Abstract
Asia-Pacific is home to many important cultures and public administration practices. While interest and study about Asia has surely increased in recent years, much remains unknown about public personnel management in this region. Relevant differences are suspected with those in the West, such as about the role of civil servants in economic and social development, the nature of job performance and productivity, the character and consequences of politics–administration relations, ethics and meritocracy, and the impact of clientelist relations in many countries. Yet our state of knowledge is fragmented and anecdotal, and even basic facts are often unknown. The desire for international and comparative research is strong these days, and an important need exists to put these matters on a more sound empirical foundation.
Responding to a call for paper proposals for this symposium, a group of eight scholars from selected countries met in Taipei in May 2010. 1 In the shadow of the annual meeting of the Taiwan Association for Schools of Public Administration and Affairs (TASPAA), scholars met for about 12 hr over a 3-day period; they discussed about possible research topics and developing a regional scholarship network for addressing them. The focus was on using Asia-Pacific experiences to make contributions to the global literature. Numerous exciting topics were readily identified, and plans were drawn up for a focused and mixed-method research strategy that included a multination survey, case studies, secondary analysis, and interviews. Over time, many more scholars joined, more than 4,400 surveys were collected, and the result is now this scholarly symposium. The effort was led by Professor Evan Berman (now, Victoria University of Wellington) and supported by Chung-yuang Jan (National Chengchi University, Taiwan). We also thank Steve Condrey, past editor-in-chief of ROPPA, for his support and encouragement, as well as Paul Battaglio, the present past editor-in-chief. Evan Berman is grateful to National Chenghi University, 2008-13, during which this study was conducted. All articles went through a rigorous peer review process.
Asia-Pacific is a huge and diverse region. In the broadest sense, symposium findings support notions of growing convergence of practices as well as the diversity of settings. Asia-Pacific is seen as both a testing bed for modern theories of public administration as well as source that contributes to them. While many symposium findings support commonly held views of the discipline, they also push toward a broadening of subject matter, such as in the matter of cultural variables (e.g., nuances and benefits of “followership”), notions of job performance (efficiency versus effectiveness), a more varied setting for ethics management, and effects of politics–executive relations and HRM on senior manager leadership. Examining practices in more setting provides for a deeper and richer understanding of practices, and some surprises, too. In the following, we first provide a brief synopsis of the articles, and then a discussion of the common survey instrument.
Jae Moon and Changho Hwang provide a comparative study of 14 Asia-Pacific countries, focusing on their size, legal frameworks, supervising agencies, and recruitment. The countries fall into four categories: Western countries (Australia, New Zealand, and the United States), Asian industrialized countries (Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan), Southeast Asian developing countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand), and socialist transitional countries (Cambodia, China, and Vietnam). Among their important findings is that the size of the civil service is much smaller in Asian industrialized countries than in Western countries. Some civil service reform initiatives, such as performance management, are commonly found across countries in all groups, which indicate the global diffusion of those initiatives. New initiatives for recruitment reform, ethics and transparency, and compensation reform are found mostly in Southeast Asian developing countries and socialist transitional countries.
Ora Poocharoen and Alex Brillantes discuss the concept of meritocracy and the nature of merit systems in Asia-Pacific. It traces the history of meritocracy, and the analysis examines five dimensions: recruitment criteria; corruption in recruitment and promotion; political affiliation and influence; level of centralization of recruitment and promotion processes; and the extent of merit-protection regimes. Findings suggest that recruitment criteria in Asia are highly reliant on central examinations and education qualifications are becoming more important in many countries. Installed prior to democracy, merit systems in Asia are intended to build strong and loyal bureaucracies and shape an elite class capable of running the country. Despite having central exams, many Asian countries continue to face the problem of corruption and patron–client problems in recruitment and promotion.
Evan Berman et al. examine perceptions of public executive leadership. While the Asia-Pacific region is historically known for examples of public managers taking initiative that further development, recent concerns are that public leadership is greatly reduced in the new democratic and media-conscious era. Interestingly, comparative data show that perceptions of strong executive leadership by senior public managers in Asia-Pacific are similar to those in the United States (respectively 40% and 35%). Perceived leadership is greater in stable, one-party regimes (Malaysia, Mainland China), than in those that have party turnover (Taiwan, South Korea). They also find that HRM factors affect the calculus of leaders’ initiative-taking. HRM factors include hiring well-qualified applicants, linking rewards to performance, competitive salaries and appraisal that holds people accountable. This article makes the argument that executive leadership is modest in both East and West, but for different reasons.
