Chapter 12: The Future of Public Personnel
The era of building personnel systems on merit principles designed primarily to regulate and restrict public managers’ discretion seems now to be over. The reduction of bureaucratic structures and procedures, the decentralization of authority and accountability, the contracting-out or privatization of public services, and support management are dominant values driving the state-of-the-art thinking about how to design and run public personnel services of the future.
Although many of the human resources management tasks assigned to personnel or HR departments will not change, the ways in which they are carried out will be changed by new technologies and organizational arrangements that require enhanced as well as new skills. A growing number or government jobs will require highly trained and extensively educated professionals who must continuously upgrade their abilities to keep up with the intellectual and technical demands of their positions. In all likelihood, public employers increasingly will be forced to deal with the reality that sustained investments in workforce planning, training, and human resource development are needed an, in the long run, will be cost-effective. Human Resources development (HRD) encompasses at least three areas of human capital planning and development: (1) Training and Development, which involves identifying and helping to develop in a planned manner “the key competencies that enable individuals to perform current of future jobs.” Training and development concentrates on people in organizational roles or jobs, and it uses a variety of methods, including on- and off-site training, on-the-job training or OJT, supervisory coaching, and other ways of encouraging learning by individuals. (2) Organization Development, which concentrates on building effective and productive social-psychological relationships within and between work groups in organizations. (3) Career Development, which seeks to coordinate individual career planning and organizational career management processes to achieve an optimal match of individual and organizational needs.
Federal agencies are required by law to have processes for identifying their performance improvement needs, and they must have human resource development programs designed to meet those needs in efficient and effective ways. These processes include:
- Setting performance goals and determining the gaps, if any, between these goals and actual performance.
- Identifying the reasons for performance gaps and deciding if specific training and development initiatives should close or eliminate them.
- Regularly collecting and analyzing information about organizational training needs and using these data to guide decisions about investments in human resources development.
- Involving management and employees on all levels in planning and implementing HRD activities, and integrating training plans and programs with other human resource management functions.
In one very important sense, the more things change, the more they stay the same: Public personnel administration will continue to be an arena within which competing values and interests vigorously compete, and the outcomes of these clashes will have profoundly important consequences for American society.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Chapter 11: Civil Service Reform: A Closer Look
Chapter 11: Civil Service Reform: A Closer Look
Public employers across the United States have frequently turned to “civil service” reform” when confronted with challenging political and fiscal circumstances. Such reforms have ranged form relatively minor or incremental adjustments to comprehensive, fundamental, changes. Typically they reflect intellectual and ideological trends in the environment of government and its administrative agencies. “Bureaucrats” and the systems they work in and administer matter greatly on all levels of society, and they profoundly influence the way we are governed. Among other things, it is through the personnel or human resource function that public agencies recruit and select, train and develop, and manage the performance of public workers.
The causes of civil service reform and the contexts within which it takes place are widely varied, but there are at least three kinds of reasons for such initiatives. The first reason is ideology, or a belief by policy makers that a particular approach to human resources policy and management will lead to better outcomes of all sorts. A second set of reasons for civil service reform is political. Reforms are designed to re-align or cement the relative power positions of the actors and stakeholders that depend on government bureaucracies for a wide variety of resources. Reforms are vehicles used to establish and advance political interests’ ability to influence public policy and the resulting allocations of resources. Reforms may also serve as political symbols designed to convince the public that elected officials are indeed responsive to public opinion and really are working hard to improve government performance. The third set of reasons for civil service reform is technical. It encompasses a wide range of efforts to design and implement human resource management system changes that executives, managers, and personnel specialists believe will improve performance on one or more levels of government bureaucracy.
The basic challenge of reform has not changed: civil service institutions are still asked to provide public employees who are highly competent and ethical, bureaucracies that are efficient and effective, and civil servants who are responsive to public policies and executive leadership. The ongoing challenge has been and continues to be the “invention” of civil service and human resource management systems that promote responsiveness in its broadest sense, foster the accountability to electorates and other segments of society required of a strong democracy, and support the achievement of desired performance outcomes.
