Personnel management is an essential factor in order to improve the management of public bodies. This paper evaluates high-level personnel under the new public bodies’ personnel management system, established since April 2007, and studies the effects of this new system over high-level personnel in public bodies. It also researches how receptive the new personnel management is by comparing differences between recognition of former personnel management and that of the new one. In addition, it studies how effectively the new system deals with the most controversial issue, a political appointment that is not based on managerial competence or experience, but on political reasons.

As results, it is found that many believe the new high-level personnel management system will not be able to carry out great, positive effects although the new system has a lot of differences from the old one. In these contexts, this research suggests three alternatives. First, for a chief of an organization, his/her vision and will of reform and expertise in related field should be prudently considered. Second, expertise and general management ability are the most important standards when auditor generals are appointed. Third, non-permanent managing director should have expertise as well as his/her firm vision and will of reform. It is also suggested that sufficient qualifications should be required in the case of political appointment [삭제 by order from the above] and that public subscription for non-permanent managing director should be carefully carried out. In the last part, it argues that when an auditor general is reappointed, more strict evaluation on his actual performance results is needed to be carried out and that the members of nominating committee should be differentiated by the characteristics of the high-level officers.