Understanding Public Personnel Administration: Key Concepts and
School
University of the West Indies at St. Augustine**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
POLITICAL 413
Subject
Management
Date
Dec 10, 2024
Pages
15
Uploaded by PresidentResolvePheasant5
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236941426Public Personnel AdministrationBook· May 2013CITATIONS28READS114,6232 authors, including:Meghna SabharwalUniversity of Texas at Dallas135PUBLICATIONS2,757CITATIONSSEE PROFILEAll content following this page was uploaded by Meghna Sabharwal on 07 February 2017.The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
1 The Environment of Public Personnel Administration Personnel administration (also called human resources management and human capital management) encompasses all activities related to people in organizations. It entails the use of human resources to accomplish an organization’s objectives as efficiently and effectively as possible. Because successful management of people is the key to an organization’s effective operation, good personnel management is essential to good administration. In turn, good personnel administration requires both technical and interpersonal skills. Personnel managers must know how to recruit, select, evaluate, promote, train, discipline, and dismiss employees. They must be adept at motivating, counseling, and bargaining with workers. In addition, personnel managers classify positions, develop compensation plans, measure productivity, and handle grievances and complaints. In short, personnel management involves all aspects of managing an organization’s human resources, and public personnel administration refers to that function in government. Personnel administration is also a universal management activity. Every supervisor is, in effect, a personnel manager. Whereas personnel offices develop and monitor personnel policies, supervisors are responsible for carrying them out. Supervisors are the critical links in the personnel process because they deal with employees daily. The organization’s effectiveness, in turn, hinges, in part, on how well supervisors perform their personnel functions. Those who perform personnel activities in the public sector do so in a political environment as stakeholders compete for favorable treatment or consideration from public bureaucracies. Therefore, bureaucrats have a stake in the process and engage in politics to maintain their status. The reactions to secret service agents engaging in inappropriate behavior in Colombia just prior to a summit attended by President Obama in 2012 illustrate the case. Congressional leaders quickly began hearings on the incident citing security concerns. But at the same time, they were also attempting to score political points with constituents and embarrass administration officials. In response, the Secret Service moved to institute new policies to prevent such incidents in the future. The actual agents involved also took steps to protect themselves against legal action. Unfortunately for the Secret Service, incidents at the White House in 2015 again embarrassed it as one intruder made it into the White House unimpeded and two other agents crashed a car into a barrier at the White House as others were dealing with another security breach. Both agents were intoxicated and Congress held more hearings. Another good example of the political environment of public personnel administration was the dramatic shift in policy toward public sector unions and collective bargaining after the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections in which many conservative governors and legislatures were elected and immediately began a process to curb the bargaining rights of public employees. Those efforts led to protracted political fights over the issue.
Political considerations include policy issues that are addressed by public personnel administration. The following are some important recurring issues: 1. How collective bargaining and the merit concept can coexist 2. Whether the public service should be used to solve social problems, for example, by being the employer of last resort, taking the lead in affirmative action, stimulating the economy, or satisfying the demands of myriad special interests with convincing claims 3. How to reconcile continued demands for a higher level of services with demands for lower taxes and smaller budgets 4. How to maintain a politically responsive bureaucracy without endangering the concept of merit 5. How to hire and retain the best talent. More generally, the public service is an issue itself. Political candidates often promise to reduce the size of the public bureaucracy as part of their campaign platform. Public expectations, calling for reducing the size of government while maintaining the same level of services through greater efficiency and accountability, adds to the difficulty of personnel management in the public sector. In examining personnel management in government, this book analyzes the specific personnel responsibilities of supervisors and personnel offices. In particular, it evaluates the effects each of these elements has on government’s responsiveness and accountability and the ways in which alternative approaches affect the delivery of services. The Field of Public Personnel Administration Critics of public personnel administration have accused the field of not having a sense of identity, being too