Public employers across the United States have frequently turned to “civil service” reform” when confronted with challenging political and fiscal circumstances. Such reforms have ranged form relatively minor or incremental adjustments to comprehensive, fundamental, changes. Typically they reflect intellectual and ideological trends in the environment of government and its administrative agencies. “Bureaucrats” and the systems they work in and administer matter greatly on all levels of society, and they profoundly influence the way we are governed. Among other things, it is through the personnel or human resource function that public agencies recruit and select, train and develop, and manage the performance of public workers.
The causes of civil service reform and the contexts within which it takes place are widely varied, but there are at least three kinds of reasons for such initiatives. The first reason is ideology, or a belief by policy makers that a particular approach to human resources policy and management will lead to better outcomes of all sorts. A second set of reasons for civil service reform is political. Reforms are designed to re-align or cement the relative power positions of the actors and stakeholders that depend on government bureaucracies for a wide variety of resources. Reforms are vehicles used to establish and advance political interests’ ability to influence public policy and the resulting allocations of resources. Reforms may also serve as political symbols designed to convince the public that elected officials are indeed responsive to public opinion and really are working hard to improve government performance. The third set of reasons for civil service reform is technical. It encompasses a wide range of efforts to design and implement human resource management system changes that executives, managers, and personnel specialists believe will improve performance on one or more levels of government bureaucracy.
The basic challenge of reform has not changed: civil service institutions are still asked to provide public employees who are highly competent and ethical, bureaucracies that are efficient and effective, and civil servants who are responsive to public policies and executive leadership. The ongoing challenge has been and continues to be the “invention” of civil service and human resource management systems that promote responsiveness in its broadest sense, foster the accountability to electorates and other segments of society required of a strong democracy, and support the achievement of desired performance outcomes.
Chapter 10: Responding to the Changing American Workforce
Chapter 10: Responding to the Changing American Workforce
The characteristics of the civilian labor force (CLF) in the United States have changed during the past 50 years and the pace of these changes continues to accelerate. Human resource specialists are now expected to help public employees implement human capital strategies that respond effectively to this dynamic environment. By 2004, 47 percent of all women worked (or were seeking work) with in the U.S. labor force. This rate of workforce participation meant that there were 68.5 million women aged 16 years and older in the CLF. The movement of women out of the home and traditional roles and into the workplace in many occupations and on many levels presents a whole new set of challenges to the employer. One of these challenges was how to respond to a new set of family-related issues in ways that meet the needs of both employees and employers. Public as well as nonprofit and private employers are being forced by necessity to develop human resource policies and practices that are responsive to the needs and aspirations of a workforce that is not dominated by men with wives who are at home taking care of their children. Today’s workers are more likely to want a balance between their on-and off- the job responsibilities, and research suggests that responsiveness to these concerns can be an important factor in recruitment, retention, and productivity (Friedman, 1991; Seyler, Monroe, & Garand, 1995).
Until recently, most public personnel systems had standardized work schedules and job design for all employees. No effort was made to adjust to the personal and family-related needs of workers. Everybody was on a “9-to-5” type schedule, five days a week. Some public employers, including the federal government have instituted a variety of flexible work programs, but many states and localities have not implemented family-friendly benefits such as child care, flexible benefit plans, long-term care insurance, wellness programs, and flexible workplace policies and subsidized commuting. One area where there has been considerable expansion is flexible or alternative work schedules. Alternative work schedules (AWS) are now found on all levels of government as well as throughout the private sector. Two basic forms are widely used. One form, called flexitime divides the workday into two kinds or time: core time and flexible time. The worker must be on the job during core time, but flexible time allows for variations in starting and stopping times. The second form is compressed time, which involves an 80-hour biweekly basic work requirement scheduled for less than 10 work days.
