Do agency heads’ public profiles enhance the performance of bureaucratic agencies? Existing studies of public administration emphasize the role of public information in managing government performance. However, whether public attention to agency heads affects the performance of their agencies is largely understudied. Using a unique dataset of agency heads’ public profiles in South Korea, we predict that such profiles have a positive impact on their agencies’ performance. Although agency heads are not held accountable directly to citizens, close public attention to agency heads’ activities may function as an indirect mechanism of accountability and of improving their organizations’ performance. Our analysis supports our prediction and further suggests that an agency head’s high public profile is a benefit, particularly in more salient policy areas where “going public” is more effective for their policy reforms. Our findings have clear implications: the importance of agency heads’ unconventional roles for effective agency management, responding to rapidly changing external environments.
AndersenL. B.BoesenA.PedersenL. H. (2016). Performance in public organizations: Clarifying the conceptual space. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12578
2.
AndewegR. B. (2000). Ministers as double agents? The delegation process between cabinet and ministers. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00518
3.
AndrewsR.BoyneG. A. (2010). Capacity, leadership, and organizational performance: Testing the black box model of public management. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02158.x
4.
AndrewsR.BoyneG. A.WalkerR. M. (2006). Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance: An empirical exploration. In BoyneG. A.MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.WalkerR. M. (Eds.), Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management (pp. 14–34). Cambridge University Press.
5.
BallaS. J.GormleyW. T. (2017). Bureaucracy and democracy: Accountability and performance. CQ Press.
6.
BelléN. (2014). Leading to make a difference: A field experiment on the performance effects of transformational leadership, perceived social impact, and public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut033
7.
BovensM.SchillemansT.GoodinR. E. (2014). Public accountability. In BovensM.GoodinR. E.SchillemansT. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 1–22). Oxford University Press.
8.
BoyneG. A. (2003). Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug027
9.
BoyneG. A.JamesO.JohnP.PetrovskyN. (2011). Top management turnover and organizational performance: A test of a contingency model. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02389.x
10.
BozemanB. (1987). All organizations are public. Jossey-Bass.
11.
CarpenterD. (2014). Reputation and power: organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton University Press.
12.
De VriesH.BekkersV.TummersL. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
FernandezS.ChoY. J.PerryJ. L. (2010). Exploring the link between integrated leadership and public sector performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.009
HartP. T.TummersL. (2019). Understanding public leadership. Red Globe Press.
18.
HollibaughG. E. (2015). Vacancies, vetting, and votes: A unified dynamic model of the appointments process. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 27(2), 206–236.
19.
KernellS. (2007). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership (4th ed). CQ Press.
20.
LeeD. S. (2018a). Executive capacity to control legislatures and presidential choice of cabinet ministers in East Asian democracies. Governance, 31(4), 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12341
21.
LeeD. S. (2018b). Portfolio allocation as the president’s calculations: Loyalty, copartisanship, and political context in South Korea. Journal of East Asian Studies, 18(3), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2018.16
22.
LeeD. S. (2020). Executive control of bureaucracy and presidential cabinet appointments in East Asian democracies. Regulation & Governance, 14(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12190
23.
LeeD. S.MagyarZ. B. (2022). Separation of powers, opposition strength, and chief executives’ strategy. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12676
24.
LeeD. S.McCleanC. T. (2022). Breaking the Cabinet’s Glass Ceiling: The Gendered Effect of Political Experience in Presidential Democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 55(6), 992–1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211047412.
25.
LeeD. S.ParkS. (2018). Democratization and women’s representation in presidential cabinets: Evidence from east and Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2018.1476257
26.
LeeD. S.ParkS. (2020). Ministerial leadership and endorsement of bureaucrats: Experimental evidence from presidential governments. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13153
27.
LeeD. S.SchulerP. (2020). Testing the “China model” of meritocratic promotions: Do democracies reward less competent ministers than autocracies?Comparative Political Studies, 53(3-4), 531–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019858962
28.
LeeS. Y.MoonM. J.HahmS. D. (2010). Dual faces of ministerial leadership in South Korea: Does political responsiveness or administrative responsibility enhance perceived ministerial performance?Administration & Society, 42(1S), 77S–101S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710361855
29.
LewisD. E. (2008). The politics of presidential appointments: Political control and bureaucratic performance. Princeton University Press.
30.
MarshD.RichardsD.SmithM. J. (2000). Re-assessing the role of departmental cabinet ministers. Public Administration, 78(2), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00207
31.
MeindlJ. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90012-8
32.
MellonJ. (2014). Internet search data and issue salience: The properties of google trends as a measure of issue salience. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Political Parties, 24(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2013.846346
33.
MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
34.
NielsenP. A.MoynihanD. P. (2017). How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw060
35.
O’TooleL. J.MeierK. J. (2015). Public management, context, and performance: In quest of a more general theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu011
36.
PaarlbergL. E.LavignaB. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02199.x
37.
ParkS.LeeD. S.SonJ. (2021). Regulatory reform in the era of new technological development: The role of organizational factors in the public sector. Regulation & Governance, 15(3), 894–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12339
38.
RaineyH. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
39.
StrømK. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00513
40.
TrottierT.van WartM.WangX. (2008). Examining the nature and significance of leadership in government organizations. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00865.x
41.
WalkerR. M.BoyneG. A. (2006). Public management reform and organizational performance: An empirical assessment of the UK Labour government’s public service improvement strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20177
42.
WolfP. J. (1993). A case survey of bureaucratic effectiveness in US cabinet agencies: Preliminary results. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037165
43.
WoodB. D.WatermanR. W. (1994). Bureaucratic dynamics: The role of bureaucracy in a democracy. Westview.
44.
WrightB. E.PandeyS. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Does structure matter?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup003
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