Jonathan West, Loo-See Beh, and Meghna Sabharwal examine ethics in East and West. Examining ethics in Asia-Pacific countries and four U.S. states, they find that while most employees are aware of ethical requirements at work, there are clearly differences between East and West in the perceived frequency of unethical behaviors and the ethical infrastructure used to address wrongdoings. There is also some ethical convergence where similar ethical problems and anti-corruption strategies are found in both cultural settings. Furthermore, there are substantial national variations as well as some ethical convergence within the Asian context. Selected HRM strategies to promote ethics are highlighted such as enforcing merit standards and ethics laws, making sure that employees are aware of ethical requirements, and ensuring that positions have qualification standards.
Jeannette Taylor et al. examine perceptions of job performance. Compared to the U.S. respondents, the respondents from Asia Pacific reported higher levels on one dimension of job productivity (perceived job efficiency) but lower levels on another dimension (perceived job effectiveness). Like their American counterparts, the perceived job productivity of Asia Pacific respondents was affected more by their satisfaction with nonmaterial job attributes than their satisfaction with material job attributes. Three distinctive national cultural factors were found to affect perceived job productivity: social ties, personal responsibility, and group focus.
A Common Method
At the May 2010 meeting, a decision was made to develop a common survey instrument; some papers would be data-driven, whereby others, using qualitative approaches, would make use of these data as well. A rough outline of the instrument and papers was achieved at the May 2010 meeting. The common instrument was developed over Summer 2010 and pilot tested between August 2010 to January 2011 in three countries. Between March 2011 and January 2012, an extensive, multinational survey project was thus undertaken in the following countries/states: South Korea, Mainland China (Beijing, Shanghai), Taiwan, Malaysia, Australia, The Philippines, India, Chile, Brazil, as well as the U.S. States of Florida, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Texas. The survey has 119 questions and includes topics related to HR strategies, performance, culture, leadership, motivation, merit, ethics, and a broad range of workplace culture characteristics. The total data set consists of 4,462 surveys of senior employees (nonmanagerial), supervisors and lower managers. The expanded coverage beyond Asia-Pacific reflects growing interest of those outside the region for comparative research opportunities. We provide a detailed discussion of survey methods here, allowing for brief mention in the symposium articles.
The survey sample consists of senior employees (nonmanagerial), supervisors, and lower managers in national government, civilian (nonmilitary or police) agencies. These respondents were selected because they are relevant, accessible, and knowledgeable of survey topics. Respondents were selected from among the following civilian agencies: home affairs, health and welfare, environment, transportation, commerce/trade/industry, personnel, and education. The phrase “senior employees” is operationally defined as those who are one grade lower than (first-line) supervisors. Country researchers worked with the international project leader to ensure reasonable consistency as regarding grades and classifications across agencies. Senior managers were not selected because they are few and inaccessible in many countries. To reduce sample bias, all country samples involve at least four different agencies, and no more than four respondents per work unit.
Sample comparability rests on similar level of central or state (nonlocal government) 2 respondents providing nondefense services, and on using valid sampling and data collection procedures described below. All comparative surveys require trade-offs and decisions to ensure feasibility and validity. U.S. respondents are state government officials because federal respondents are typically unavailable; the U.S. sample is taken to reflect many cultural and policy features of the United States and is relevant for comparison. Additionally, larger U.S. states (and Shanghai) are similar in size as say, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Australia. Surveys were translated in Chinese (simplified and traditional), Korean, Hindi, Portuguese, and Spanish. Translations were checked for accuracy by at least one other researcher. Some terms were adapted to correct local usage (e.g., the term “department”), while keeping the original meaning in mind. Pilot tests were conducted (October 2010-January 2011) to identify and address these issues.