The Family and Medical leave Act (FMLA) was reintroduced and finally signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. It requires businesses with 50 or more employees and all public agencies to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for: the care of a newborn, newly adopted, or foster child, the care of a child, spouse or parent with a serious health condition, or a serious health condition of the employee, including maternity-related disability. Establishing workplaces that advance human capital goals rather than creating obstacles starts with eliminating outdated stereotypes and assumptions about the American workforce of today and the future.
The characteristics of the civilian labor force (CLF) in the United States have changed during the past 50 years and the pace of these changes continues to accelerate. Human resource specialists are now expected to help public employees implement human capital strategies that respond effectively to this dynamic environment. By 2004, 47 percent of all women worked (or were seeking work) with in the U.S. labor force. This rate of workforce participation meant that there were 68.5 million women aged 16 years and older in the CLF. The movement of women out of the home and traditional roles and into the workplace in many occupations and on many levels presents a whole new set of challenges to the employer. One of these challenges was how to respond to a new set of family-related issues in ways that meet the needs of both employees and employers. Public as well as nonprofit and private employers are being forced by necessity to develop human resource policies and practices that are responsive to the needs and aspirations of a workforce that is not dominated by men with wives who are at home taking care of their children. Today’s workers are more likely to want a balance between their on-and off- the job responsibilities, and research suggests that responsiveness to these concerns can be an important factor in recruitment, retention, and productivity (Friedman, 1991; Seyler, Monroe, & Garand, 1995).
Until recently, most public personnel systems had standardized work schedules and job design for all employees. No effort was made to adjust to the personal and family-related needs of workers. Everybody was on a “9-to-5” type schedule, five days a week. Some public employers, including the federal government have instituted a variety of flexible work programs, but many states and localities have not implemented family-friendly benefits such as child care, flexible benefit plans, long-term care insurance, wellness programs, and flexible workplace policies and subsidized commuting. One area where there has been considerable expansion is flexible or alternative work schedules. Alternative work schedules (AWS) are now found on all levels of government as well as throughout the private sector. Two basic forms are widely used. One form, called flexitime divides the workday into two kinds or time: core time and flexible time. The worker must be on the job during core time, but flexible time allows for variations in starting and stopping times. The second form is compressed time, which involves an 80-hour biweekly basic work requirement scheduled for less than 10 work days.
The Family and Medical leave Act (FMLA) was reintroduced and finally signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. It requires businesses with 50 or more employees and all public agencies to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for: the care of a newborn, newly adopted, or foster child, the care of a child, spouse or parent with a serious health condition, or a serious health condition of the employee, including maternity-related disability. Establishing workplaces that advance human capital goals rather than creating obstacles starts with eliminating outdated stereotypes and assumptions about the American workforce of today and the future.
Chapter 9
Chapter 9
Chapter 9 focuses on discrimination. Discrimination has existed since the beginning of time and has targeted women, racial and ethnic minorities, and other persons, including those with disabilities. In the workplace, it prevents people from fully applying their talents, skills, and abilities where it may be useful. It is a hefty duty of public personnel managers to deal with discrimination among women, minorities, and those with disabilities. The United States as a whole, has dedicated much needed attention to these issues by implementing programs that creatively contest discrimination.
Discrimination and employment has unfortunately been a familiar mix throughout history. In the early 1900s, African Americans and Caucasians were segregated in all public areas. African Americans were even limited to unskilled labor. It took A. Philip Randolph, a civil rights leader and his plan to assemble a mass rally of roughly 100,000 protestors to Washington D.C. to bring somewhat of a change of pace. In order to avoid such an event, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 prohibiting employment discrimination and establishing a Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) with authority to investigate charges of discrimination against defense contractors and federal agencies. The FEPC was the first federal entity established to protect African American interests since the brief period of reconstruction following the Civil War.
