Reforming the Civil Service: An Argument

The purpose of the civil service system is not to provide stable jobs to people who are good at exams. Its purpose must be to select the people who will solve the public’s problems and carry out the functions of the state effectively — and to hold them accountable.

Civil service recruitment must therefore shift from exam-centered to competency-centered.

The common written exam should be reduced to a qualification check confirming the minimum foundational ability, respect for the rule of law, and ethical awareness needed for public office. Final selection should center on practical tasks that simulate real work, structured interviews, job-relevant experience, portfolios, and past performance.

We must move away from hiring people as civil servants first and rotating them through departments, and instead define the specific job and its responsibilities first, then hire the person who can perform that job best.

In fields that demand expertise, professionals from the private sector must be able to enter directly at mid-level and responsible positions. In fields like artificial intelligence, information security, semiconductors, biotech, finance, and energy, exam-prep experience must not take precedence over hands-on experience.

New civil servants should pass through a real probation period. Probation must not be a procedure that automatically converts to permanent appointment with the passage of time, but the final stage of hiring — verifying actual working ability, sense of responsibility, ability to collaborate, and ethics.

Civil servants who deliver results should receive real rewards and real authority, beyond commendations and token bonuses.

Those who repeatedly produce excellent results should be entrusted with bigger projects, larger budgets, and authority over hiring and organizational management. Promotion and scope of responsibility must be determined by verified ability and performance, not seniority.

The state cannot grant civil servants ownership stakes the way companies grant stock, but it can build reward systems tied to long-term public outcomes.

When results such as reduced administrative costs, time saved for citizens, improved service quality, and better safety are sustained over a long period, the team and its leaders should receive long-term performance pay, promotion opportunities, and authority over follow-on projects.

Rewards must be linked to sustainable outcomes, not short-term numbers. When performance manipulation, concealed side effects, legal violations, or long-term harm come to light, rewards and authority must be recoverable.

Those who exercised authority over budgets, personnel, and policy decisions must be evaluated on the results. Credit for success should go to the person responsible — but responsibility for repeated failure and negligent management must be charged just as clearly.

Job security for civil servants is necessary to protect them from political retaliation and improper orders. But job security must not become a shield for incompetence, idleness, dereliction of duty, and misconduct.

Repeated underperformance must be answerable with real personnel action.

First, present clear job standards and performance goals, and when performance falls short, notify the person of the specific problems. If performance does not improve even after training, support, an improvement period, and a fair chance at reassignment, then demotion, removal from duty, or dismissal must be possible.

Corruption, bribery, sexual crimes, data fabrication, personal data leaks, and grave dereliction of duty must be met with swift removal or dismissal.

At the same time, dismissal and performance evaluation must not be exploited for political retaliation or a superior’s private grudges. An independent review body must examine the evaluation records, whether opportunities for improvement were provided, and the grounds for dismissal, and the person concerned must be guaranteed a full chance to respond and appeal.

If police are judged only by arrest counts, tax officials only by amounts collected, and welfare agencies only by budget savings, the result can be distorted administration that violates citizens’ rights.

Public sector performance must be evaluated across policy goal attainment, efficiency of budget and time, citizen satisfaction, legality, safety, equity, and long-term social effects together.

Reasonable risk-taking and irresponsibility must also be distinguished.

When a new policy was attempted with sufficient review and lawful procedure but produced unexpected results, the failure itself must not be punished. In an organization that does not allow honest failure, no one attempts innovation.

But when someone knowingly neglects a problem, fabricates data, conceals failure, or shifts blame to others, responsibility must be enforced strictly.

Reform should be pursued in stages rather than all at once across the board.

It should be piloted first in fields where job expertise and results can be verified relatively clearly — digital government, public data, information security, procurement innovation, R&D, and industrial policy.

The relationship between hiring methods and post-appointment performance should be analyzed over the long term, and the systems whose effects are proven — on citizen satisfaction, work efficiency, organizational fairness, talent inflow, and side effects — should then be expanded.

The core principles of civil service reform are clear.

Exams should be a means of verifying minimum qualification.

Job competence should be proven through real tasks and experience.

Those who deliver results should receive rewards and authority.

Those who hold authority should answer for the results.

Underperformers who do not improve, and those guilty of grave misconduct, must be removable from the organization.

Political neutrality and lawful performance of duty must be strongly protected.

What we ultimately need is not a government that can simply fire civil servants easily. It is a government that gives real authority to capable people, holds them accountable for the results of that authority, and delivers sustained outcomes to its citizens.