COMPETING PERSPECTIVES ON PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION: CIVIL SERVICE, PATRONAGE, AND PRIVATIZATION (Donald E. Klingner – University of Colorado, USA)

Presented by J. B. Nangpuhan II (MPA Student) for the class of Dr. D. T. Lim, professor of Public Administration at Chonnam National University, South Korea under 'manpower policy'. Date presented: October2011.

 

KEY TERMS:

·         Human Resource Management (HRM) – the management of organization’s employees

·         Civil Service – the body of employees in any government agency

·         Patronage – a support, encouragement, or financial aid that an organization or individual gives to another person

·         Privatization – the process of transferring ownership from public sector to private sector

·         Partnerships – an arrangement where parties cooperate to advance their mutual interests

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON PUBLIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The Four Perspectives of HRM in the United States

1.       The Functions: Planning, Acquisition, Development, and Discipline

2.       The Processes: Public Jobs – allocation of jobs due to scarce resources

3.       Interaction of Fundamental Societal Values

(Traditional Pro-Governmental Paradigm)

a.       Responsiveness – A budget process that considers political or personal loyalty along with education and experience as indicators of merit.

b.      Efficiency – Staffing decisions-based on ability and performance rather than political loyalty.

c.       Employee/Individual Rights – Selection and promotion based on merit, as defined by objective measures of ability and performance, and employees who are free to apply their knowledge, skills, and abilities without partisan political interference.

d.      Social Equity – Public jobs allocated proportionately based on gender, race, and other designated criteria.

(The Emerging Paradigms: Privatization and Partnerships)

e.      Individual Accountability – people make individual choices consistent with their own goals and accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

f.        Downsizing and Decentralization – public policy, service delivery, and revenue generation could be controlled efficiently in a smaller unit of government in a way not possible in a larger one.

g.       Community Responsibility – the delivery of social services through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by taxes, user fees, and charitable contributions.

 

4.       Embodiment of Human Resource Systems: Laws, Rules, Organizations, and Procedures

These are used to fulfill personnel functions in ways that express the abstract values.

The abstract values are the following:

a.       Political appointments – public jobs are afforded to people who are loyal to the head of government or to the party where they belong.

b.      Civil service – employing public servants based on professional merit.

c.       Collective bargaining – a process of negotiations between employers and representatives of employees to come up with agreements that regulate working conditions.

d.      Affirmative action – policies that take into consideration factors such as race, color, gender, religion, or national origin in employing people.

 

THE EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC HRM SYSTEMS AND VALUES IN THE UNITED STATES

1.       Patrician Era (1789-1828) – the people who held most public jobs were small group of upper-class property owners who had won independence and established the national government.

2.       Patronage Era (1829-1882) – public jobs were awarded according to political loyalty or party affiliation.

3.       Professionalism Era (1883-1932) – public HRM was defined as a neutral administrative function so as to emphasize modernization through efficiency and democratization by allocating public jobs according to merit, at least at the federal level.

4.       Performance Era (1933-1964) – this model combined the political leadership of patronage systems and the merit principles of civil service systems.

5.       People Era (1965-1979) – collective bargaining and affirmative dominated this era. Collective bargaining represents collective employee rights for equitable treatment of members by management through negotiated work rules for wages, benefits, and working conditions. Affirmative action represents social equity through voluntary or court-mandated recruitment and selection practices to help ameliorate the under representation of minorities and women in the workforce.

 

THE EMERGENT PARADIGMS: Privatization and Partnerships

The emergence of privatization and partnerships rely upon the basic strategies of HRM: (1) using alternative organizations and mechanisms to deliver public services, and (2) increasing the flexibility of employment relationships for the remaining public employees. Since most of the public expenditures are for employee salaries and benefits, efforts to increase accountability and cut costs focused on HR functions. In 1993, Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review emphasized the creation of a government that “works better and cost less” represented by the terms reinventing government or the New Public Management.

 

6.       PRIVATIZATION (1980-present)

The main concept of privatization is to reduce public spending without sacrificing economic growth and employment opportunities. This means that while a public agency provides a particular service, the service is produced and delivered by a private contractor. Such alternatives and mechanisms include purchase-of-service agreements, privatization, franchise agreements, subsidy arrangements, vouchers, volunteerism, and regulatory and tax incentives.

This paradigm was initiated in the US during the administration of President Jimmy Carter in his 1978 Civil Service Reform Act and continued by President Ronald Reagan. They both argued that the government was part of the problem at that time.  The emphasis on economic perspectives and administrative efficiency reflected the intense pressures on the public sector to “do more with less”. This caused governments to become more accountable through such techniques as program budgeting, management by objectives (MBO), program evaluation, management information systems, tax and expenditure ceiling, deficit reduction, deferred expenditures, accelerated tax collection, service fees and user charges, and a range of legislative and judicial efforts.