President Kennedy was responsible for reorganizing the federal antidiscrimination program. He abolished the old law and created a single consolidated program to be implemented by a new organization known as the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (PCEEO). This program outlined affirmative action as a positive program of recruitment and outreach to the minority community. President Lyndon B. Johnson followed through with President Kennedy’s goals and enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting any discrimination by private employers and organizations receiving federal assistance. The Civil Rights Act then established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement a policy of nondiscrimination, and contractors subject to PCEEO rules would now fall under the jurisdiction of the EEOC.
Chapter 9 focuses on discrimination. Discrimination has existed since the beginning of time and has targeted women, racial and ethnic minorities, and other persons, including those with disabilities. In the workplace, it prevents people from fully applying their talents, skills, and abilities where it may be useful. It is a hefty duty of public personnel managers to deal with discrimination among women, minorities, and those with disabilities. The United States as a whole, has dedicated much needed attention to these issues by implementing programs that creatively contest discrimination.
Discrimination and employment has unfortunately been a familiar mix throughout history. In the early 1900s, African Americans and Caucasians were segregated in all public areas. African Americans were even limited to unskilled labor. It took A. Philip Randolph, a civil rights leader and his plan to assemble a mass rally of roughly 100,000 protestors to Washington D.C. to bring somewhat of a change of pace. In order to avoid such an event, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 prohibiting employment discrimination and establishing a Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) with authority to investigate charges of discrimination against defense contractors and federal agencies. The FEPC was the first federal entity established to protect African American interests since the brief period of reconstruction following the Civil War.
President Kennedy was responsible for reorganizing the federal antidiscrimination program. He abolished the old law and created a single consolidated program to be implemented by a new organization known as the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (PCEEO). This program outlined affirmative action as a positive program of recruitment and outreach to the minority community. President Lyndon B. Johnson followed through with President Kennedy’s goals and enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting any discrimination by private employers and organizations receiving federal assistance. The Civil Rights Act then established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement a policy of nondiscrimination, and contractors subject to PCEEO rules would now fall under the jurisdiction of the EEOC.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Chapter 8: Public Employees - Rights and Responsibilities
Chapter 8: Public Employees – Rights and Responsibilities
Although public personnel administration has much in common with its private sector counterpart, especially regarding management techniques associated with such functions as job evaluation, job pricing, and performance appraisal, there are also fundamental differences in practices between the two sectors. Public personnel practices are open to public scrutiny, and partisan issues and questions of political control are always on the agenda.
In the Bill of Rights there are some limitations including constraints on the government’s authority to restrict freedom of speech and association (First Amendment), limitations the government’s right to conduct searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment), and restrictions the government’s power to deny persons life, liberty, or property without due process of law (Fifth Amendment). Public employees retain important constitutional rights when they enter the public service, and as a result, the actions available to personnel managers in the public sector are limited in significant ways. In the mid-1950s the employer-employee relationship in the public sector was dominated by the employer who was free to impose many conditions on workers that they had to accept to keep their jobs. Courts had ruled that employees did not have any rights in the job that were based on the Constitution. Public employees had virtually no rights in termination proceedings.
Liberty interests are triggered when the termination of a public employee is accomplished in such a way that the employee’s reputation is damaged and his or her freedom to find future work is limited as a result. This issue can arise whenever the government employer reports negative or otherwise unflattering information regarding an employee’s conduct or behavior on the job as a reason for termination.
In the area of freedom of expression, the Court struggled to carefully balance the interests of public employees and their employers. What should be balanced in each case is the interest of public employees as citizens to comment on matters of public concern and that of the public employer in providing services to the public.
The right of public employees to associate or refrain from associating with specific organizations is also protected by the First Amendment. It is also well established that public employees may not be required to support or join a particular political party as a condition of employment or to receive beneficial consideration in various employment conditions.
Employees typically have due process rights in termination proceedings and are guaranteed freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Likewise, public workers can expect equal protection of the laws and any distinctions drawn between them along racial lines will, if challenged in court, be subjected to the most exacting judicial scrutiny. The employer can expect in return loyalty, good faith, and efficient and effective work from the public employee.