narrow in scope, and lacking a theoretical foundation (Klinger & Nalbandian, 1978; Milward, 1978; Rosenbloom, 1973). These problems resulted in large part from a slavish attachment to principles that seemed appropriate to developing civil service systems in the nineteenth century to replace the abuses of the spoils system. In a zealous effort to remove partisanship from the personnel process, administrators focused almost exclusively on techniques such as testing and selection methods that could be applied to personnel activities. Lost in the shuffle was a focus on serving the purposes of management generally. As a result, the rest of management came to perceive personnel administration as a nonpolitical, technical service rather than as management per se. Nineteenth-century reform established a foundation of moral fervor among personnelists who labeled politics as evil and devotion to “neutral” principles of personnel management (as defined by personnelists) as good. As Wallace Sayre noted, public personnel management became a “triumph of technique over purpose” (1948). Public personnel management lost touch with its environment and became isolated. It assumed a policing role in which it seemed
more interested in telling management what it could not do than in finding positive ways to assist management. It is little wonder that the personnel office became regarded with scorn (Morse, 1976; Mosher, 1982; Thompson, 1975). Modern personnel managers realize that public personnel management is very closely connected with the environment in which it operates. For public personnel administrators, that environment is characterized first and foremost by politics. Whereas the reformers eschewed politics, contemporary personnelists recognize the political nature of the field and criticize traditionalists for ignoring the relevance of political concerns. The environment of public personnel managers also includes many other forces. Employer and employee values affect the personnel system. These values affect the types of personnel policies developed, the decision-making rules, and the results of processes. Conflicts over values to be represented are resolved through politics (Lowi, 1967; Newland, 1967; Rich, 1982; Rosenbloom, 1981), and the error of many personnel reformers has been equating politics with partisan politics. By focusing on partisan politics, the reformers forgot that decisions were being made by compromising the differing values and interests of those participating in personnel decisions, a basic form of politics (Thompson, 1983). Changes in society also affect public personnel management. As will be noted throughout the book, factors such as the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, affirmative action and diversity efforts, cutback management and privatization of public services, and ever-changing technology all affect personnel management. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as subsequent threats, have had many effects on the public service. The culmination of these environmental changes results in changes in the way the public service functions. Paul Light suggests that we have seen the end of government- centered public service and the beginning of a multicentered public service (1999). By this, he means that government managers no longer can decide how to approach the public service from only their perspective. If government is to compete for employees, it must compete for talent and recognize that the diversity of the workforce requires focusing on what potential employees want from their jobs. Decent pay and security are no longer the only things potential employees seek. They now expect flexibility, interesting work, and the opportunity for professional growth and personal fulfillment. Changes in management approaches have also had a significant impact on the organization of the personnel function. It is now recognized that managing human resources is a partnership between the personnel or human resources department and department managers and supervisors. Today, civil service and merit concepts prevail in public personnel management. Nonetheless, many challenges to both concepts regularly occur. Numerous states have experimented with removal of civil service protections to use “at will” employment, in which employees can be easily terminated (Condrey, 2002; Gossett, 2002; Kim & Kellough, 2014; Nigro & Kellough, 2000; Rau, 2012). Public sector labor unions enjoyed tremendous growth during the 1960s and 1970s. Although civil service systems have been under attack in some states since the 1980s, the public sector remained a major growth area for union membership until dramatic political changes in 2010 brought into office elected officials hostile to unions and bargaining. As a result, many public sector unions saw declines in their membership by 2012. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin uses his successful efforts against public sector unions in his state as a major issue in his presidential candidacy for 2016. Private sector unions have been on the decline for decades. Taking measures to curtail union activity is one way politicians have attempted to exert control over public sector personnel management. As the rest of the book demonstrates, the fortunes of management, employees, elected public officials, citizens, and the bureaucracies themselves are affected by the changing manner in which personnel are managed.