 

7.       PARTNERSHIPS (2002-present)

This paradigm gives emphasis on the cooperative service delivery among governments, businesses, and NGOs. One example is the establishment of faith-based organizations (FBOs). This new framework argues that the skilled deployment of human assets is best accomplished outside of the traditional civil service model. It rests on the same values of personal accountability, limited and decentralized government, and community responsibility for social services that characterized the privatization paradigm.

 

IMPACT OF THE EMERGENT PARADIGMS ON TRADITIONAL VALUES AND OUTCOMES

1.       The new strategies posed increased in temporary, part-time, and seasonal employment. There is also an increased hiring of exempt employees (who are outside the classified civil service) through employment contracts. These “temps” usually receive lower salaries and benefits than their career counterparts, and are certainly unprotected by due process entitlements or collective bargaining agreements. In a general sense, this scheme is very favorable to employers.

2.       Privatization and partnerships threaten social equity. Pay of minorities and women in public agencies are closer to equal pay for equal work than are their private sector counterparts. Many part-time and temporary positions are exempt from laws prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities or family medical responsibilities.

3.       Privatization and partnerships have mixed impact of efficiency. Although there is increase in productivity, the personnel techniques that have become more common under these emergent systems may actually increase some personnel costs, particularly those connected with employment of independent contractors, reemployed annuitants, and temporary employees. Downsizing may eventually lead to higher recruitment; orientation and training costs; and loss of the organizational memory and core expertise necessary to effectively manage contracting or privatization initiatives.

4.       The emergent values and systems alter the fundamental role of government by placing greater emphasis on individuals and by shifting the focus of governmental social service delivery from a national to a state and local level.

5.       Continual budget cuts and pressure can result in a budget-driven rather than mission-driven agency. Budget-driven agencies that address public problems with short-term solutions designed to meet short-term legislative objectives are not likely to be effective.

 

THE CHANGING STRUCTURE AND ROLE OF PUBLIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The evolution of public personnel management in the United States adds emergent systems without replacing their predecessors. Instead, new and emergent systems interact and conflict in ways that reflect the dynamic interaction of laws, conditions, and politics. The organizational structure and relationships in carrying out public HR functions are established and regulated by law. The organization of public HRM follows a pattern that is tied closely to the evolution of personnel systems themselves. In the United States, this pattern was represented by passage of the Pendleton Act (1883) and creation of the U.S. Civil Service Commission.

The role of HR in US public agencies has evolved with changes in the political and administrative context. Please refer to the table below:

 

Table 1. The Role of Public HR Management in the United States

Stage of Evolution	Dominant Value(s)	Dominant System(s)	HRM Role
Patrician (1789-1828)	-Responsiveness	-“Government by elites”	-None
Patronage (1928-1882)	-Responsiveness	-Patronage	-Recruitment and political clearance
Professionalism (1883-1932)	-Efficiency individual rights	-Civil service	-“Watchdog” over agency managers and elected officials to ensure merit system compliance
Performance (1933-1964)	-Responsiveness -Efficiency individual rights	-Patronage -Civil service	-Collaboration with legislative limits
People (1965-1979)	-Responsiveness -Efficiency individual rights -Social equity	-Patronage -Civil service -Collective bargaining -Affirmative action	-Compliance -Policy implementation -Consultation
Privatization (1980-present)	-Responsiveness -Efficiency individual accountability -Limited government -Community responsibility	-Patronage -Civil service -Collective bargaining -Affirmative action -Alternative mechanisms -Flexible employment relationships	-Compliance -Policy implementation -Consultation -Contract compliance -Strategic thinking about HRM
Partnerships (2002-present)	-Responsiveness -Efficiency individual accountability -Limited government -Community responsibility -Collaboration	-Patronage -Civil service -Collective bargaining -Affirmative action -Alternative mechanisms -Flexible employment relationships	-Compliance -Policy implementation -Consultation -Contract compliance -Strategic thinking about HRM -Tension management -Boundary spanning

 

CONCLUSION

In a practical sense, the field of public HRM in the United States is laden with contradictions in policy and practice. This resulted to unwieldy and unstable combinations of values (responsiveness, efficiency, employee/individual rights, social equity, individual accountability, downsizing and decentralization, and community responsibility) and systems (political appointments, civil service, collective bargaining, and affirmative action). It is also fraught with the inherent difficulties of utilizing competitive and collaborative systems to achieve diverse goals.

Among other systems, civil service is the predominant public HRM system because it has articulated rules and procedures for performing the whole range of HRM functions. While the functions remain the same across different systems, their organizational location and method of performance differ depending upon the system and on the values that underlie it.

 

References:

- Steven W. Hays, Richard C. Kearney, Jerrell D. Coggburn (2009). Public Human Resources Management: Problems and Prospects. 5^th Edition. United States: Pearson Education

- www.wikipedia.com

- www.google.com