Because the Constitution restricts government action these rights do not normally accrue to employees in the private sector unless they are specifically included in contract provisions. In this sense, public employees occupy a somewhat special status among workers in the national labor force. In exchange, government may expect, and indeed may demand, a workforce that is competent, effective, and politically neutral.
Although public personnel administration has much in common with its private sector counterpart, especially regarding management techniques associated with such functions as job evaluation, job pricing, and performance appraisal, there are also fundamental differences in practices between the two sectors. Public personnel practices are open to public scrutiny, and partisan issues and questions of political control are always on the agenda.
In the Bill of Rights there are some limitations including constraints on the government’s authority to restrict freedom of speech and association (First Amendment), limitations the government’s right to conduct searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment), and restrictions the government’s power to deny persons life, liberty, or property without due process of law (Fifth Amendment). Public employees retain important constitutional rights when they enter the public service, and as a result, the actions available to personnel managers in the public sector are limited in significant ways. In the mid-1950s the employer-employee relationship in the public sector was dominated by the employer who was free to impose many conditions on workers that they had to accept to keep their jobs. Courts had ruled that employees did not have any rights in the job that were based on the Constitution. Public employees had virtually no rights in termination proceedings.
Liberty interests are triggered when the termination of a public employee is accomplished in such a way that the employee’s reputation is damaged and his or her freedom to find future work is limited as a result. This issue can arise whenever the government employer reports negative or otherwise unflattering information regarding an employee’s conduct or behavior on the job as a reason for termination.
In the area of freedom of expression, the Court struggled to carefully balance the interests of public employees and their employers. What should be balanced in each case is the interest of public employees as citizens to comment on matters of public concern and that of the public employer in providing services to the public.
The right of public employees to associate or refrain from associating with specific organizations is also protected by the First Amendment. It is also well established that public employees may not be required to support or join a particular political party as a condition of employment or to receive beneficial consideration in various employment conditions.
Employees typically have due process rights in termination proceedings and are guaranteed freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Likewise, public workers can expect equal protection of the laws and any distinctions drawn between them along racial lines will, if challenged in court, be subjected to the most exacting judicial scrutiny. The employer can expect in return loyalty, good faith, and efficient and effective work from the public employee.
Because the Constitution restricts government action these rights do not normally accrue to employees in the private sector unless they are specifically included in contract provisions. In this sense, public employees occupy a somewhat special status among workers in the national labor force. In exchange, government may expect, and indeed may demand, a workforce that is competent, effective, and politically neutral.
Chapter 7: Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector
Chapter 7: Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector
Collective bargaining is a bilateral decision-making process in which authorized representatives of management and labor: (1) meet and negotiate such matters as wages, hours, and working conditions; (2) produce a mutually binding written contract of specified duration; and (3) agree to share responsibility for administering the provisions of that contract. Strikes, slowdowns, and political action by organized employees trying to negotiate pay raises, improved benefits, better working conditions, and the right to participate in the making of personnel policies became hallmarks of public sector relations. Across the country, established private sector labor-management practices and concepts invaded the public sector, often to the extreme discomfort of public administrators who saw them as threats to their authority and to the merit principle. Labor management relations and collective bargaining were firmly established as objects of public personnel policy, and they became administrative responsibilities as well as areas of technical expertise.
Collective bargaining stands in contrast to the traditional merit system because it makes many of the terms of the employment relationship a matter of bilateral negotiations between representatives of two organizations: the public employer and the labor union. Collective bargaining usually takes place within a highly formalized system of laws, rules, and procedures. Collective bargaining is based on statutes or ordinances except in a few cases where they have been set up by executive orders.
Most collective bargaining statutes do not specify which individual positions are to be considered supervisory. This determination is left to the administrative agency that decides bargaining units, and some of these agencies will closely examine the actual duties of positions with supervisory titles and exclude only those involving clearly supervisory duties and powers.