Although traditional personnelists exhorted public personnel administrators to apply neutral principles, the presence of competing values makes such an approach impractical. Value judgments must be used to implement differing selection systems, affirmative action, performance evaluation, and all other elements of personnel systems. Someone will gain and someone will lose with each decision made. For example, how should an agency respond to a cut in its budget? Are the newly hired let go? Are older employees urged to retire early? Are those hired under affirmative action programs protected? Are all departments required to contribute equally to the reduction? Are private vendors to be used for service delivery? All these and many other concerns affect the final decision, and each involves a value judgment. Decisions regarding competing value judgments are political decisions, so a modern personnel administrator is a participant in the political process. Public vs. Private Sector Personnel Administration Public and private sector personnel administration have much in common. For instance, the technical processes used for selecting, interviewing, evaluating, and training employees can be the same in both public and private organizations. However, the administration of personnel in the public sector differs from that in the private sector in four important ways: 1. Public employees operate in a different legal environment, especially concerning discipline and termination. 2. Lines of authority are less clear in the public sector. 3. Labor–management relations have followed different paths. 4. The political environment affects public personnel to a greater extent than it does in the private sector. We shall examine these differences briefly; readers should keep in mind, however, that the differences are blurred by public and private sector interaction and the constant changes in society. In the past, people tended to have one career, and, often stayed with the same organization for their entire career. Today, people are likely to have several careers and are likely to move from organization to organization, including moving back and forth between public and private employers. Invariably, people bring with them their social and professional baggage, which affects the way things are done in each sector. Legal Environment Many laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Equal Pay Act, apply to both the public and private sector. Public employees, however, usually are governed by numerous legal limitations on their activities. For example, legislation or executive orders require employees to refrain from even the appearance of a conflict of interest; that is, that their official actions serve their self-interests, economically or otherwise, or that they favor family or friends. Public personnel administrators and supervisors must monitor their
employees’ activities to make sure that they have no conflicts of interest so that the integrity of the agency is not called into question, thus undermining public support. Government employees often are prohibited from engaging in political activities. At the national level, the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibited most partisan political participation by federal employees until 1993, when the act was amended. State and local governments have their own rules, which sometimes prohibit participation even in nonpartisan elections. These restrictions are aimed at making the delivery of services nonpartisan and protecting employees and citizens from abuses typical of the spoils system. After many years of relaxing regulations on personal appearance, dress, and residency, some government agencies have been reinstituting such rules. For example, police officers typically are prohibited from growing beards or long hair, and employees may be required to live in the jurisdiction in which they are employed. Employees may also be prohibited from smoking, even off duty. Although employees have challenged such restrictions in the courts, the courts have been inclined to side with the employer (Kelly v. Johnson, 1976; McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 1976; Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc. 2012). The federal system has implications for the public sector that do not affect private employment to the same extent. The national government sets policy for its employees, and each state sets policy for its personnel system, including local government systems. Although some national government policies apply to all employment, public and private, each state has much discretion in how it operates regarding its own employees. Thus, public personnel management in the United States does not have one universal public system. This differs from many other nations, such as France and Korea, in which all public employment is governed under one national policy. National policy concerning private sector employers covers all private employers within the guidelines established in the policy. A stricter standard of behavior is generally expected of public employees than of workers in the private sector. Because citizens pay the taxes that pay government salaries, managers and personnel administrators are sensitive to the image public employees project, and their concerns have encouraged administrators to curtail behavior that could create a negative public reaction. When public displeasure is aroused by employees who are intoxicated in public, have unorthodox lifestyles, or promote controversial causes, elected political leaders often put pressure on managers to do something about the “problem.” Although private employers may attempt to affect or influence the conduct of their employees after hours, they are much less likely to be concerned with behavior outside of work. Although public employees can experience more legal restrictions than their private sector counterparts, they also enjoy more protections. In particular, public employees are protected by