Every last Monday of the month, a familiar yet unfamiliar scene unfolds at the Fair Trade Commission's conference room in the Government Sejong Headquarters. This is because a 'country-specific review' meeting is held, where directors and Deputy Directors enter the meeting room to report directly and receive feedback.
Unlike the previous executive meetings where only directors gathered to listen to presentations, this meeting is structured to carefully check the progress and difficulties of ongoing tasks. Starting this year, the Fair Trade Commission has replaced one of its two monthly executive meetings with this work review meeting.
The meeting is chaired by Han Gi-jung, Chairperson of the Fair Trade Commission; Jo Hong-seon, Vice Chairperson; Yoo Seong-wook, Secretary-General; and Ahn Byeong-hoon, Chief Judge. Internally, the Fair Trade Commission notes, 'The atmosphere of the meeting has clearly changed. The level of tension has significantly increased.'
According to the Fair Trade Commission on the 1st, the purpose of the work review meeting goes beyond a simple change in meeting format. It is intended to meticulously check whether the work plans established at the beginning of the year are being implemented at the country and departmental levels. It was established with the aim of improving the practice of concentrating reports and outcomes as the year-end approaches and maintaining balance in policy implementation throughout the year.
The meeting also serves practical functions of scheduling coordination and managing the pace of policy execution. Since evaluations such as 'delayed' and 'insufficient' are directly marked next to the names of responsible directors regarding the progress of tasks, the tension among staff members naturally increases. Beyond simple performance reporting, the context of the implementation process, such as 'why this task is important now' and 'what logic to approach to secure the budget,' is shared up and down the hierarchy.
Internally, there is also a self-assessment that the overall speed of the organization has increased through the restructuring of the meeting system. In particular, the evaluation that the Fair Trade Commission is responding quickly to social issues is also analyzed as being influenced by this meeting.
Notable examples include Korea Zinc's investigation into allegations of overseas circular investment, Daiso's field investigation related to 'bullying' in health supplements by the Korean Pharmaceutical Association, and the launch of investigations into the unfair internal transactions of MBK, Homeplus, and Lotte Card—all of which commenced immediately after issues arose.
A Fair Trade Commission official explained, 'This meeting is not one that interferes with the judgment of individual cases, but it effectively checks the overall workflow by department and recognizes problems early.' In fact, practical managers who attended the meeting remarked, 'There is pressure regarding case processing and schedule delays, but there is a sense of trust that the upper management is considering procedural and practical difficulties together.'
A common response is that the meeting positively impacts the morale of members. It is evaluated that, rather than just yielding results, it encourages staff to reflect on the significance of each task or policy priorities themselves, supporting the organizational atmosphere of 'let's achieve more this year'.
However, due to the political uncertainty, there is a viewpoint that it remains to be seen how long this rhythm can be maintained. As the possibility of early elections or risks associated with impeachment grow, concerns over leadership vacuums in various departments are also being raised.
A former Fair Trade Commission official stated, 'If the chairperson has just begun a new term, the momentum for performance review will continue, but if there is even a slight possibility of a replacement, the weight of the meeting itself may diminish.'
As political uncertainties increase, maintaining the rhythm of practical work is crucial. The attempts by the Fair Trade Commission to manage the speed and balance of policy implementation since the beginning of the year through the new format of 'country-specific review' are noteworthy. It is hoped that 'detailed administration' will not lose its momentum during this potentially disruptive period.