{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03265666372462489, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00353045013239188, 'mean_word_length': 5.631578947368421, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Public Executive Leadership in East and West

The Asia-Pacific region is known for examples of public managers taking initiative for addressing large challenges and opportunities, but recent concerns are that public leadership is greatly reduced in the new democratic and media-conscious era. Comparative data from South Korea, Mainland China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the United States, India, Brazil, and Chile show that perceptions of strong public executive leadership in Asia-Pacific are similar to those in the United States (respectively 40% and 35%). Perceived leadership is greater in stable, one-party regimes (Malaysia, Mainland China), than in those that have party turnover (Taiwan, South Korea). This article also argues that HRM factors affect the calculus of leaders’ initiative-taking, and finds that in both the East and West public executive leadership is associated with HR factors affecting recruitment, selection, compensation, appraisal, rewards, and satisfaction with civil service systems. This article calls for further research and strategic HRM actions that strengthen public executive leadership in democracies.