the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. As a result, they are entitled to procedural due process in disciplinary actions. For example, public employees are entitled to a predetermination hearing when an employer wants to fire them. In the private sector, employees do not enjoy the same protection unless the employer decides to give it to them. As will be discussed later in the book, some states have changed their policies to offer jobs to new employees on the condition that they waive this protection. Lines of Authority The lines of authority for public employers tend to be more diffuse and much less clear than are those for employers in private enterprise. Although the public agency organization chart can suggest a clear line of authority, it does not show all outside pressures brought to bear on public employees. Theoretically, public employees must respond to the “public interest” and various representatives of the public and interested parties. As David Rosenbloom observed, the constitutional principle of separation of powers fragments political power
and creates multiple command points for public employees (1982). Agency employees may be asked to do different things by the chief executive, an influential member of the legislature, a clientele group, and a consumer group. Such multiple command posts often make it difficult for public employees to decide exactly what they should do in a given situation. Public employees are often not sure which authority to accord more attention. Should they respond to their clientele, their superiors, their legislators, or their interpretation of the public interest? The case of Bertrand Berube illustrates this difficulty. Berube was fired by the General Services Administration (GSA) in 1983 after revealing problems of neglect and deterioration in federal buildings in Washington, DC. Ironically, the firing came from the same administration that had awarded him a $7500 bonus for similar conduct in 1981 publicizing problems in the GSA under the previous administration (McAllister, 1988). What is in the public interest is never completely clear. Each participant in the political process can have a different interpretation. Thus, a public employee’s action can precipitate a negative reaction from someone in a position to act against that employee. Finally, not only the employee but also the personnel system as a whole must respond to the confusion produced by these multiple commands. The response of both normally takes the form of new personnel rules and regulations, codes of conduct, and the like. However, some of these restrictions severely limit the ability of administrators to adapt to changing circumstances and organizational needs. Labor–Management Relations Unlike in the private sector, in the public sector, the power balance in labor–management relations has traditionally favored management. There have been exceptions in both sectors. Some governments such as those in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, have long histories of public sector union activities, and many corporations, especially in the Sun Belt, are fervently antiunion. However, in general, the public sector only gradually shared personnel decisions with employees through the bargaining process. The implications for public personnel, which will be discussed in Chapter 8, have been and will continue to be manifold. Political Environment and Scrutiny Perhaps the most significant factor unique to public personnel administration is that citizens and their representatives closely watch the public service. Because taxpayers foot the bill for government, they are entitled to know what is being done with their money. Since the late 1960s, freedom of information and open meeting statutes have also become common across the country. Thus, the activities of most agencies have become subject to public examination, and personnel management must accommodate such scrutiny. Although personnel actions involving individual employees are exempt from these “sunshine” laws, personnel policies are not. The elements of the political environment important to public personnel management include the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies; the media, interest groups, and political parties; and the general public. Executive, legislative, and judicial bodies. The U.S. Constitution established the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers. In theory, public employees are under the direction of the executive branch although employees of the legislature and judiciary report directly to those branches. In reality, the chief executive has limited authority over the public bureaucracy. Because civil service regulations protect most public employees, the chief executive has little power to change the conditions of their employment or control their activities. In addition, because chief executives usually are elected for a fixed and relatively short term, the permanent bureaucracy generally finds it relatively easy to resist direct pressure. Chief executives usually control the appointment of upper-level officials in departments and hope to influence public employees through them. However, the number of appointments is usually small in proportion
