Dual Faces of Ministerial Leadership in South Korea: Does Political Responsiveness or Administrative Responsibility Enhance Perceived Ministerial Performance?
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2010
Dual Faces of Ministerial Leadership in South Korea: Does Political Responsiveness or Administrative Responsibility Enhance Perceived Ministerial Performance?
This study is designed to examine dual faces of ministerial leadership that functions in the gray area of politics and administration when a minister performs his or her role as a political appointee and as a department head. The dual faces of ministerial leadership require somehow both political responsiveness and administrative responsibility for effective ministerial performance. Using the perceptual data of middle- and high-ranked South Korean government officials collected from the 2002 and 2007 Korean Minister Surveys, this study attempts to understand the relationship between types of ministerial leadership and performance in agenda setting, policy implementation, and internal management. The results of this study show that president-centered ministerial leadership (political responsiveness) is positively associated with agenda-setting performance and policy implementation performance whereas department-centered leadership (administrative responsibility) is positively associated with all performance areas, including agenda setting, implementation, and internal management.
Aberbach, J.D., & Rockman, B.A. ( 1997). Back to the future? Senior federal executives in the United States. Governance, 10, 323-349.
2.
Ahn, B.Y. ( 2001). Ministerial reshuffle and policy stability: Tentative policy recommendations for policy continuity (in Korean). The Korea Public Administration Journal, 10, 32-62.
3.
Almond, G.A., & Powell, G.B., Jr. (1966). Comparative politics: A developmental approach. Boston, MA: Little, Brown .
4.
Andeweg, R.B. ( 2000). Ministers as double agents? The delegation process between cabinet and ministers. European Journal of Political Research , 37, 377-395.
5.
Auer, M.R. ( 2008). Presidential environmental appointees in comparative perspective. Public Administration Review, 68, 68-80.
6.
Barker, A., & Wilson, G.K. ( 1997). Whitehall’s disobedience servants? Senior officials’ potential resistance to ministers in British government departments. British Journal of Political Science, 27, 223-246.
7.
Bass, B. ( 1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
8.
Burns, J. ( 1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
9.
Chabal, P.M. ( 2003). Do ministers matter? The individual style of ministers in programmed policy change. International Review of Administrative Science, 69, 29-49.
10.
Doig, J.W., & Hargrove, E.C. (1990). Leadership and innovation: Entrepreneurs in government. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11.
Enticott, G., Boyne, G.A., & Walker, R.M. ( 2009). The use of multiple informants in public administration research: Data aggregation using organizational echelons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 229-253.
12.
Golden, M.M. ( 1992). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Bureaucratic responses to presidential control during the Reagan administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 29-62.
13.
Hahm, S.D., Moon, M.J., Lee, S.Y., & Jung, K. ( 2007). A study of Korean ministers, 1948-2006 (in Korean). Seoul: Korean Civil Service Commission.
14.
Hahm, S.D., Park, D., Kwon, G., & Jung, K. ( 2002). Government management manual for Korean ministers (in Korean). Seoul: Korean Civil Service Commission.
15.
Hahm, S.D., & Plein, C. ( 1995). Institutions and technological development in Korea: The role of the president. Comparative Politics, 28, 55-76.
16.
Hahm, S.D., & Plein, C. ( 1997). After development: The transformation of the Korean presidency and bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
17.
Heclo, H. ( 1977). Political executives and the Washington bureaucracy. Political Science Quarterly, 92, 395-424.
18.
Heclo, H. ( 1988). The in-and-outer system: A critical assessment. Political Science Quarterly, 103, 37-56.
19.
Ingraham, P.W. ( 1987). Building bridges or burning them? The president, the appointees and the bureaucracy. Public Administration Review , 47, 425-435.
20.
Ingraham, P.W., Thompson, J.R., & Eisenberg, E.F. (1995). Political management strategies and political/career relationships: Where are we now in the federal government ? Public Administration Review, 55, 263-272.
21.
Javidan, M., & Waldman, D.A. ( 2003). Exploring charismatic leadership in the public sector: Measurement and consequences. Public Administration Review , 63, 229-242.
22.
Jung, K., Hahm, S.D., & Park, D. ( 2003, March). Characteristics of ministerial leadership under the Kim Dae Jung government (in Korean). Paper presented at the Spring Conference of the Korean Association for Public Administration , Seoul, South Korea.
23.
Jung, K., Moon, M.J., & Hahm, S.D. ( 2008). Exploring the linkage between ministerial leadership and performance in Korea. Administration & Society, 40, 667-690.
24.
Kaufman, H. ( 1981). The administrative behavior of federal bureau chiefs . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
25.
King, A. ( 1994). Ministerial autonomy in Britain. In M. Laver and K. A. Shepsle (Eds.), Cabinet ministers and parliamentary government . (pp. 203-225). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Lynn, L.E. ( 1981). Managing the public’s business: The job of the government executive. New York, NY: Basic Books.
27.
Marsh, D., Richards, D., & Smith, M.J. ( 2000). Re-assessing the role of departmental cabinet ministers . Public Administration, 78, 305-326.
28.
Meier, K. ( 1987). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole .
29.
Moon, M.J., & Ingraham, P. ( 1998). Shaping administrative reform and governance: An examination of political nexus triads in three Asian countries. Governance , 11, 77-100.
30.
Nathan, R. ( 1983). The administrative presidency. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
31.
Park, C. ( 1993). Policy orientations of political appointees and career bureaucrats and their relationships (in Korean). Korean Public Administration Review, 27, 1121-1138.
32.
Park, D., Hahm, S.D., & Jung, K. ( 2003). The Korean minister (in Korean). Seoul, South Korea: Nanam Press.
33.
Radin, B. ( 2002). The accountable juggler: The art of leadership in a federal agency. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
34.
Rhodes, R.A.W. ( 2005). Everyday life in a ministry. American Review of Public Administration, 35(1), 3-25.
35.
Selznick, P. ( 1957). Leadership in administration. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
36.
Taylor-Robinson, M.M., & Cardona, D. ( 2007, August). Backgrounds and credentials of presidential cabinet members: A comparative study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
37.
Terry, L.D. ( 1995). Leadership of public bureaucracies: The administrator as conservator. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Thompson, C.R. ( 1994). The cabinet member as policy entrepreneur: Otis R. Bowen and the evolution of Medicare catastrophic coverage. Administration & Society, 25, 395-409.
39.
Van Wart, M. ( 2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration Review, 63, 214-228.
40.
Walker, R.M., & Enticott, G. ( 2004). Using multiple informants in public administration: Revisiting the managerial values and actions debate. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 417-434.
41.
Wallis, J., & Dollery, B. ( 1997). An evaluation of leadership as a response to agency failure in the public sector. Public Administration, 75, 247-265.