Representative sampling methods were used in all agencies, typically based on agency directories and/or random selection of target respondents by agency staff with oversight and concurrence from researchers. Data collection methods include online surveys, mail survey, and in-person surveys, as appropriate to local conditions. In most Asian countries and Florida, permission was sought from senior agency directors to conduct the survey. For instance, in India a letter of request was sent to all the secretaries of central ministries providing information about the study and seeking support for surveying their employees. In Oregon, Washington, and Utah a stratified random sample of senior employees, supervisors, and lower managers was generated from state agency and department manager lists available on the Internet. Three waves of mailings were used, including an introductory postcard announcing the survey and then two subsequent waves of the questionnaire and cover letter. In line with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements, respondents were informed about the voluntary nature of the study and assured complete anonymity. In Florida the survey was conducted using an online survey tool (Qualtrics). In East Asia graduate students often conduct in-person surveys at respondents’ office; students wait while the survey is being completed by the intended respondent, and they leave with completed ones that are sealed in unmarked (anonymous) envelopes. In India, agency directors instruct randomly selected staff to complete surveys in designated rooms at a designated time, also under conditions of anonymity. In general, survey response rates vary 32% to 80% among countries, which reflect potential respondents heeding official approval or the requests of their agency heads to participate; lowest response rates are from U.S. efforts where only online and e-mail methods are used.
To further feasibility, each country was instructed to provide a minimum of 250 completed surveys, though many countries provided more. Such a sample size is statistically ample for comparison across counties/states, and ensures a large total sample across all countries/states, though it is not designed to further comparisons within countries. The small country sample size broadened participation among researchers. Despite following rigorous research protocols, multinational surveys can be challenging and as such have a few limitations. One such limitation is maintaining exact uniformity across jurisdictions when selecting respondents. In the case of Florida, a majority of the respondents are senior and lower grade managers, while several respondents in Beijing are attendees at a training seminar for civil servants. The training is mandatory for all grades of employees and as such conforms to the sampling requirements. In India, due to lack of co-operation from a few central government agencies, some state governments were included (Rajasthan and West-Bengal), but since all bureaucrats go through a common entrance examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, their inclusion is justified.
Scholars in countries like Chile and Brazil saw value in being able to compare their country’s civil servants with those in Asia-Pacific and the United States, and elected to join. Though the Chilean effort was aborted (problems of required permissions), collected surveys are quite similar to those of Brazil and are combined (“South America”). The samples from Shanghai and Beijing are also very similar and combined (“Mainland China”). While the above sampling procedures were designed to ensure a representative sample from at least four agencies, in three instances the sampling did not meet the above criteria; Texas and Australia required permissions, which reduced agency participation, and in The Philippines sampled managers were too senior. While these are all valuables samples, they are not used in this study for comparison, and the effective number of comparable surveys available for this symposium is thus 3,702. Additionally, survey efforts proved unsuccessful in Japan and Thailand, and none were collected.
Among the sample of 3,702, respondents worked on average about 16.1 years in government and 11.0 years in the organization that they are reporting about. Respondents’ average age is 43 years, about half (49.9%) have a graduate degree, 42.0% are female, and 71% are a supervisor or manager. Table 1 shows sample demographics by country, which corresponds well with some widely reported observations, such as much younger ages in Mainland China and Malaysian agencies (about 15 years younger than comparable managers in the United States), and high education qualifications in East Asia and India, reflecting highly competitive entrance exams into civil service. Table 1 shows that U.S. civil servants are among the oldest in the world and those in China the youngest.
Demographics of Survey Respondents.
Estimated based on response categories. bMaster’s degree or higher. cVery Familiar or Familiar with operations and performance of work unit.
Finally, some country surveys included additional items reflecting local interests. In Taiwan, local interest was to replicate the survey among middle managers (Taiwan Grades 11 and 12) with an additional 26 items. Some questions allow for triangulation of the broader study results, and are therefore discussed below. The response rate of these surveys of middle managers is (184/386=) 47.7%. Among these respondents, 74.1% are male, the mean age is 43 years, and 70.2% of respondents have a graduate certificate, master’s or doctoral degree.
Despite the above precautions and procedures, all data have imperfections. All survey data are respondents’ perceptions of events and circumstances, as comparable and objective data are absent on these matters. To minimize bias, we worded questions in an objective and factual manner, and we asked respondents about their own perceptions rather than that of others. Respondents are well-informed informants, often with direct experience and knowledge of circumstances and actions that are subject of the questions. Of course, other stakeholders may have other views. Also, while comparability rests on respondents being central or state, nonlocal government employees in nondefense agencies mentioned above, there is surely variation, and replication of findings by other studies is always desirable. Those interested in this data set should contact me at: