In a rapidly changing society, governments could use the HRM reform measures provided in the World Public Sector Report 2005 (WPSR 2005) as important guidelines for realizing continuous innovation and recovering trust in public administration. The 2005 report provides a nearly full set of methodologies as well as informative advice in promoting public sector reform, including HRM reform, for many countries, particularly for developing nations or transitional economies. Nonetheless, the 2005 report has limitations. Thus the purpose of this article is as follows: to identify major contents of, and lessons learned from, the measures for reforming ‘HRM in the public sector’ (hereafter PHRM) proposed by the 2005 report; to critically review the PHRM reform measures suggested in the report; and to propose future research agendas to provide developmental and structured PHRM reform measures that are required by governments in many countries around the world, particularly in developing countries and transitional economies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonE.FombrumC.J. (1992). “Forging the Iron Cage: Inter-Organizational Networks and the Production of Macro-Culture.”Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 175–194.
2.
AcarW.ChagantiR.JoglekarE. (1985). “Mode of Strategy Formulation: The Content-Focused and Process-Focused Modes Can and Must Meet.”American Business Review. 2(2). 1–9.
3.
BeecherD.2003. “The Next Wave of Civil Service Reform.”Public Personnel Management32 (4): 457–474.
4.
BowleyC.BensonJ. (2002). “Convergence and Divergence in Asian Human Resource Management.”California Management Review, 44(2), 90–109.
DuboisD. D. (1993). Competency-based Performance Improvement: a Strategy for Organizational Change. Amherst, MA: HRD Press Inc.
7.
HongK. R. (2003). “Roadmap for HRM Reform of Participatory Government in Korea.”Civil Service Commission's Policy Report in 2003 (in Korean).
8.
JacobsR. (1989). “Getting the Measure of Management Competence.”Personnel Management, 21, 32–37.
9.
KerrC.DunlopJ.HarbisonF.MyersC. (1960). Industrialism and Industrial Man. London: Heinemann.
10.
KettlD. (2000). The Global Public Management Revolution. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
11.
KickertW. (ed.). (1997). Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
12.
KimP.S. (1996). “South Korea: Searching for a New Direction of Administrative Reform.”Australian Journal for Public Administration55(4): 30–44.
13.
KimP.S. (1999). “Globalization of HRM: A Cross-Cultural Perspective for the Public Sector.”Public Personnel Management28(2): 227–243.
14.
KimPS. (2000). “Human Resource Management Reform in the Korean Civil Service.”Administrative Theory and Praxis22(2): 326–344.
15.
KimPS. (2001). Administrative Reform in the Korean Central Government: A Case Study of the Dae Jung Kim Administration.”Public Performance and Management Review. 24(2): 145–160.
16.
KimPS. (2003). “Strengthening the Pay-Performance Link in government: A Case Study of Korea,”Public Personnel Management31 (4): 447–463.
17.
LaneJ. (ed.). (1997). Public Sector Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
LightP. (1997). The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work, 1945–1995New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
LightP.2006. “The Tides of Reform Visited: Patterns in Making Government Work, 1945–2002.”Public Administration Review, 66(1): 6–19.
20.
MarsdenD.RichardsonR. (1994). “Performing for Pay? The Effects of Merit Pay on Motivation in a Public Service.”“British Journal of Industrial Relations32(2): 243–261.
21.
McGaugheyS.L.De CieriH. (1999). “Reassessment of Convergence and Divergence Dynamics: Implications for International HRM.”International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(2), 235–250.
22.
NelsonS. (2004). “The State of the Federal Civil Service Today.”Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24(3): 202–215.
23.
NolanB. (ed.). (2001). Public Sector Reform: An International Perspective. London: Palgrave.
24.
OlsonP.D.BokorD.W. (1995), “Strategy Process-Content Interaction: Effects on Growth Performance in Small, Start-up Firms.”Journal of Small Business Management, 36(1), 34–44.
25.
SchickAllen. (1998). “Why Most Developing Countries Should Not Try New Zealand's Reforms.”World Bank Research Observer13(1):123–131.
26.
WillmoreL. (2005). “Public Sector Performance, Prestige and Promotion.” Background Paper in the World Public Sector Report 2005: Unlocking the Human Potential for Public Sector Performance. New York: United Nations.
27.
YoonJ.I. (2006). “Korean Government Innovation: Strategies and Methodologies for Administrative Innovation.” Paper presented at the 5th meeting of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration. New York: United Nations.
28.
World Bank (2004). World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
29.
UN/DESA (2005). World Public Sector Report 2005: Unlocking the Human Potential for Public Sector Performance. New York: United Nations.
30.
UNDP (2005). Regional Human Development Report: Promoting ICT for Human Development in Asia. New York: United Nations.