Management usually seeks to narrow the scope of bargaining. In the public sector, overriding laws and court rulings may effectively remove certain issues from the bargaining table. The scope of bargaining in government is generally likely to be narrower than it is in the private sector. Provisions of civil service laws, state education codes, special legislation covering the pay of blue-collar workers and other statutes make many issues nonnegotiable. A “management rights” clause often is included in collective bargaining statutes. It is designed to specify managerial powers that may not be bargained away or shared with labor organizations. Management rights clauses are usually replicated in contracts, but determining what they mean in specific cases is often a responsibility of the labor relations agency.
In some ways, collective bargaining may have protected the merit principle and advanced the cause of professional public management. The most important impact of collective bargaining in the public sector has been a transformation of the relationship between employer and employee. Traditional civil service merit systems are based on the proposition that management’s “rules of the workplace” set the terms of the relationship between the employer and the individual worker. Under collective bargaining, management is required to negotiate those rules with another organization, the labor union or employee association.
Collective bargaining is a bilateral decision-making process in which authorized representatives of management and labor: (1) meet and negotiate such matters as wages, hours, and working conditions; (2) produce a mutually binding written contract of specified duration; and (3) agree to share responsibility for administering the provisions of that contract. Strikes, slowdowns, and political action by organized employees trying to negotiate pay raises, improved benefits, better working conditions, and the right to participate in the making of personnel policies became hallmarks of public sector relations. Across the country, established private sector labor-management practices and concepts invaded the public sector, often to the extreme discomfort of public administrators who saw them as threats to their authority and to the merit principle. Labor management relations and collective bargaining were firmly established as objects of public personnel policy, and they became administrative responsibilities as well as areas of technical expertise.
Collective bargaining stands in contrast to the traditional merit system because it makes many of the terms of the employment relationship a matter of bilateral negotiations between representatives of two organizations: the public employer and the labor union. Collective bargaining usually takes place within a highly formalized system of laws, rules, and procedures. Collective bargaining is based on statutes or ordinances except in a few cases where they have been set up by executive orders.
Most collective bargaining statutes do not specify which individual positions are to be considered supervisory. This determination is left to the administrative agency that decides bargaining units, and some of these agencies will closely examine the actual duties of positions with supervisory titles and exclude only those involving clearly supervisory duties and powers.
Management usually seeks to narrow the scope of bargaining. In the public sector, overriding laws and court rulings may effectively remove certain issues from the bargaining table. The scope of bargaining in government is generally likely to be narrower than it is in the private sector. Provisions of civil service laws, state education codes, special legislation covering the pay of blue-collar workers and other statutes make many issues nonnegotiable. A “management rights” clause often is included in collective bargaining statutes. It is designed to specify managerial powers that may not be bargained away or shared with labor organizations. Management rights clauses are usually replicated in contracts, but determining what they mean in specific cases is often a responsibility of the labor relations agency.
In some ways, collective bargaining may have protected the merit principle and advanced the cause of professional public management. The most important impact of collective bargaining in the public sector has been a transformation of the relationship between employer and employee. Traditional civil service merit systems are based on the proposition that management’s “rules of the workplace” set the terms of the relationship between the employer and the individual worker. Under collective bargaining, management is required to negotiate those rules with another organization, the labor union or employee association.
Chapter 6: Performance Appraisal and Pay for Performance
Chapter 6: Performance Appraisal and Pay for Performance
Chapter six focuses on two very closely connected features of personnel policy in the public sector. The first is a renewed interest in creating performance appraisal systems that actively support the performance management efforts of public agencies. The second is an effort to establish “pay-for-performance” systems that have positive effects on the motivation and productivity of public employees. Pay-for-performance requires supervisors and employees have confidence in the objectivity and fairness of the performance appraisal process.
Emphasis is being placed on relating the performance objectives and accomplishments of individuals to those of the organization and its programs. The methods used to evaluate and reward employee performance on all levels should be designed to promote the goals and policy objectives of public agencies. The current emphasis is on the managerial functions of performance appraisal systems.
