The Most Certain Way to Improve Integrity in Seoul's Autonomous Districts?

Announcement of the 2022 Public Institution Integrity Evaluation Results by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission

Emergency Measures to Identify Causes of Significant Integrity Decline Among 25 Autonomous Districts of Seoul Compared to the Previous Year

Internal Complaints of District Office Employees Reflected in Integrity Scores... Focused on Identifying Employee Dissatisfaction

Seoul City Hall Plaza

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Jong-il] The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission announced the ‘2022 Comprehensive Integrity Evaluation Results for Public Institutions’ on the 26th of last month, causing a significant stir.

Seoul’s autonomous districts are experiencing much internal discussion over how much their integrity scores have risen or fallen compared to last year.

The recently announced results are based on telephone surveys conducted from August to October last year targeting employees and residents, coinciding with the start of the 8th local government administration, making the reactions even more sensitive.

As the history of local autonomy accumulates, the integrity of autonomous districts is increasingly perceived as the integrity of the respective district mayor, thus becoming more important.

Districts with improved integrity scores often promote the increase on the walls of their district offices.

Conversely, districts whose integrity scores have significantly dropped compared to the previous year have internally begun devising countermeasures, focusing on “what the causes might be.”

One autonomous district in Seoul dropped three levels from the previous year and received the lowest rating, triggering an emergency response. The district mayor ordered, “What exactly is the problem?” and instructed to “identify the cause of the issue.”

Accordingly, the district’s labor union decided to conduct an anonymous survey of all employees. They intend to listen to the causes of organizational dissatisfaction from employees and prepare countermeasures.

A representative of this district stated, “We have started identifying the causes to understand why the integrity score dropped.”

Another autonomous district saw its integrity score rise by three levels compared to the previous year and is actively promoting this achievement.

This district’s situation is completely different. The district mayor expressed great satisfaction with the results and instructed to establish stable plans to further improve integrity.

The stark contrast in integrity results between these two districts ultimately shows that employees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ attitudes are a crucial variable.

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission draws conclusions by synthesizing opinions from employees and residents through telephone and email surveys.

Not only residents’ evaluations of district office employees but also employees’ perceptions of their internal organization are very important.

Another district official said, “Integrity evaluations can vary depending on employees’ perceptions and attitudes toward their supervisors.”

This implies that if there are still executives who engage in power harassment outdated for the times, internal organizational dissatisfaction can increase.

Ultimately, the integrity issue boils down to employee-related problems.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.