Why do public enterprises exist? As a researcher, I have pondered this question while studying public enterprises and participating in various policy-making processes for a long time. The government establishes public enterprises in response to economic and social needs, sometimes opting for privatization or organizational restructuring. The aim of these changes is to answer the question, 'How can we most appropriately provide public services that the citizens need?' Many scholars are researching ways to enhance the efficiency of public service delivery so that more citizens can universally benefit.
The form of public enterprises has evolved in various ways according to the economic and social demands of the times. As a researcher who has long explored public enterprise policy and governance and served as a management evaluation committee member, I recently had the opportunity to witness a significant and practical integration of public enterprises. The merger of Korea Railroad Corporation and SR Corporation has been completed smoothly, meeting public expectations.
As the private chair of the high-speed rail integration labor-management-government consultation body, I recall the many meetings I chaired, coordinating the diverse voices of stakeholders. While I have participated in public policy decision-making processes in the past, I have never felt such pressure or maintained such a high level of tension until the very last moment as I did during this integration effort.
Integrating two organizations with different histories and cultures cannot be accomplished merely through legal amendments or institutional arrangements. The process of delicately adjusting complex interests, differing organizational cultures, and the anxieties felt by members is far more challenging. In fact, the consultation process was not smooth, and anticipated concerns sometimes manifested as conflicts.
During the discussions, many issues clashed, from the method of integration to the organizational structure and working conditions post-merger. The positions of the government, Korea Railroad Corporation, SR Corporation, and the labor unions of both companies varied. However, the key was not to unilaterally enforce one side's claims. It was essential to collaboratively seek alternatives under the goal of 'enhancing public benefit and ensuring safety.'
Particularly, discussions regarding the organizational structure after the merger were very challenging. Organizational restructuring may seem as simple as drawing an organizational chart, but underlying it are complex feelings of belonging, wage systems, and anxieties about future careers among individual members. The more sensitive the issues, the more important it is to listen to the voices of those involved, and compromise and concession are essential. At the same time, we could not overlook the time of the citizens who longed for integration. Ignoring the inconveniences experienced by the public would be a dereliction of public responsibility.
The government gathered opinions from stakeholders, including labor unions, and incorporated them into the consultation agenda. The labor unions of both companies narrowed down the issues through a four-party consultation. As a result, they developed a win-win plan to establish a support organization to help SR members adapt for a certain period after the merger. It is significant that not all proposals were adopted as they were, but rather that a solution acceptable to all was created through dialogue. This was evaluated as a groundbreaking example of conflict resolution and provided an opportunity for me, as a researcher, to gain academic assets regarding decision-making.
The success of this integration offers several insights.
First, the success of innovation depends on the 'design of the process.' The labor-management-government consultation body established a structure that subdivided issues into public benefit, practical integration, legal procedures, and risk management, which were then reviewed by subcommittees before being re-discussed. This approach proved effective by separating issues and maximizing expertise rather than making blanket decisions on complex issues.
Second, 'speed' and 'deliberation' are not opposing values. Impatience can amplify conflicts, and waiting solely for consensus can lead to missed opportunities. It is essential to maintain an appropriate pace considering public expectations and the integration timeline. I pay my respects to the stakeholders who made agreements and decisions during this process.
Third, the true completion of integration does not end with legal and institutional procedures or the completion of an organizational chart. It is necessary to verify whether members are well-adjusted to the organization after the merger and whether the public feels the changes. I proposed that an external professional organization conduct objective performance evaluations.
In this context, it was decided to continue operating the labor-management-government consultation body even after the merger. This is a significant milestone in public sector decision-making. We will continuously monitor improvements in public benefits, such as expanded seat supply and reservation convenience, as well as the functioning of the railway safety management system. The true success of the integration will accumulate through this persistent monitoring process.
When both members and the public evaluate that 'the integrated railway has become much safer and more convenient,' the high-speed rail integration will be fully realized.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.