As merit systems were established and expanded on all levels of government, the design and operation of performance appraisal systems came to be dominated by technical specialists working for commissions or their functional equivalents. It is difficult to conceive of a genuine merit system without a credible system for appraising individual performance.
The first problem is identifying and defining the performance dimensions of civil service positions. Professional and administrative jobs are often complex and variable. Even if agreement on performance dimensions can be reached, developing administratively feasible methods for accurately measuring performance on the job is an equally difficult technical problem. Technical problems associated with the appraisal of individual employees are considerable and attempting to solve them are expensive. The second category of problems is managerial. The third set of problems is organizational.
Total Quality Management (TQM) approaches the entire organization as a complex set of system of interdependent processes. The goals of the TQM approach are to study work processes to identify barriers to quality, to satisfy internal and external customers, and to create and organizational culture that values quality and continuous improvement. The objective of TQM is to change organizational systems to improve quality, rather than changing individual workers.
Pay-for-performance is a hallmark of Civil Service Reform II. Using PFP to raise productivity has been a basic element of management thinking in the United States since the late 1800s. The goal was to increaser “efficiency” in the blue-collar workplace. Pay-for-performance plans come in a variety of forms, including those using one-time bonuses or variable pay, permanent increases to base salary, and group-based bonuses or ”gainsharing.” Individual bonuses and base-pay increases are by far the most common in the U.S. public sector.
A performance evaluation process that is supported by supervisors and employees is a very important component of any merit system. The appraisal systems used by public employers have been technically crude and ineffective as performance management tools. During the past 20 years, the push to create performance appraisal systems that accurately and reliably discriminate among levels of performance has been driven by the popularity of PFP as the centerpiece of all civil service reform initiatives.
Chapter six focuses on two very closely connected features of personnel policy in the public sector. The first is a renewed interest in creating performance appraisal systems that actively support the performance management efforts of public agencies. The second is an effort to establish “pay-for-performance” systems that have positive effects on the motivation and productivity of public employees. Pay-for-performance requires supervisors and employees have confidence in the objectivity and fairness of the performance appraisal process.
Emphasis is being placed on relating the performance objectives and accomplishments of individuals to those of the organization and its programs. The methods used to evaluate and reward employee performance on all levels should be designed to promote the goals and policy objectives of public agencies. The current emphasis is on the managerial functions of performance appraisal systems.
As merit systems were established and expanded on all levels of government, the design and operation of performance appraisal systems came to be dominated by technical specialists working for commissions or their functional equivalents. It is difficult to conceive of a genuine merit system without a credible system for appraising individual performance.
The first problem is identifying and defining the performance dimensions of civil service positions. Professional and administrative jobs are often complex and variable. Even if agreement on performance dimensions can be reached, developing administratively feasible methods for accurately measuring performance on the job is an equally difficult technical problem. Technical problems associated with the appraisal of individual employees are considerable and attempting to solve them are expensive. The second category of problems is managerial. The third set of problems is organizational.
Total Quality Management (TQM) approaches the entire organization as a complex set of system of interdependent processes. The goals of the TQM approach are to study work processes to identify barriers to quality, to satisfy internal and external customers, and to create and organizational culture that values quality and continuous improvement. The objective of TQM is to change organizational systems to improve quality, rather than changing individual workers.
Pay-for-performance is a hallmark of Civil Service Reform II. Using PFP to raise productivity has been a basic element of management thinking in the United States since the late 1800s. The goal was to increaser “efficiency” in the blue-collar workplace. Pay-for-performance plans come in a variety of forms, including those using one-time bonuses or variable pay, permanent increases to base salary, and group-based bonuses or ”gainsharing.” Individual bonuses and base-pay increases are by far the most common in the U.S. public sector.
A performance evaluation process that is supported by supervisors and employees is a very important component of any merit system. The appraisal systems used by public employers have been technically crude and ineffective as performance management tools. During the past 20 years, the push to create performance appraisal systems that accurately and reliably discriminate among levels of performance has been driven by the popularity of PFP as the centerpiece of all civil service reform initiatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)