Introduction to Contemporary Practice of Performance Management and Measurement Systems in Korea
Since the mid 1990s, Japan and other newly industrialized East Asian countries (e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) have focused on launching performance management systems, following the first generation of the leading countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. These early trials, however, were not successful, due to insufficient verification of suitable organizational environments and lack of political and administrative commitment. Western performance management practices are somewhat apart from the realities of East Asian institutional settings and administrative capacities. For example, the seniority dominated administrative culture and centralization of fiscal and administrative responsibilities in Asian countries did not favorably support or implement results based management in the public sector. After trial and error, the Asian countries redesigned their performance systems to be capable of absorbing and cultivating radical ideas in their own organizational contexts. Most of these adjustments were heavily driven by the central government, which broadly defines performance for managing, measuring, modifying, and rewarding targets. Performance management models reflecting these concepts of performance recur in Western models (e.g. balanced scorecard, logic model, management by objectives, pay for performance, performance budgeting, program assessment rating tool) Reviewing Asian measurement systems could be beneficial, because they can be applied internationally for sustainable performance management. Although there has been considerable development of government measurement systems in Asian countries, their systems and practices have rarely been adopted or studied in the West. Most academic articles deal with the systems