to the total bureaucracy. In 2002, conflict over President George W. Bush’s desire to have more appointment and removal authority over employees in the Homeland Security Department led to a delay in moving legislation creating the department through Congress. And in 2014 and 2015, members of Congress pushed for curtailing protections for employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs after scandals in Veteran’s hospitals. The president has direct appointment authority for approximately 4,500 positions in the civilian bureaucracy of about 2.73 million (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015; U.S. Office of Personnel Management, nd.; and nd,a). Many of these appointments including the appointment of judges and officers of regulatory agencies require Senate confirmation. However, once confirmed, they are independent of the president thus severely limiting the president’s ability to direct the bureaucracy through appointment. The legislative body and the judiciary limit that authority even more through the confirmation power and review of attempts to discipline employees, respectively. States and their local governments follow similar patterns. Through the budget process, the executive and legislative bodies have a great impact on the personnel system. Because the chief executive is responsible in most governments for developing budget recommendations, agencies must be aware of the administration’s desires. The agencies work hard to ensure adequate funds for their personnel needs because a loss of funds normally means a reduction in the number of an agency’s employees. Once the chief executive makes recommendations to the legislative body, the agency’s attention turns to legislative politics. In the legislature, it is often possible to increase agency budgets by mobilizing clientele and publicizing the good work by agency personnel thus demonstrating the agency’s value to the legislative body. Of course, agencies often get caught up in a struggle between the executive and legislative branches. At the national level, for example, conflicts over the budget often lead to a temporary layoff and delay of paychecks for federal employees at the end of a fiscal year. Ordinarily, Congress then passes an emergency resolution authorizing the agencies to continue operating until final budget adoption. Nonetheless, planning is difficult when the agency does not know whether it will have a budget for the next year. Such politics at the local level was demonstrated in July 2012 when a conflict between the Scranton, Pennsylvania mayor and council over the budget led the mayor to reduce pay to minimum wage for city employees, including fire and police, claiming there were no funds to pay their regular salaries. The courts also became involved as employees successfully petitioned the court to require the mayor to pay the regular salaries. A similar situation arose in Illinois in 2015 when the state legislature failed to pass a budget before the end of the fiscal year and officials and courts clashed over whether state employees could be paid at all or at minimum wage. The courts eventually said employees could be paid their regular salaries. The basic policy concerning public personnel generally is determined through executive and legislative efforts. The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 serves as the basic foundation of the national government’s civil service. Most state and local governments have adopted similar systems. CSRA was the result of trade-offs between the president and Congress. Many interests—employees, managers, veteran’s groups, political parties, unions, civil rights groups, and women’s groups—participated in the process leading to the adoption of CSRA. President Jimmy Carter initiated the process with his proposal for reform, but many of his suggestions were modified in the political jockeying that determined the final outcome. The law states the broad policy, but its operational meaning results from the actions of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). Of course, the judicial branch participates by court decisions on litigation concerning the act’s provisions and the agencies’ implementation of them. Public employers and employees must also pay attention to the politicization of their actions. Any missteps by public employees or their agencies can be exploited by people in political office if doing so will work to their
advantage. The hacking of the Office of Personnel Management in 2015, for example, led to the resignation of the OPM director after Congress criticized her for not preventing the hacking. Thus, public managers and employees are under much pressure that does not apply to any great extent to private sector employees. The Media It is difficult to imagine a force in the political environment with greater potential for influencing public personnel administration than the communications media. Because of constitutional guarantees of freedom of press and speech, the media can keep the public well informed about the public service and its activities and problems. Indeed, the public and political actors depend on the media for much of their information. Even though the media often focuses on the negative aspects of the public service, it frequently is responsible for improvements. Many problems in the public service are spotlighted and scrutinized by the media whereas the private sector rarely undergoes such close examination of its staff or personnel policies and practices. The media cannot, however ensure that agency personnel continue to perform effectively. They are unlikely, for example, to expose unenthusiastic performance of duties, an important form of evaluation of the public service. Critics also note that the media may distort the reality of public service performance by focusing on the negative. Interest Groups Many interest groups also exert pressure on public personnel operations. Among these are clientele groups, minority and women’s groups, public interest groups, professional associations, civic groups, taxpayer associations, and public employee associations and unions. Although interest groups generally are most concerned about issues other than personnel management, they recognize that having some influence over the people who make decisions will affect an agency’s response to their concerns. Most groups tend to concentrate on relatively narrow issues of self-interest. Thus, clientele, minority, women’s, professional, and public employee groups are likely to seek policies that ensure that the agency will give their particular welfare as much consideration as possible. Public interest and civic groups such as civil service leagues, good government associations, the League of Women Voters, taxpayer reform associations, Common