecard, performance agreement, job evaluation, and 360-degree evaluation are widely used to articulate evaluation standards, criteria, indicators, and the use of performance information.
The six key lessons gained from the Korean government’s performance management practices increase developing countries’ focus on designing and implementing their systems relevantly and adequately. First, the ongoing efforts aim to reflect changing details, and careful consideration of the function of the systems, corresponding to emerging issues and environmental circumstances with a strong leadership commitment. Second, the integrative and collaborative frameworks are constituted with government-wide strategy, agency-level performance plans, and individual-level performance targets. Third, the conceptual consistency and clarification of evaluation expectations and performance appraisals are grounded in continued improvements and learning. Fourth, realistic linearity between performance expectations and evaluation measurement is maintained to provide formative constructive feedback to agencies and employees. Fifth, the Korean system balances tensions between severity and flexibility to manage process and results-focused by constructing government-wide standards and allowing autonomous agencies’ specific implications of the guidelines. Sixth, the Korean government proactively uses the evaluation results across government managerial practices to make evidence-based decisions. Therefore, future transformation of the traditional approach of designing and implementing performance management and evaluation systems facilitates the creation and implementation of a well-defined performance culture for developing countries.
Files
Metadata
Work Title | Performance management and evaluation |
---|---|
Access | |
Creators |
|
License | No Copyright - U.S. |
Work Type | Part Of Book |
Publisher |
|
Publication Date | November 2021 |
Related URLs | |
Deposited | April 05, 2024 |
Versions
Analytics
Collections
This resource is currently not in any collection.