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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)