Cause, and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law take a more general approach. They pursue policies beneficial to the “public interest” and usually promote personnel systems that reduce the potential for partisan political influence. These groups also tend to favor policies that require public employees to disclose personal financial interest and control conflict of interest situations. Political Parties Political parties and politicians have always had an interest in public personnel operations. Politicians often view patronage as a means of exerting control over and ensuring the responsiveness of public employees. They also see that getting action by a public agency on an issue that is important to their constituents helps in getting reelected. Furthermore, politicians often find public bureaucrats to be easy targets for political rhetoric and thus exploit public service problems and inadequacies for political purposes. In fact, public personnel reform in 1883 and 1978 came about partly because politicians used corruption and inefficiency as issues; therefore, personal political gain is not always the overriding concern behind such appeals. Too often, however, criticism of the public service does little to improve it and serves merely to denigrate it. Campaigns regularly use references to the “incompetent” or “oversized” public bureaucracy. Indeed, today most candidates for public office promise to reduce taxes and cite reducing the bureaucracy as one way to do so. The promise has obvious implications for personnel management and it is not surprising that once elected, the office holders often face distrust from government employees. The 2010 and 2012 elections included many
candidates critical of the Obama health care reform saying that they did not want Washington bureaucrats making medical decisions thus using public servants as scapegoats in their campaigns. The 2014 elections continued the criticisms and many candidates for the nomination for president for 2016 focus on reducing government’s size. Public sector bargaining and public employee pensions are controversial issues, especially in state and local elections. After the 2010 elections, several states passed laws limiting or restricting unions and bargaining by public employees. Facing severe budget crises, many elected officials addressed rising pension costs for public employees by reducing the benefits or requiring higher contributions to the systems by employees themselves (Bunnell, 2012). Many candidates attain office by campaigning on these issues. Affirmative action became so controversial that many states, including California and Washington, have outlawed it. Public employers have had to find other ways to insure diversity. The political parties traditionally depended on government jobs as a way of building party strength, but the pervasive adoption of merit systems greatly diminished this source of support. States such as Louisiana, Indiana, Illinois, and New Jersey, however, demonstrate that patronage is still alive and well in some state bureaucracies (Friedman, 1994; Gradel & Simpson, 2015; Hamilton, 2002). Some local governments also still indulge in political favoritism. However, court decisions and a public less attached to political parties, has led to a decline in partisan politics in personnel decisions. The General Public In a democracy, the public service is supposed to serve the interest of the general public. The problem lies in defining the “public interest”. Responsiveness to the public and its wishes (which are difficult to determine), is one aspect of serving the public. Some people believe that responsible public service does not veer from the system’s long range goals even when they sometimes run counter to the public’s short-term wishes (Rourke, 1984). What is important to the administration of public personnel is not that the public expects responsiveness but that many political leaders exploit this expectation by promising attractive but impractical short-term solutions to problems. Other individuals and groups, particularly public interest groups, direct their attention to long-range objectives, and public administrators, including personnel administrators, are caught in the middle. The public’s view of bureaucracy is determined by society’s general value system. People’s assumptions about the work ethic, self-reliance, and individualism color their responses to the public service, especially as society weighs the effects that government programs and employees have on those values. A common impression is that the public service is composed of indolent employees with secure jobs who have too much power over people’s lives and who consume tax money with little beneficial effect. These views, along with the idea that the bureaucracy is oversized and uncontrollable, sometimes make it difficult for the public service to recruit employees. Relentless attacks on the bureaucracy certainly have an impact on the perception that people have of the public service. Even more damaging, however, are the ethical and behavioral lapses of public officials. Although most scandals involve elected officials and their political appointees rather than career public servants, the public does not make much distinction between the two. Thus, trust in the efficacy and integrity of the public service generally suffers. The Watergate scandal during the Nixon Administration, which was covered extensively on television, brought public misbehavior to people’s living rooms. Every administration since has had some embarrassing scandal leading to Congressional hearings thus ensuring that the public stays aware of the misdeeds of elected and politically appointed officials. The state and local levels have not fared any better. It is not surprising that citizens are cynical. Add to that the ineptitude of some states in conducting elections and cynicism increases. Career public employees are tainted by these situations, most of which they cannot control.
Summary Public personnel management resides in a complex environment and is part of a larger governmental system. Because the system in the United States contains a variety of interests competing for position and power, the personnel system becomes entwined in the political process. The various political actors and forces outlined in this chapter obviously have different interests in the personnel system. The personnel function cannot be viewed as a neutral instrument of management; instead, it is at the center of the decision-making process and can easily become a pawn in the struggle for political power and influence. Although all actors, such as the president and members of Congress, insist that they want only the most efficient and responsive public service possible, they could actually be concerned primarily with maintaining or improving their political positions. Thus, expressions of outrage from either side regarding personnel actions often are calculated more for political advantage than for improving personnel practices. Similarly, other participants in the political environment have conflicting interests, which can lead to compromise and accommodation in public personnel management. This chapter has identified the role of public personnel management in the governmental process and has introduced the major forces that affect public personnel management and the issues that are of concern to personnel managers. The remaining chapters elaborate on these topics. Chapters 2 and 3 focus on political considerations in the development of public personnel systems. Chapter 2 traces the evolution of public personnel management, and chapter 3 examines some of the enduring political forces that shape the way the management of personnel is organized in government. Chapters 4, 5, and 6, evaluate the tools and techniques used in managing personnel, and chapters 7, 8, and 9 consider some challenges faced by contemporary personnel managers. Finally, chapter 10 discusses continuing challenges. Exercises 1. Access the Web site of the personnel/human resources office of a municipality, tribal government, county, or school district. Review the mission and organization of the office. Then interview the director of the office to determine how the office functions. Also ask if there has been an instance in which the behavior of an employee or employees has caused public criticism or embarrassment to the government. Ask how the office reacted and why. Once you have gathered the information, explain what you think are the basic values represented by the office. Assess whether the values reflected in the mission statement of the office appear to be the ones reflected in the director’s explanation of the office’s function. 2. Dina Peroni is the principal of Theo Crane High School. Over the weekend, one of her best teachers, Clarissa Teel, was arrested on a charge of driving under the influence (DUI). The incident was reported widely in the media. There was immediate reaction by parents of students at the school. Some want Teel fired immediately while others thought she should be retained as she is one of the best teachers there. If you were Peroni, what would you do on Monday morning? What would you do in the long run? Explain your reasoning.
3. Kevin Spells is an animal control officer for the city of Maryville. He has worked for the city for ten years and has won many awards for his work. He also has received exemplary performance evaluations and he was voted the employee of the year for the city last year. Spells’ supervisor learned that Spells was arrested for staging cock fights on his property. Cock fighting is illegal in the state. Because of Spells’ position with the city, many residents and elected officials are demanding that he be fired. As his supervisor, what is your recommendation to the city manager? Explain the reasons for your recommendation. 4. Kelly Davis was excited to be on local radio to talk about her role as a child advocate in the state’s Office of Child Protection. She has worked for the office for seven years in various capacities, and she is very passionate about her job and agency. The interview went well with Davis explaining what the office does and how she helps children. The interview turned to funding for the office, and Davis noted that funding had decreased dramatically over the past two years. She said that there needed to be a change in the legislature if the office was going to be able to perform its function adequately. She criticized the Republican governor and legislature for slashing funding and suggested that voters should put Democrats in charge as they were more supportive of her office’s mission. When Davis got to her office after the interview, she had a message to see her supervisor, John Tepper, right away. Tepper told her that she was fired and said that he was tired of her going on her crusades and embarrassing the office. He noted that he had already heard from the governor and several Republican legislators who were outraged by her comments. They all demanded that Davis be fired. You are the personnel department liaison to the Office of Child Protection. Davis complained to you. What do you tell Davis? What do you tell Tepper? What information do you need before you deal with either of them? Explain your advice to them. Selected Websites Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development of the OECD. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development directorate that helps countries adapt governance structures and policies to changing society. http://www.oecd.org/gov/ International Personnel Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR). Membership organization of people employed and interested in public personnel administration. Publishes extensively on public personnel/human resources management, including two journals, Public Personnel Management and HR News. www.ipma-hr.org National Association of State Personnel Executives (NASPE). Membership organization of the state personnel directors/executives. Publishes a newsletter and reports.
www.naspe.net National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Organization of tribal governments that serves as a forum for policy development and provides governmental services among tribes. Website includes tribal directory. www.ncai.org Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Executive branch agency with responsibility for the personnel function in the national government. Works with federal departments/agencies in implementing personnel policy. www.opm.gov Partnership for Public Service. Nonpartisan organization to restore public confidence and prestige to the federal public service. www.ourpublicservice.org Section on Personnel and Labor Relations (SPALR). Section of the American Society for Public Administration that publishes the journal, Review of Public Personnel Administration; also serves its membership by sponsoring conference panels and networking. www.aspanet.org Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). Membership organization for those interested in and employed in personnel/human resources management with an emphasis on the private sector. Publishes HR Magazine, newsletters, and books. www.shrm.org University of Oklahoma Law Center—Native American Resources. Organization that conducts and disseminates research on tribal government issues including personnel matters; has links to tribal nation home pages. www.law.ou.edu/indian References Bunnell, B. (2012, June 29). Marin Voice: Public pensions—San Jose and San Diego voters have spoken. Marin Independent Journal. Retrieved from http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_20967680/marin-voice-public-pensions-san-jose-and-san. Condrey, S. E. (2002). Reinventing state civil service systems: The Georgia experience. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22(Summer), 114–124. Friedman, A. (2002). Patronage: An American tradition. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1994. Gossett, C. W. (2002). Civil service reform: The case of Georgia. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22(Summer), 94–113.
Gradel, T.J. & Simpson, D. (2015). Corrupt Illinois: Patronage, cronyism, and criminality.Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Hamilton, D. K. (2002). Is patronage dead? Review of Public Personnel Administration 22(Spring), 3–26. Kelly v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (1976). Kim, J. & Kellough, J.E. (2014). At-will employment in the states: Examining the perceptions of agency personnel directors. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34, 218-236. Klingner D. & Nalbandian, J. (1978). Personnel management by whose objectives? Public Administration Review, 38(July–August), 366–372. Light, P. C. (1999). The new public service. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Lowi, T. J. (1967). Machine politics—old and new. The Public Interest, 9(Fall), 83–92. McAllister, B. (1988, July 20). GSA told to reinstate official who cited perils at buildings. Washington Post, p. A1. McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 424 U.S. 645 (1976). Milward, H. B. (1978). Politics, personnel and public policy. Public Administration Review, 38,391–396. Morse, M. (1976). We’ve come a long way. Public Personnel Management, 5, 218–221. Mosher, F. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Newland, C. A. (1967). Public personnel administration: Legalistic reforms vs. effectiveness, efficiency, and economy. Public Administration Review, 36, 529–537. Nigro, L. G. & Kellough, J. D. (2000). Civil service reform in Georgia. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20,41–54. Rau, A. B. (2012, May 11). Brewer signs bill to revise state’s personnel system. The Arizona Republic,pp. B3 & B11. Rich, W. C. (1982). The Politics of urban policy: Reformers, politicians and bureaucrats. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1982. Rosenbloom, D. H. (1973). Public personnel administration and politics: Toward a new public personnel administration. Midwest Review of Public Administration, 7, 98–110. Rosenbloom, D. H. (1982). Public policy in a political environment: A symposium. Policy Studies Journal, 11, 245–254. Rosenbloom, D. H. (1981). The sources of continuing conflict between the constitution and public personnel management. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 2, 3–18. Rourke, F. E. (1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy(3rd ed.). Boston: Little Brown. Sayre, W. (1948). The triumph of technique over purpose. Public AdministrationReview, 8, 134-137. Thompson, F. J. (1983). The politics of public personnel administration. In S.W. Hays & R.C. Kearney (Eds.), Public personnel administration: Problems and prospects (3rd ed.) (pp. 3–16). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Thompson, F. J. (1975). Personnel policy in the city. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Economics News Release,http://www.bls/news.realease/empsit.t17.htm.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (n.d.). Facts & figures. Plum Book. http://www.opm.gov/ses/facts_and_figures/plumbook.asp. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (n.d.a). Federal employment statistics historical tables: Total government employment since 1962.http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince 1962.asp. Wymslo v, Bartec, Inc., 132 Ohio St. 3d 167, 2012-Ohio-2187. View publication stats